Critics Consensus: Merry Christmas! Django Unchained is Certified Fresh

Summary

Merry Christmas! This week at the movies, we've got a quest for vengeance (Django Unchained, starring Jamie Foxx and Leonardo DiCaprio), a prisoner-turned-businessman (Les MisÚrables, starring Hugh Jackman and Anne Hathaway), and an old-school grandfather (Parental Guidance, starring Billy Crystal and Bette Midler). What do the critics have to say? Back to Article

Comments

This comment has been removed.

Jacob H.

Jacob Holmes

I'm curious as to why you're surprised that Les Mis is taking over Red Dawn. Red Dawn has been out for over a month now, which is the typical lifespan of a theatrical release. Odd that the theater isn't showing Django. Is it a small theater?

Dec 24 - 01:40 PM

King  S.

King Simba

Red Dawn: A remake that few asked for that was critically scorned and was a bomb at the box office and has been in theaters for almost a month.

Les Miserables: A film hitting theaters with a huge amount of hype and anticipation, and while it's reviews may be a little dissapointing compared to the level of talent involved it is still picking up a lot of nominations and early screenings were very well recieved.

Why wouldn't theaters give up the former for the latter?

Dec 24 - 01:58 PM

Mohd Syafiq Bin Jabaruddin

Mohd Syafiq Bin Jabaruddin

I actually want a Red Dawn remake because I want to see a film that shows how the 'Wolverines' eventually become the conservative Christian version of Al-Qaeda that spreads terror worldwide. But the remake did not give me that. It looks like the filmmakers how satirical and subversive the original Red Dawn was in the era of the Cold War. I want to see that translated into the current War on Terror.

Dec 24 - 03:53 PM

Janson Jinnistan

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

DBrock

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

Rebeccachu Elizabeth C.

Rebecca Clark

It's depressing that 20th Century Fox, along with Paramount, has NOT had a good year. Most of their released have been mediocre to downright horrible. The only well-received released that Fox got this year were Prometheus, Life Of Pi, and Chronicle. I guess 2012 didn't have the same amount of success as 2011 for the two studios.

Dec 24 - 01:08 PM

Bigbrother

Big Brother

Paramount had Madagascar 3 and more importantly they didn't have any big budget flops. Same for 20th Century Fox which also had Ice Age and Lincoln. So you basically had 16 films released by Fox 7 of which were critically positive.

Dec 24 - 05:47 PM

Jacob H.

Jacob Holmes

I'm curious as to why you're surprised that Les Mis is taking over Red Dawn. Red Dawn has been out for over a month now, which is the typical lifespan of a theatrical release. Odd that the theater isn't showing Django. Is it a small theater?

Dec 24 - 01:40 PM

Jacob H.

Jacob Holmes

Les Miserables and Django for me! I pity the poor souls who waste money on Parental Guidance

Dec 24 - 01:41 PM

Dick Travis

Mick Travis

Or on the Hobbit in 48 fps.

Dec 24 - 02:16 PM

AHorse NamedSadie

AHorse NamedSadie

did you really just compare the hobbit to parental guidance?

Dec 24 - 05:21 PM

Dick Travis

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

Marco Chaudry

Marco Chaudry

You're friggin' insane to think an inanely gorgeous movie as The Hobbit in 3D is a waste of money, give me a flippin' break, now I just can't get over how hilarious that statement was XD

Dec 26 - 02:07 PM

Dick Travis

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 S.

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

Dick Travis

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 S.

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

Dick Travis

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 S.

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

King  S.

King Simba

Red Dawn: A remake that few asked for that was critically scorned and was a bomb at the box office and has been in theaters for almost a month.

Les Miserables: A film hitting theaters with a huge amount of hype and anticipation, and while it's reviews may be a little dissapointing compared to the level of talent involved it is still picking up a lot of nominations and early screenings were very well recieved.

Why wouldn't theaters give up the former for the latter?

Dec 24 - 01:58 PM

Mohd Syafiq Bin Jabaruddin

Mohd Syafiq Bin Jabaruddin

I actually want a Red Dawn remake because I want to see a film that shows how the 'Wolverines' eventually become the conservative Christian version of Al-Qaeda that spreads terror worldwide. But the remake did not give me that. It looks like the filmmakers how satirical and subversive the original Red Dawn was in the era of the Cold War. I want to see that translated into the current War on Terror.

Dec 24 - 03:53 PM

Janson Jinnistan

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

DBrock

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

Dick Travis

Mick Travis

Or on the Hobbit in 48 fps.

Dec 24 - 02:16 PM

AHorse NamedSadie

AHorse NamedSadie

did you really just compare the hobbit to parental guidance?

Dec 24 - 05:21 PM

Dick Travis

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

Marco Chaudry

Marco Chaudry

You're friggin' insane to think an inanely gorgeous movie as The Hobbit in 3D is a waste of money, give me a flippin' break, now I just can't get over how hilarious that statement was XD

Dec 26 - 02:07 PM

Dick Travis

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 S.

