Critics Consensus: Merry Christmas! Django Unchained is Certified Fresh

Janson Jinnistan

That's very funny. I'd like to see a movie about the terroist "Wolverines" in a Communist global empire too.

Dec 24 - 04:34 PM

David E-Brock

I wanted a Red Dawn remake because I wanted to see a film that shows how the "Wolverines" eventually become Wolverine from X-Men and cut everyone up into pieces. The remake did not give me that.

Dec 28 - 10:54 PM

Mick Travis

Actually when it comes to, 48 fps and 3D, yes its comparable to Parental Guidance. Either way, it's a waste of money.

Dec 24 - 05:50 PM

Mick Travis

Any movie in 3D is a waste of fucking money. I've known that since BWANA DEVIL...where the hell have you been?

Dec 26 - 02:39 PM

Matt Smith

Agreed. Has Mick even seens the Hobbit in 48 fps 3D? It's the first movie that I have paid more than 15 bucks to see in over 3 years that I didn't feel robbed by paying for. The amount of time and effort put into that film was clearly worth your $17.50.

Dec 26 - 05:04 PM

Mick Travis

Matt: NO MOVIE SHOULD COST $17.50 TO SEE IN A THEATER. "The first movie that I have paid more than 15 bucks in 3 years..." LOL, lemming!

Dec 27 - 12:28 PM

Matt Smith

Mick: If you want to talk dollars that movie cost $180,000,000 to make. I think that movies should'nt cost anything to view at home if you want to get down to it. But that movie in 48fps was the best show that I've seen in years period. Now what movie do you think was worth your dollar, how much did you pay and how much did it cost to make?

Dec 27 - 06:18 PM

Mick Travis

Very well, I'll play. The only time I ever paid more than $10 to see a movie in the theater was when I paid $90 to see Abel Gance's 5-hour masterwork NAPOLEON from 1927, along with the famous Polyvision finale where the screen blew up to three times its normal size. That was a once-in-a-lifetime experience and the movie itself is simply priceless, thanks to Kevin Brownlow (who I actually met in San Francisco) and Francis Ford Coppola, who's been a real asshole in not allowing the film to be released in any home media.

Regardless of how many LOTR/Tolkien fanboys declare 48 fps as revolutionary (I call bullshit) while every 3D movie I paid to see was a total and complete rip-off, even TOY STORY 3. Theaters never seem to want to install the proper bulbs in the projector for it to work the right away and it's a gimmick which has never lasted more than a few years in popularity, and people are so ignorant they seem to have forgotten that 3D has been around since the 1930s. To many, including myself its a bullshit excuse for the studio to sell higher-priced tickets. I saw the LOTR Trilogy in the theater and that was enough for me. Everyone from insider contacts to Red Letter Media (all of whom I trust more than you, sorry to say) declare the 48 fps is 100% crap and that's enough for me. I don't give a frog's fat ass how much the movie cost to make; that doesn't mean I'm going to throw $20 on a format which has already pissed off most of my friends who went to see it. I'm going to wait for THE HOBBIT on glorious DVD, thank you very much.

I watch all genres of film, from award-winning dramas to the most gory and exploitative, and there is NOTHING about the THE HOBBIT that is going to make me throw away $20 to see it in 48 fps and besides I would have to drive hours and hours away to see it 48 fps. If you want to buy me a ticket and hook me up with gas money, I will give you an honest and detailed assessment. Until then, I don't buy anything you say. I would rather have driven six hours to see THE MASTER in 70MM than THE HOBBIT.

Dec 28 - 01:21 PM

Matt Smith

If you haven't seen The Hobbit in 48 fps please save your criticism for when you do. So far all you are presenting is a speculation based on the opinions of others. I have seen it, and would reccomend it to anyone who is open to the format and enjoys watching a story come to life. The extra $7.50 for the 48 fps was OK to me. I haven't been to theatre to see a movie in years because I agree, it is overpriced. Let's bring back the toonie theatre! But the Hobbit was amazing and worth my $. Also, it was actually shot in 3D and at a much higher FPS than 48. "Normal" 3D isn't anything like the 48 fps because you only get 12 fps per eye. And since theatres had to be freshly outfitted to show it I'm assuming they all used the correct bulb ;)

Dec 28 - 04:37 PM

Mick Travis

100% Agree! The only two I felt were not worthy enough of the Best Picture nomination were the two films that started with K: THE KING'S SPEECH and THE KIDS ARE ALL RIGHT; enjoyed them both, but why they got Best Pic nominations makes no sense to me. To me, THE KING'S SPEECH was like a theatrical version of Masterpiece Theater or Playhouse 90.

Dec 24 - 02:46 PM

Janson Jinnistan

Lenny, that's a pretty good recent year (I think 2007 might have it beat), but the "best" years for Best Pictures was 1974-1976. With only one exception (Towering Inferno), those other 14 films make for the strongest collection of film in history.

Dec 24 - 04:38 PM

Mick Travis

It was a very good film indeed, I just saw nothing about it that signals Best Director or Best Picture.

Dec 24 - 02:50 PM

Manus Andurkar

Oh, please. The King's Speech beats Zodiac's ass any day.

Dec 24 - 07:03 PM

Lenny Monroe

The King's Speech better than Zodiac? Never.

Dec 30 - 11:15 AM