The Hateful Eight

[Mr Light]

I don't want to say this was a bad movie, it was very well made and written... but it was eight people sitting around in a cabin for three hours. It was so slow and drawn out. Really tested my in-theater patience.

I know QT movies are very talky, but there are at least scene changes and the occasional bits of violence. No "event" happens until 1 hour and 45 minutes into the movie. I feel like there was a wonderful 90 minute movie lurking somewhere in this three hour run time...

 

[Arrrrgggh]

For a Tarantino movie it was pretty blah. For a general movie it was quite good; an A- or B+ for a general movie, a D for a Tarantino one.

I think it was just pretty evident that Tarantino had gotten too pissed off with it and didn't put his heart and soul into it like he has his other movies. In fact, it felt like it was just kind of the middle of one of his other movies, lacking the beginning and ending bits that make his others so much fun and interesting.

That said, I didn't mind the nature of the movie at all. I had fun trying to guess who the bad guys and good guys were, and there were several twists that actually surprised me. Didn't care much for the not-really-a-cameo cameo appearance, though. He's usually quite funny when he does one.

 

[JirinPanthosa]

I thought the film was pretty mediocre.

I didn't mind the pace of the movie or that it was talky. Films should show more respect for the audience's attention span. But I found that the silliness wasn't balanced with the incisive genre commentary of his other movies. It was like a Reservoir Dogs for Westerns only without anything interesting to say about Westerns or particularly compelling characters.

 

[Mr Light]

This is petty, but it really bugged the hell out of me that 2/3 through the movie Quentin suddenly and literally starts talking directly to the audience setting the scene. First of all, if you're going to break the fourth wall it should be throughout the movie and not suddenly towards the end... second of all, it's lazy writing, convey the information by other means... third of all, it's narcissistic.

 

[Mr. Adventure]

Definitely an exercise in slow burn, I was expecting a vague "something more" I guess. I went in knowing absolutely nothing about the story so I went as about as unspoiled as you could get. Basically a one-room murder mystery with some Tarantino violence and n-words heaped on top. I don't know that it justified its length which seemed to only exist to obfuscate its true nature.

It was good for what it was but it wasn't what I was hoping for.

This is petty, but it really bugged the hell out of me that 2/3 through the movie Quentin suddenly and literally starts talking directly to the audience setting the scene. First of all, if you're going to break the fourth wall it should be throughout the movie and not suddenly towards the end... second of all, it's lazy writing, convey the information by other means... third of all, it's narcissistic.

I saw it in a 70mm presentation and his narration comes after the intermission break. I was curious how it would play without that.

 

[Mr Light]

The intermission break was 2/3 through the movie, and not the half way point?

 

[Mr. Adventure]

I didn't remember Tarantino narrating until after the break but other than not sure?

 

[Harvey]

The intermission break was 2/3 through the movie, and not the half way point?

The intermission was at the 1 hour, 40 minute mark -- just a few minutes after the half-way point. Obviously, Tarantino wanted to end with Samuel L. Jackson's monologue, rather than an arbitrary half-way point in the narrative.

 

[Mr. Adventure]

The non-roadshow version is a little shorter apparently and without the overture and intermission perhaps it feels deeper into the runtime?

 

[Mr Light]

The standard length is 2 hours 48 minutes, so the 1h40m mark means there's only an hour left in the movie at that point. Believe me, I was checking my watch the entire movie

Oh, I thought the theme song was really great! I want the mp3 of that!

 

[JirinPanthosa]

I think if they tried to make it shorter it would have worked even less. The first hour from before they reached the place established characterization that made the violence later a better payoff. Understanding those three characters' background made the killings later more than just violence for violence's sake. And frankly the setup was more interesting than the resolution. If they could have cut down anything it was the 'Earlier this morning' part.

I agree the sudden narration was jarring, but for Tarantino not surprising. Like how in Inglorious Basterds he took the time out of the narrative to explain that nitrite film was flammable.

 

[sttngfan1701d]

This is petty, but it really bugged the hell out of me that 2/3 through the movie Quentin suddenly and literally starts talking directly to the audience setting the scene. First of all, if you're going to break the fourth wall it should be throughout the movie and not suddenly towards the end... second of all, it's lazy writing, convey the information by other means... third of all, it's narcissistic.