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

Dick Travis

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 S.

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

Dick Travis

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 S.

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

Lenny M.

Lenny Monroe

Django Unchained for me. I can skip Les Miserables completely, most likely that mvie will be up fo Best Picture at the Academy Awards and wil win everything for being the "safest" film of the year, much like the director's last movie The King's Speech in 2010.

Dec 24 - 02:25 PM

Dick Travis

Mick Travis

And "safe" is a perfect word to describe Hooper's direction. Still can't believe he won the award over seasoned vets Fincher, Aronofsky AND Nolan. Oh, these old-ass geezers don't know what "advancement in cinema" means. There was nothing about Hooper's direction to signal "advancement," such a joke.

Dec 24 - 02:29 PM

Lenny M.

Lenny Monroe

In my opinion, 2010 was easily the best year for Oscar nominees in the Best Picture category. The Social Network, Black Swan, True Grit, Inception, 127 Hours, and The Fighter were all great movies in my opinion, and don't get me wrong I enjoyed The King's Speech, but it winning those awards felt a little too standard.

Dec 24 - 02:42 PM

Dick Travis

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

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

infernaldude

Infernal Dude

I agree that those are great directors, however, The Kings Speech was a very good film. As good as The Social Network, Black Swan, and especially Inception. Now if it had been up against Zodiac, Requiem, or Memento and won, then we would have a problem fo sho.

Dec 24 - 02:44 PM

Dick Travis

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

m1

Manus Andurkar

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

Dec 24 - 07:03 PM

Lenny M.

Lenny Monroe

The King's Speech better than Zodiac? Never.

Dec 30 - 11:15 AM

Bigbrother

Big Brother

I'd disagree strenuously that Les Mis is a safe film. They spent a huge amount of money on a production like this with that many big stars and it's a musical (not historically huge BO draws), They did all the singing live with no lipsyncing and half the cast not professional singers or renowned musical theater actors for the most part and even though Les Mis has a built in audience it's a built in Broadway/West End audience. Not like it's Harry Potter. I don't think it'll win at the Oscars mind you except maybe costume/set design and maybe Hathaway as supporting actress because I hear she's amazing and the categories a bit weak this year.

Dec 24 - 06:12 PM

Dick Travis

Mick Travis

And "safe" is a perfect word to describe Hooper's direction. Still can't believe he won the award over seasoned vets Fincher, Aronofsky AND Nolan. Oh, these old-ass geezers don't know what "advancement in cinema" means. There was nothing about Hooper's direction to signal "advancement," such a joke.

Dec 24 - 02:29 PM

Lenny M.

Lenny Monroe

In my opinion, 2010 was easily the best year for Oscar nominees in the Best Picture category. The Social Network, Black Swan, True Grit, Inception, 127 Hours, and The Fighter were all great movies in my opinion, and don't get me wrong I enjoyed The King's Speech, but it winning those awards felt a little too standard.

Dec 24 - 02:42 PM

Dick Travis

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

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

infernaldude

Infernal Dude

I agree that those are great directors, however, The Kings Speech was a very good film. As good as The Social Network, Black Swan, and especially Inception. Now if it had been up against Zodiac, Requiem, or Memento and won, then we would have a problem fo sho.

Dec 24 - 02:44 PM

Dick Travis

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

m1

Manus Andurkar

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

Dec 24 - 07:03 PM

Lenny M.

Lenny Monroe

The King's Speech better than Zodiac? Never.

Dec 30 - 11:15 AM

Lenny M.

Lenny Monroe

In my opinion, 2010 was easily the best year for Oscar nominees in the Best Picture category. The Social Network, Black Swan, True Grit, Inception, 127 Hours, and The Fighter were all great movies in my opinion, and don't get me wrong I enjoyed The King's Speech, but it winning those awards felt a little too standard.

Dec 24 - 02:42 PM

Dick Travis

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

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

infernaldude

Infernal Dude

I agree that those are great directors, however, The Kings Speech was a very good film. As good as The Social Network, Black Swan, and especially Inception. Now if it had been up against Zodiac, Requiem, or Memento and won, then we would have a problem fo sho.

Dec 24 - 02:44 PM

Dick Travis

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

m1

Manus Andurkar

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

Dec 24 - 07:03 PM

Lenny M.

Lenny Monroe

The King's Speech better than Zodiac? Never.

Dec 30 - 11:15 AM

Dick Travis

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

Dick Travis

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

What's Hot On RT

Five Favorite Films
Five Favorite Films

Brick Mansions star RZA

WonderCon
WonderCon

175 cosplay pictures

Highlights
Highlights

Picture gallery of stoners in film

Summer Calendar
Summer Calendar

See the season's blockbusters

Find us on:                 
Help | About | Jobs | Critics Submission | Press | API | Licensing | Mobile