The Hateful Eight

[Fantod]

Posted: 12/26/15 at 9:44pm

The first act is probably the best hour and a half Tarantino has ever committed to celluloid. Smart, funny, and tense. It also demonstrates what Tarantino has never found in any of his work before: narrative drive. While his movies are always moment to moment entertaining, they are just a narrative mess. This was most apparent in Django Unchained, which was in desperate need of some severe edits that it never got. Here, there seems to be a continuous endpoint that the first act appears to be reaching instead of meandering it's way towards. Coincidentally or not, it's also Tarantino at his least violent.

Now for the second act forget all that. It's Tarantino at his most violent and narratively messy. It's still fun moment to moment but it suffers from the problems I mentioned earlier. Now, it works a little better than usual because it serves as counterpoint to the setup of the first act, but we're still back to Tarantino at his most indulgent.

Narrative aside, we're still in Tarantino's world, full of great one-liners (though every character sounds like Tarantino), fun one-note characters expertly and energetically performed (Jennifer Jason Leigh is a stand-out here) and a sense of glee throughout that you can't not take part in. The mystery is pretty intriguing, and it's a genre I suggest he explore further.

If you love Tarantino, you'll love this, it won't convert any haters, but if you're on the fence about him like me, I'd still recommend seeing it, provided you aren't so squeamish.

Side note: the roadshow presentation is super well done, and I really appreciated the intermission. The film looks great in 70mm and I would suggest seeing it that way.

[FindingNamo]

Posted: 12/26/15 at 10:19pm

Who needs it? Tarantino's inability to move thematically beyond the things that gave him movie boners during his adolescence is the major pop cultural standard by which all artistic output of developmentally delayed males in the US should be measured. He is the high bar, but which I mean the low bar, of the form. 

 

Incidentally, if you want to see straight guys queen out, perch yourself at the bar of a sports pub directly across the street from a movie house showing this new thing in 70mm, as I did this evening.

 

It's hilarious listening to guys with no vocabulary discuss Tarantino's amawesomazinginicitality.

 

Updated On: 12/26/15 at 10:19 PM

[Jordan Catalano]

Posted: 12/26/15 at 11:32pm

I found the first half to be really dull. So much so that I kept checking the time for when "intermission" was going happen. I don't think it really picked up until the second part when all the action began. This will most probably go down as one of his "lesser" films and even though it had some fantastic performances in it, I can't see myself going back to this one over and over again like I do with most of his others.

[FindingNamo]

Posted: 12/26/15 at 11:53pm

Do any of the women talk to each other?  He asked, snickering.

[Fantod]

Posted: 12/27/15 at 12:49am

Jordan, I suppose it's just what different people like and dislike about his films. Just curious, what are your favorite and least favorite movies of his? My favorite is Jackie Brown and my least is probably Django.

[rosscoe(au)]

Posted: 12/27/15 at 6:05am

Really am on the fence with this, loved Jackie Brown, hated everything about Pulp, walked out of Django, love seeing a 70 mil print, but not sure if I want to see this or even care too! 

[South Florida]

Posted: 12/27/15 at 7:56am

His movies all suck.

[ArtMan]

Posted: 12/27/15 at 8:14am

When it is released nationwide, the rest of us are suppose to get an edited version without the overture and intermission.  I'm not sure how much of the original film they are editing.  Do you think, Fantod and Jordan, it will become a different movie?

[Auggie27]

Posted: 12/27/15 at 9:58am

Interesting to note, per this thread: no screeners to the WGA. Writers were not invited to pile on in appreciation.  Maybe it simply wasn't in the cards, budget-wise, but friends in other unions got it.  

[Jordan Catalano]

Posted: 12/27/15 at 10:45am

The cutting of the overture and intermission won't effect anything about the film at all. The intermission was just s black screen and an employee came in and yelled "10 minute intermission!!!"

 

and my my favorite of his films is JACKIE BROWN. I could watch it every day. I don't know what my least favorite is (besides this one) since I really love all his films. Maybe DJANGO, since it's the one I feel least completed to revisit but I still really enjoyed it.

[ArtMan]

Posted: 12/27/15 at 10:50am

I had heard they were editing more than just the overture and intermission.  For all it's length, I hope that is not true.

[Jordan Catalano]

Posted: 12/27/15 at 10:51am

That would be odd if they did that. If it's true, at least it'll be out on DVD in a few months and I'm sure the complete thing will be there. 

[FindingNamo]

Posted: 12/27/15 at 11:14am

Of COURSE they'll put out a pricier director's cut.

