Jump to content

The Hateful Eight


Tex
 Share

Recommended Posts

I can't tell you how much I wanted to like this movie, and while I didn't find it horrible I can't help but think about how good it could've been if someone other than Quentin Tarrantino was behind it. I don't want to post any spoilers yet, but it's become apparent to me that QT just can't shut the fuck up. He just can't get out of his own way.

 

He's always been that way, of course, and sometimes it works out. But when you make a spaghetti western you don't bombard the audience with useless dialogue. His favorite movie of all time (and mine) is The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly, and there isn't a spoken word in that film in the first 10 minutes.

 

He's so talkie he even had to put his own personal narration into it. The guy can't shut up and let the awesome setting and characters tell the story themselves.

 

When I came home I had to watch The Great Silence to wash the bad taste out of my mouth. It was an obvious inspiration for H8 and a much, much better movie. If you like westerns set in the snow you should probably check it out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah man just rent it later. It's a long bloody mess with few surprises.

 

When it comes to QT I think he was better off when he was filtered, much like Lucas. Give him free reign and you feel like you're being preached to rather than entertained.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When it comes to QT I think he was better off when he was filtered, much like Lucas. Give him free reign and you feel like you're being preached to rather than entertained.

When has Tarantino ever been filtered? The guy's had a creative blank check since Pulp Fiction, and it's not like anyone was restraining him in that movie.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Pulp Fiction was a collaboration with Roger Avery, and Avery was behind some of the best parts of the movie, be it shooting Marvin in the face or the Butch, Macellus, Gimp stuff. Even though Avery never did much after Pulp, I think QT hasn't been the same since the two went their separate ways.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Pulp Fiction was a collaboration with Roger Avery, and Avery was behind some of the best parts of the movie, be it shooting Marvin in the face or the Butch, Macellus, Gimp stuff. Even though Avery never did much after Pulp, I think QT hasn't been the same since the two went their separate ways.

How is that a filter? That's more stuff tossed onto the crazy pile.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's the general idea that restrictions and parameters are often a good thing. I think Speilberg's best movie is Duel. The one of two times he had to answer to people.

 

Most of the auteurs-- Hitch, Kubrick, Lynch, PT Anderson or even masters like Ridley, Carpenter, Craven, Tarrantino, and Speilberg or Copola did their best work under some sort of constraints.

 

I think films have to be collaborative to an extent-- or at the very least that singular vision needs to be challenged. If no one tells you NO you will run with the first idea you have and you may not let the idea evolve to the right place.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's the general idea that restrictions and parameters are often a good thing. I think Speilberg's best movie is Duel. The one of two times he had to answer to people.

 

Don't think that Spielberg reached that level until after Raiders of the Lost Ark and E.T.. He damned near ended his whole career on the set of Jaws and, even with the leeway he was given post-Jaws, still almost managed to get Close Encounters shut down. With 1941 an expensive disappointment he was far from able to do whatever he wanted.

 

Spielberg's often said that one of his goals in Raiders of the Lost Ark was to prove that he could bring a movie in on budget after gaining a reputation for completely blowing through budgets. It was bad enough that even with Jaws and Close Encounters on his resume and George Lucas standing next to him, none of the studios wanted to touch Raiders at first.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In terms of getting funded you're 100% correct. But after Jaws he was never questioned on set and studios didn't breathe down his neck. That's WHY 1941 was a financial disaster. (Which makes no sense since its one of the funniest movies ever).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've gotten so bored with Quentin Tarantino. Caricatures spouting overly-clever dialogue. Insert hyper-violence. Insert overt reference to classic film. At this point I'll casually watch if I happen to come across 'em, and if I'm pleasantly surprised, great.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've gotten so bored with Quentin Tarantino. Caricatures spouting overly-clever dialogue. Insert hyper-violence. Insert overt reference to classic film. At this point I'll casually watch if I happen to come across 'em, and if I'm pleasantly surprised, great.

Clichéd jukebox soundtrack

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest madddox

pretty much agree with everyone on this.

 

while there were some great dialogue moments littered throughout (pretty much anything sam jackson says), too much of it just felt like tarantino doing tarantino. it honestly just felt like i was sitting there to hear tarantino dialogue, rather than be entertained and drawn into a good story. this could be a play or a novel and not really lose much impact.

 

the story didn't justify a nearly 3hr run time at all... while the story was fun it just wasn't that deep.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I saw this the other day.

 

I really feel sorry for anyone who pays to watch this on the cinema because they'll be bored ofr three hours. Unfortunately, every time I get excited for a QT movie I get hit with more self-indulgent crap. This is by no means his worst effort. Grindhouse and Inglorious Basterds are far worse. H8 only just comes out on top of those though.

 

The sad thing about this movie is the talent Tarantino assembles and how they get misused. It's not that they act badly. Because they don't. In fact the acting was a high point. It's just the material that is shockingly bad, obtuse and boring. I was really looking forward to seeing Walton Goggins on the big screen, just a shame it was in this movie. I thought this was Sam Jackson's career performance as well. For once he didn't play himself.

 

3 hours I won't get back. The first hour is spent on a stagecoach. It's full of cliched exposition that sets up nothing much. I said to the wife afterwards that this film didn't need to be any longer than an hour. We normally watch an episoide of something of a night and they manage to fit so much more in 45 minutes than this film did in 2 hours and 50.

 

The one thing I really took away was that in the cabin where the last two thirds of the movie is set (only 2 sets total), it felt like a remake of, or homage to Reservoir Dogs. Just all these guys in a room pointing guns at each other and posturing. Kitschy dialogue but no real plot.

 

Avoid this if you can resist your morbid curiosity. It's not a western. It could have been set at any time and over in an hour.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Meh, it's mostly rehashed white guilt race baiting crap. He's gone to the well one to many times. Go make a sci fi film or Kill Bill 3 and then retire. The only thing that would have justified this film is if it was QT that played SLJ's snow gimp. It was fun seeing it in 70mm, the red apple cameo, and the twists were fine but I can't give it more than a 6.5 out of 10.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest madddox

I love film. i think like practical vs CG, it has it's benefits compared with digital.

 

but what about this this film and story required it to be 70mm? why did tarantino choose this movie to make a big fuss over this whole issue?

 

i read of a 70mm screening fo this that failed and they reverted to digital and... it looked pretty much the same.

dont get me wrong i love the look of film, but it seems wasted on a film and story like this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Will check out that score, Ryn. Thanks!

 

Also, re: 70mm... I think maddox's comment about the digital looking pretty much the same is spot on. There is a difference, but you need to be an aficionado to really appreciate it. It's kind of like when somebody plays two Strats that are identical except for maple vs. rosewood fretboards and 95% of the people in the room can't tell the difference, while the other 5% obnoxiously gushes over the brightness of the maple Strat or those sweet, resonant mids on the rosewood -- yes, there's a difference, but it's not huge, or something many people even notice.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.