Oh, man, that Mumbles joke at 3:11ish had me howling with laughter. This may be my favorite review of yours, Mr. Chipman. Well done.

Bane was not a bad villain dude, he is certainly better than Red Skull and I don't care if you disagree.

daxterx2005:
Django down, Bring on Kill Bill Part Three.

That's probably not going to happen:
http://wegotthiscovered.com/movies/quentin-tarantino-kill-bill-vol-3-james-bond/

Is it bad that the only thing I got from this review is that MovieBob may or may not watch Adventure Time? Which makes me a little happy for some reason.

DVS BSTrD:
I got spurs that djingo, django, djingo
as I go killin' merrily along,
And they sing, 'Oh aint you glad you're a free man
And that slavery ain't so very far from wrong

Dang it, I just got that song out of my head.

PunkRex:

Gerishnakov:

PunkRex:
Hopefully we won't have to wait till Feb like some other films...

Are you referring to Gangster Squad?

Wreck It Ralph actually.

Wreck It Ralph isn't coming out in the UK until February? Good grief...why would Disney do that?

Wow. Wasn't expecting that.

While we're shooing off the not that good villains, can you get rid of Loki, too? Honestly, your stubborn refusal to acknowledge the faults of the Avengers is getting a bit annoying. Loki should have been fuckloads more interesting than he was in either Thor or The Avengers. He's a fucking trickster archetype! In the original mythology, he ended up as the mother of Odin's horse because of one of his pranks going in very much the wrong direction. These are the archetypes who are meant to break all the rules, ignore all the mores and do insanely ridiculous things as a part of schemes that are either hilarious, or mind-blowing, if not both. So why is he reduced to an angsty little bitch who whines and mopes more than he does anything else and shows no interesting or unique powers at all? Even worse, in The Avengers he is reduced to nothing more than a one-note pawn who shows no cleverness whatsoever.
I've not read too many of the comics, but even in the ones I *have* read, Loki was far more interesting than he was in either of the two movies. Hell, if he'd been interesting at all, he'd have been moreso than in the movies.

It's kind of appropriate that the recaptcha I have to enter for this rant is "wisdom teeth" because seeing what they did to him in those movies felt like I was having them pulled.

The Tall Nerd:

teh_Canape:
well truth be told
Django is a better unconventional name than fucking Dovahkiin

eh... its not really unconventional
its from another culture
or perceved that way.....

you may wanna word that better, that can easily be read as racism.

well, english isn't my main language so words tend to fuck around with me =P
but whether or not it's from another culture, I meant that from the contest thingie that Bethesda ran when TES5 was released, and consisted on people naming their kids Dovahkiin

that's about it, no other meaning intended

RJ Dalton:
Wow. Wasn't expecting that.

While we're shooing off the not that good villains, can you get rid of Loki, too? Honestly, your stubborn refusal to acknowledge the faults of the Avengers is getting a bit annoying. Loki should have been fuckloads more interesting than he was in either Thor or The Avengers. He's a fucking trickster archetype! In the original mythology, he ended up as the mother of Odin's horse because of one of his pranks going in very much the wrong direction. These are the archetypes who are meant to break all the rules, ignore all the mores and do insanely ridiculous things as a part of schemes that are either hilarious, or mind-blowing, if not both. So why is he reduced to an angsty little bitch who whines and mopes more than he does anything else and shows no interesting or unique powers at all? Even worse, in The Avengers he is reduced to nothing more than a one-note pawn who shows no cleverness whatsoever.
I've not read too many of the comics, but even in the ones I *have* read, Loki was far more interesting than he was in either of the two movies. Hell, if he'd been interesting at all, he'd have been moreso than in the movies.

It's kind of appropriate that the recaptcha I have to enter for this rant is "wisdom teeth" because seeing what they did to him in those movies felt like I was having them pulled.

Loki was always FUN in myths since he was such a troll and usually pointed out that he was doing stuff the gods did anyway. But of course it wasn't cool for him to do it since he wasn't of the same race as Odin and his lot. God the Norse gods were pricks

RJ Dalton:
Wow. Wasn't expecting that.