[Borstalboy]

Posted: 12/27/15 at 12:03pm

I found the first half terribly tedious and the second half a re-tread of many things he's done before and better.  Great Ennio Morricone score, beautiful photography, and its nice to see Jennifer Jason Leigh score a meaty role once again, but Tarantino seems to be spinning his wheels here, increasingly disinterested in building a satisfying structure.

With David O. Russell, Joss Whedon, Jonathan Demme, Judd Apatow and several other reliables all delivering product that ranges from half-baked to flat out face plant, I'm inclined to say that Hollywood is in its most confused era since the pre-THE GRADUATE sixties. 

[Fantod]

Posted: 12/27/15 at 1:26pm

I would say that the intermission is super important to the flow of the movie, plus it gives you a change to stretch you legs, which is nice. I also really liked the overture and thought it set the tone nicely.

The regular cut is 20 minutes shorter than the roadshow cut, with 167 and 187 minutes respectively. With no intermission or overture that still makes about 5 minutes of cuts. I like the movie the length it is, so I would strongly suggest seeing it in its longer form.

[The Glenbuck Laird]

Posted: 12/27/15 at 1:51pm

FindingNamo said: "Who needs it? Tarantino's inability to move thematically beyond the things that gave him movie boners during his adolescence is the major pop cultural standard by which all artistic output of developmentally delayed males in the US should be measured. He is the high bar, but which I mean the low bar, of the form. 

 

 

 

Incidentally, if you want to see straight guys queen out, perch yourself at the bar of a sports pub directly across the street from a movie house showing this new thing in 70mm, as I did this evening.

 

 

 

It's hilarious listening to guys with no vocabulary discuss Tarantino's amawesomazinginicitality.

 

 

 

"

He he

My favourite Namo post, ever

[AC126748]

Posted: 12/27/15 at 6:55pm

Auggie27 said: "Interesting to note, per this thread: no screeners to the WGA. Writers were not invited to pile on in appreciation.  Maybe it simply wasn't in the cards, budget-wise, but friends in other unions got it.  

 

"

 

The WGA has never shown QT any love. Perhaps he's returning the favor. 

 

[hork]

Posted: 12/27/15 at 7:56pm

I think the second half was stronger than the first. I wasn't bored by the first half, but it did seem needlessly bloated and self-indulgent (like Django Unchained). The second half was self-indulgent, too, of course, but I'd rather have self-indulgent violence than self-indulgent dialogue. I don't think he's made a great movie since Kill Bill Vol. 1 and I fear his best days as a filmmaker are all behind him.

[pushdabutton]

Posted: 12/28/15 at 9:50pm

I am a huge Tarantino fan and I'm looking forward to seeing this movie!

[ArtMan]

Posted: 12/29/15 at 6:17am

Fantod, Are you sure your version was 187 minutes?   Sites I have gone on show it to be 182 minutes. Our local Cinemark theater is listing two screenings for this Wednesday (which I didn't think was going wide until January  and the running time is listed at 168 minutes.  If your version is indeed 182 minutes, then the only cuts I suspect are the overture and intermission. Two minutes for the overture and ten minutes for the intermission.

Updated On: 12/29/15 at 06:17 AM

[ArtMan]

Posted: 12/29/15 at 6:17am

Why is it posting a smiley face instead of the number 8?

Updated On: 12/29/15 at 06:17 AM

[Jordan Catalano]

Posted: 12/29/15 at 9:06am

Because 8+) without spacing =

[hork]

Posted: 12/29/15 at 11:56am

ArtMan said: "Fantod, Are you sure your version was 187 minutes?   Sites I have gone on show it to be 182 minutes. Our local Cinemark theater is listing two screenings for this Wednesday (which I didn't think was going wide until January  and the running time is listed at 168 minutes.  If your version is indeed 182 minutes, then the only cuts I suspect are the overture and intermission. Two minutes for the overture and ten minutes for the intermission.

 

It also cuts out five minutes of footage that was shot specifically for 70mm. I'm not sure what that is, but I'm assuming it's some of the scenic exterior shots.

 

[Fantod]

Posted: 12/29/15 at 12:55pm

Yeah, you can listen to Tarantino talk about this in interviews. 

[Kad]

Posted: 12/29/15 at 12:59pm

I saw the 70mm road show in Tampa and I enjoyed it. Doesn't break new ground, certainly, but as an 'event' it was a good time. Some terrific performances, particularly Leigh, who goes all-in with her psychopathic performance. I thought the runtime flew by, which surprised me- I was dreading the prospect of a 3-hour movie, even if there was an intermission.