# Hateful Eight thread



## Ibanezsam4 (Jan 12, 2016)

Surprised nobody made a thread for this yet. 

Saw it with my dad in 70mm. First the technical aspects

Good sound system + magnetic tape = the most glorious sound ever. seriously the dynamic range of the score was tremendous. 

i had to get used to the shutter projections at first, but my eyes adjusted.

i also loved the ratio of 70mm. it made for some great outdoor shots; especially with the mountains as the backdrop. 

Now for the actual film. If you love Tarantino, then you will like this film. 

If you have not seen any Tarantino; start with the classics first. This honestly felt like Reservoir Dogs in the wild west.

3 hours is a long film, but the 10 minute intermission for beer makes it easier. 

This films builds awesome tension (note the award winning score), but it also is very plodding. there is a ton of dialog - which is par for the course when watching Tarantino - but this felt like as a dialog writer he was just wanking a lot of the time.

i know its a normal convention in his films for backstory to be filled in by conversation, usually by a character saying "did you hear what he did to Tony Rocky Horror?" but he did this so many times in Hateful - and far less deftly than in Pulp Fiction - that it feels really contrived now. especially considering the character who does the most of this in the film is the most annoying character (he has a purposefully over-the-top southern accent).

Tarantino is in love with gore. he always had tons of blood, but it seems he is in love with close of shots of heads and faces exploding.

im in love with the first shot in the movie.

as for the title, literally everyone in this film is a character who is either cruel or annoying or Tim Roth. so you want them all dead for something  

tl;dr. it's great if you love Tarantino, but it is not his strongest work at all. Django felt like filler at times, and this film even more so. but his films are more about the movie going experience and i really enjoyed seeing it; especially in 70mm.


----------



## Emperor Guillotine (Jan 12, 2016)

I was rather disappointed in this film. Not Tarantino's best, but not his worst. Lots of filler. Usually his endless dialogue has points or structure. This film seemed less so. Still though, it's just shy of two hours of dialogue while you're waiting for what you know (as a Tarantino fan) is coming. The big bloody payoff. But at this point, I don't think that the payoff was worth it. Tarantino is one of my (very few) favorite directors, and I just think he is slipping at this point. He still makes his trademark "Tarantino films" that are mildly to fairly enjoyable. But there will never be another classic like _Reservoir Dogs_ or _Pulp Fiction_.

Like someone said in the "Movies You've Been Watching" thread, Tim Roth's character pretty much felt like a role that should've been for Christoph Waltz. But he wasn't available, so they settles for Tim Roth. 

There were some funny scenes that will make you laugh if you share the same sadistic, dark sense of humor. And for me and my friend that were watching it, we definitely laughed.


----------



## wankerness (Jan 12, 2016)

It didn't get a thread cause no one's going to see it! It sure did bomb. I'm surprised the Revenant is making so much more money than it since that's equally as long and even less accessible. Also, there was no thread cause those of us who saw it already had a discussion in the movies thread. Here are my two main posts about it from there:



wankerness said:


> Hateful Eight - This is the first Tarantino movie I really don't like. It's overlong (almost three hours), has no interesting characters, and is dramatically inert. It seems to be an attempt to stretch classic scenes like the cafe scene from Inglorious Basterds out to feature length, but it really failed IMO. The most unwatchable thing for me was how the primary source of "humor" was just Jennifer Jason Leigh getting punched in the face over and over. I can deal with that kind of violent slapstick when it's consistent with the tone of the film, but here it's ONLY directed at her character throughout the entire thing and it was really unpleasant considering she's the lone woman character besides a few others that show up for all of 2 minutes. Then it becomes far worse
> 
> 
> Spoiler
> ...






wankerness said:


> Well, when I saw it today there were exactly 4 other people in the audience, and they only laughed at appropriate times, so I came away with a much less disturbed impression of the movie. I still think it's his worst movie and could have EASILY dropped 45 minutes with no loss in quality (they could have taken out all the talk about two boards necessary, all the trips out to the outhouse, and most especially that whole stupid flashback which takes all the momentum out of the film and gives you exactly no information that you need to know other than filling the "plot hole" of why
> 
> 
> Spoiler
> ...