While we're shooing off the not that good villains, can you get rid of Loki, too? Honestly, your stubborn refusal to acknowledge the faults of the Avengers is getting a bit annoying. Loki should have been fuckloads more interesting than he was in either Thor or The Avengers. He's a fucking trickster archetype! In the original mythology, he ended up as the mother of Odin's horse because of one of his pranks going in very much the wrong direction. These are the archetypes who are meant to break all the rules, ignore all the mores and do insanely ridiculous things as a part of schemes that are either hilarious, or mind-blowing, if not both. So why is he reduced to an angsty little bitch who whines and mopes more than he does anything else and shows no interesting or unique powers at all? Even worse, in The Avengers he is reduced to nothing more than a one-note pawn who shows no cleverness whatsoever.
I've not read too many of the comics, but even in the ones I *have* read, Loki was far more interesting than he was in either of the two movies. Hell, if he'd been interesting at all, he'd have been moreso than in the movies.

It's kind of appropriate that the recaptcha I have to enter for this rant is "wisdom teeth" because seeing what they did to him in those movies felt like I was having them pulled.

Loki's a lot more clever in that movie than you give him credit.

Think of it this way, Loki wanted to get captured and taken back to Asgard. What's in Asgard? The Infinity Gauntlet. Who wants that? Thanos.

brazuca:
You did not answer one question is this a Blaxploitation or more of a spaghetti western? Well this film had my attention, now it has my curiosity indeed.

Both. And neither.

Release date 17th of January 2013. Guess that's another month of waiting in a world where information can travel at the near speed of light.

God damn it, this makes waiting for this to be released in the UK even worse. I've been looking forward to this film for ages and this great review makes the wait harder.

Can't fucking wait. Thanks in advance Tarantino.

You had me at Tarantino.

I've never seen a movie this guy made that I didn't like. He just always manages to wow people with every new movie. I'm sure that when I see this I will think no differently.

I just saw it, meh. The overuse of the n word was just bad. I understand it was depicting a time where "African-American", didn't exist, but they did have other terms for slaves (negro would be a prime example. Somebody needs to put Tarentino on a leash. This one felt schizophrenic. FIrst hour good, went downhill, end kinda redeemed itself. Leo was good though.Also, some dumb kid talked through the whole movie, and he was analyzing it too, badly.

DVS BSTrD:
I got spurs that djingo, django, djingo
as I go killin' merrily along,
And they sing, 'Oh aint you glad you're a free man
And that slavery ain't so very far from wrong

I love you, both for the song and for the perfect pun. I was going to make a joke about "Big Iron", but instead I'm just gonna sit in awe.

I can't wait to see this movie. I do find it peculiar that if a movie takes place during the times of Slavery in America, it by extension must be about said subject. I'm not harping on the movie or Movie Bob, it is what is, but it's not like that was the only thing happening from the "discovery of the new world" to 1865.

RJ Dalton:
Wow. Wasn't expecting that.

While we're shooing off the not that good villains, can you get rid of Loki, too? Honestly, your stubborn refusal to acknowledge the faults of the Avengers is getting a bit annoying. Loki should have been fuckloads more interesting than he was in either Thor or The Avengers. He's a fucking trickster archetype! In the original mythology, he ended up as the mother of Odin's horse because of one of his pranks going in very much the wrong direction. These are the archetypes who are meant to break all the rules, ignore all the mores and do insanely ridiculous things as a part of schemes that are either hilarious, or mind-blowing, if not both. So why is he reduced to an angsty little bitch who whines and mopes more than he does anything else and shows no interesting or unique powers at all? Even worse, in The Avengers he is reduced to nothing more than a one-note pawn who shows no cleverness whatsoever.
I've not read too many of the comics, but even in the ones I *have* read, Loki was far more interesting than he was in either of the two movies. Hell, if he'd been interesting at all, he'd have been moreso than in the movies.

It's kind of appropriate that the recaptcha I have to enter for this rant is "wisdom teeth" because seeing what they did to him in those movies felt like I was having them pulled.