I came into this thread specifically to complain about this. I saw the movie last night, and while I'm generally a fan of Tarantino, that bit was just galling. I literally said aloud "Dude...what the f#@!? Shut up." It was purely narcissistic from my point of view. "Oh, aren't I and my story so clever? Tee-hee!"

I don't mind that his characters chew the scenes with all sorts of pontification. I know that going in. I don't care if he wants to insert himself in the movie in a cameo role. I don't care if he wants to serve as the narrator. But that was just egregious.

 

[Garak]

It was decent, but far from his best.

I thought the acting was great.

 

[KlavsPrieditis]

Hm, I`m of the opposite opinion as the characters are just hilarious and the story is interesting so that you can not stop watching it up to the end

 

[JirinPanthosa]

One thing that just occurred to me that I didn't think about before.

Tarantino uses narrative convention to place the audience on the side of Samuel L Jackson. But the bad guys are the only characters in the film who express any concern for the survival of anyone besides themselves.

The protagonists have an expressed history of racially motivated violence, cruelty and survival at all costs. The antagonists are killers too, but all their actions in the movie
are altruistic, to preserve Daisy. Of all the other characters only Chris at the end does anything that isn't selfish.

But we get to see the gang brutally murder 5 innocent people, and all the protagonists' horrors are historically referenced. We fall on Jackson's side for the same reason we fall on Tony Soprano's or Bea's, because the narrative urges us to. We meet them first, they fall on the Union side of the Civil War, and their on screen killings are limited to unapologetic racists.

Even the choice of actors manipulates who we root for. Samuel L Jackson versus Mr Blonde.

It kind of gives me a new respect for the movie if Tarantino's goal was to maneuver us into cheering for the greater of two evils.

Edit: Come to think of it, Tarantino said parts of the film were inspired by The Thing, and we also have the protagonist from The Thing on that side.

 

[Servo]

Edit: Come to think of it, Tarantino said parts of the film were inspired by The Thing, and we also have the protagonist from The Thing on that side.

Plus a chunk of the score is taken from Morricone's original work on The Thing. I read that it was stuff that was unused back in '82, but I recognised it straight away when I heard it, so there must be some part of it that was actually used in The Thing.

 

[Beagleman]

I agree, it was loooong but I really enjoyed it. The characters and the acting were brilliant and just the atmosphere was great too.

 

[Ethros]

Good god that first hour dragged like crazy, I really wasn't in the mood for going today but if I didn't I wouldn't get chance to see it for a while. I was semi-tempted to walk out I was so bored. Luckily it picked up enough gradually and I enjoyed the second half enough. Still, hardly a classic.

The main problem for me was sticking Channing Tatum's name on the opening credits. I had no idea he was in the movie, and because he wasn't one of the main people I just spend half the movie thinking "so at some point at least one other person is gonna appear in this cabin." Therefore kinda ruining that shock. Shoulda just left it a surprise, kinda like Matt Damon in Interstellar.

Also who actually were and who weren't the Hateful Eight? When there were 10 of them?


Another reason I couldn't get into it was I'm tired of seeing the same old faces in his movies. I mean this had Sam Jackson, Michael Madsen, Kurt Russell, Zoe Bell, Tim Roth etc etc, I could never really buy into them as characters. Probably why I didn't like the first hour; it just felt like 'Tarantino and his buddies' yet again.


Some bits were good... don't think I'd ever bother watching it again though. Basically the best scene of Inglorious Basterds dragged out to three hours, but nowhere near as tense and nowhere near as good.

 

[Mr. Adventure]

The main problem for me was sticking Channing Tatum's name on the opening credits. I had no idea he was in the movie, and because he wasn't one of the main people I just spend half the movie thinking "so at some point at least one other person is gonna appear in this cabin." Therefore kinda ruining that shock. Shoulda just left it a surprise, kinda like Matt Damon in Interstellar.

Worse, I saw a commercial that spent the whole time focused only on Channing Tatum in the movie.

 

[JirinPanthosa]

I read an article online that the Lincoln Letter was a metaphor for Django Unchained. Interesting read.