----------



## Lorcan Ward (Jan 12, 2016)

10/10 from me. I loved every second of it.


----------



## Emperor Guillotine (Jan 12, 2016)

One word to sum up the movie: dingus.


----------



## Ibanezsam4 (Jan 12, 2016)

wankerness said:


> It didn't get a thread cause no one's going to see it! It sure did bomb. I'm surprised the Revenant is making so much more money than it since that's equally as long and even less accessible. Also, there was no thread cause those of us who saw it already had a discussion in the movies thread.



ugh i dont follow that thread. makes sense now why it wasnt posted then. 

westerns aren't usually popular and Revenant has the all mighty oscar buzz going for it. everyone wants to see the bear attack and Leo possibly get the prize he deserves. 

as for this film... its Tarantino (alienates 50% of the audience), in the west (shrinks more), shot in 70mm and projected in 70mm (guaranteed only film nerds would ever see it)


----------



## wankerness (Jan 12, 2016)

It's in regular multiplexes. I saw it in one. I don't think most of the people that see it are even familiar with the fact that a 70mm version exists (nor do they know what 70mm is). Tarantino also has a MUCH, MUCH bigger fanbase than Birdman man. So, if anything, I'd have expected this to be a much bigger hit. It did have a much smaller budget though, so even if it earns 1/3 as much it's equally as successful from a percentage standpoint 

Having seen both of them with a crowd of "regular" people I'd say Revenant is far less accessible, but it was also holding people's attention better, I guess just cause the stakes are constantly so high since everyone wants to see Leo survive and get his revenge, where this was just cartoony awfulness (as in, the characters are all total dicks and are supposed to be) where no one really wanted anyone to survive anyway. Revenant also puts some of the big setpieces at the beginning, so everyone's in right away, while Hateful Eight has almost nothing happen for an hour and a half. I saw one guy in a crowded theater leave the theater for a bathroom break or whatever on Revenant, while people were going to get food or whatever right and left in Hateful Eight. (Not that this anecdote necessarily means anything)


----------



## Ibanezsam4 (Jan 13, 2016)

wankerness said:


> It did have a much smaller budget though, so even if it earns 1/3 as much it's equally as successful from a percentage standpoint



i was thinking about this last night. pretty sure the reason why the only roadshow and the idea of the film got the greenlight was because it cost far less than Django Unchained did


----------



## lelandbowman3 (Jan 13, 2016)

It felt like Tarantino doing a bad impression of Tarantino. It wasn't a terrible movie, but it wasn't as good as it could've been.


----------



## FILTHnFEAR (Jan 16, 2016)

Can't wait to see it. Same for Revenant.

I've no problem with 3 hour movies as long as there's not a bunch of filler just for the sake being longer. Guess I'll have to see.


----------



## wankerness (Jan 16, 2016)

FILTHnFEAR said:


> Can't wait to see it. Same for Revenant.
> 
> I've no problem with 3 hour movies as long as there's not *a bunch of filler just for the sake being longer.* Guess I'll have to see.



Well, you've just described the hateful eight!


----------



## piggins411 (Jan 16, 2016)

I really enjoyed it


----------



## ThomasUV777 (Feb 5, 2016)

Here's an interesting read about the guitar-smashing in the movie (slight spoiler alert):

https://reverb.com/blog/cf-martin-r...n-of-145-year-old-guitar-on-hateful-eight-set


----------



## Edika (Feb 5, 2016)

I haven't seen the movie but I won't be able to see it in the movies. Form friends that did see it they say it's not his finest moment and some were thinking of just leaving. 
In any case I came here for the same reason ThomasUV777 mentioned, the smashing of the Martin museum guitar. It seems unimaginable that this was a mistake and I really hope it is. Doesn't make it less tragic but shows real negligence on a piece of music history.


----------



## wankerness (Feb 5, 2016)

Reminds me of that Prince incident a couple years ago where he destroyed Captain Kirk Douglas's vintage guitar after borrowing it, though this seems even worse!


----------