He is not the silly kind of trickster in the comics (the source material of the movie, not the original mythology). Tricksters and jokesters are only one half of the trickster archetype. Even in the comics he is a cunning, lying, brutal, thieving and driven type of trickster. Tricksters are not always about jokes, in this case of the movie and the comics he is a dark manipulator working towards his own ends, which are never made clear to the onlooker.

Edit: I also find it interesting how divisive the Avengers movie is. It's like when people were polling about what was better, DKR or Avengers. They are not comparable. To sit there and call it poorly written, poorly paced, or poorly acted would not be true at all. But it seems to me that people go out of their way to dislike that movie.

Aww, poor Bane...

Also, goddamn it I want to watch this movie now! Too bad I've still got to go see The Hobbit.

Gerishnakov:

Gerishnakov:

PunkRex:
Hopefully we won't have to wait till Feb like some other films...

Are you referring to Gangster Squad?

Oh wait no I bet you're referring to Wreck It Ralph!

EDIT: I knew it.

Not to mention Cloud Atlas. I only know about that from Bob. I work in a movie theater, it's not even being advertised.

ritchards:
So... to take the wrong message away, this movie is "White Guy (Schultz) Saves The Black Slaves"?

Don't worry, it isn't. Schultz is the mentor figure, and serves mainly to be one of the only white guys who isn't a total monster. Django himself does most of the saving, aside from the very beginning of the movie.

Anyway, I saw it and loved it. It would, however, have been far better as a two-part movie with the first act expanded, and each movie clocking under or about two hours.

Tarantino's cameo towards the end was priceless. Definitely need to add this to my Blu-ray collection when it comes out.

sounds good. just i still have to wait for it few month till its in the cinemas here in australia.

The Tall Nerd:

teh_Canape:
well truth be told
Django is a better unconventional name than fucking Dovahkiin

eh... its not really unconventional
its from another culture
or perceved that way.....

you may wanna word that better, that can easily be read as racism.

Don't be that guy who goes around yelling "racism" at everything. Django was originally the name of the protagonist in many spaghetti westerns; as far as I know, there's only one real person of note (a Belgian jazz musician) with that name. So, yes, it is unconventional, and no, thinking so cannot be "easily read as racism."

varmintx:

daxterx2005:
Django down, Bring on Kill Bill Part Three.

That's probably not going to happen:
http://wegotthiscovered.com/movies/quentin-tarantino-kill-bill-vol-3-james-bond/

*Insert Vader Noooooo here*

Sad news.....
Thanks for informing me though.

Hm, nifty. Sounds like a movie I might enjoy if I go out and see it, though Foxx's "I kill all the white people in the movie, how great is that!?" schtick on SNL was hardly funny. Seemed pretty racists to me, but "judging by the content of someones character" is somehow considered racist today... Though, if you're one ethnicity it's less racist than another somehow.

Anyways. "Americas 'Original Sin'" though... cute... does Movie Bob have any idea wtf he's talking about? Well probably not, from the multiple videos I've watched of him, he's probably the victim of the propaganda that America was somehow unique in it's use of slave labor, some perspective might be had in http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2012/12/slaverys-global-comeback/266354/ . But that's just a modern dose of slavery, the kind of crap he ignores, and might be a good education... yet counter to the propaganda. But no, apparently history stops 300 years ago. African Tribal leaders own participation in the slave trade up until the outlawing of slave trade in Arabic(*cough* Islamic *cough*) nations coming from eastern African nations in the 1960s is ignored. And even their own current allowance of slavery is ignored. But...

I bet it's going to be shit just like Inglourious Basterds was shit. I just don't like historical revenge movies. I get that it's supposed to be satisfying or something to watch the oppressed brutalise their oppressors but it's not. It's just depressing as hell. It's depressing that those people had to suffer through what they did, it's depressing that they're still feeling the ill effects of it today and it's depressing that some shitty revenge movie is supposed to act as some sort of consolation for real life atrocities. It's just stupid. There's no poetic justice in real life and in a strange way even making believe that there was strikes me as disrespectful. You don't get to rewrite history to make it nicer even if you acknowledge that it's fiction.