I feel like a lot of people didn't get...

1) I'm not sure we're "supposed" to feel anything about Dah-mer-goo, not that feeling anything one way or the other is bad, just that it was your reaction. The first time we see her is startling because she's been hidden until that point. My eyes went straight to that huge shiner around her left eye. On my 2nd watch the other day, I still couldn't take my eyes off her even though I meant to look at Ruth, who was doing all the talking. The entire exchange for me was like narration flowing underneath my wonder about who she was, which was revealed shortly thereafter as Ruth grills Warren about whether he knows anything about her.

First time she's hit in the movie, my reaction was to recoil. The moment had a visceral charge to it because it served to underline that Ruth isn't the authorities exactly, but has his own authority over her. I don't believe any of the beatings are justified, since forcing her obedience could certainly have been done with far less zeal Ruth has for exacting his brand of punishment on her. And of course, secondly, why should we believe that she is "guilty" of whatever it is she's been accused of? We assume she is guilty because there's essentially a contract on her by the authorities, but the authorities were exclusively white men who got into their positions by being voted for or nominated to those positions by an exclusively white, male electorate.

So again, I never really thought of her as good or bad, but as just another interesting character trying to work her own angles just like everyone else.

2) Quite possible he made up the story. The humiliation of it was the thing that took Smithers over the edge. I wouldn't put it passed Warren to come up with the brilliant embellishment of adding insult to injury in order to help Smithers go over the edge and reach for the gun.

3) Makes sense to me. Everything is about that cabin after the first hour and the way he tells the story visually once inside it was meticulously thought out and executed. I love what he and DOP Robert Richardson did with that space to give it real space. The scene with Minnie has just as many characters in it as the scenes in the rest of the movie, but in Minnie's scenes the cabin seems fuller with 8 people in it than it does the rest of the movie. The depth of field stuff QT does in it is really neat.

4) Only thing I knew to expect was interesting dialogue, a general mashup of genres and homages, and how he's able to lay down an atmosphere thick with potential violence, so much so that I think that's why some folks get really offended at his violence. They're offended because it works. It's not just cartoon violence like many other movies. His movies sometimes seem a lot more violent than they actually are because of that. I got what I expected. My criticism of the movie is that I didn't get anything more than that this time. It passed the time well enough, but underneath it all I can't say it amounted to anything more than a droll perversion of dinner theater set in the Old West.

1) It seems rather unclear what your position is. You say the beating isn't misogyny, but by the end of your paragraph you're saying that misogyny is indeed a key element of her treatment, if not the beating itself. Why is that such an important distinction? In my opinion, misogyny isn't a key part of her character at all. She's simply a mysterious villain. It never even seemed very doubtful that she had committed terrible acts, based on how incredibly spiteful she was - now, that isn't suitable evidence for a courtroom, obviously, but it is cinematic evidence that she is a least capable of spiteful (and aggressively racist) behavior.

2) Agreed that he made it up. I'm surprised anyone would argue differently. The story was ridiculously over the top. But you can't argue your point based on what he himself says in the cab, since there's no particular reason to trust that either.

(Incidentally, I disagree with QTs choice to show it on screen - what was the point? It drained the tension from the monologue, in my opinion. Especially for a director who has mostly avoided depictions of nudity and sex, it was jarring.)

3) Agreed.

4) I'm with you in that I don't get the reaction against the film's supposedly intense violence. It's really not very violent on the grand scale of movies or even the QT scale - hell, even the scale of westerns. I find its predictability far more problematic. I'm not saying I could anticipate everything that happened, but the general direction it was going to take was quite clear from the beginning. The whole thing was just too similar to Reservoir Dogs, while also being less suspenseful and engaging.

I just thought it was boring. I didn't care about any of the characters and would rather stick thumbtacks in my feet then watch this movie again.

1) Never really felt too bad for her as a character, but I think Tarantino was trying to portray graphic violence against women as being unpleasant. (Which he certainly did; the whole second half of the movie is unpleasant.) There's nothing entertaining about watching a woman getting graphically beaten by men, which is a little too close to real life to get a laugh. It's the same reason why Django Unchained is a more watchable movie than Twelve Years a Slave. The violence in Twelve Years a Slave is realistic, unrelenting, and extremely uncomfortable to watch. Django gives pause when graphic violence is happening to blacks, but lightens the mood by making the violence against slave-owners so incredibly over-the-top that you couldn't help but laugh. A little levity once in a while goes a long way.

2) The oral rape story was almost certainly intended to be made up, though I suspect that he did actually kill his son. And the way I read it was that the purpose of giving the general the gun was not so that he would be "justified" in his own mind; it was because there were lawmen (who were on the Confederate's side) present in the room.

3) The landscapes were beautiful, but 70 mm adds little to the interior shots. Django would have benefited more from 70 mm.

4) Off the top of my head, this is the first QT movie since RD where violence has mostly been portrayed as gritty and realistic rather than some kind of joke (minus the barfing and GoT-like headshot scene). I respect that, but it makes for unpleasant viewing. And the "plot" once they finally get to the haberdashery is not strong enough (nor are any of the characters compelling enough except perhaps Kurt Russell) to carry the film. There is also very little memorable dialogue considering the huge amount of talk in the movie. And yeah, you know all the characters are going to die, which is why you have to put some thought into the process. Ten Little Indians = good; The Hateful Eight = boring.


And for the love of God, why did he put Channing Tatum in the opening credits? Where is the surprise value when it turns out there's someone else in the cabin? I assume that Tatum or his agent insisted on it, but QT seriously should have considered another actor if this was the case. (And he probably should have anyway.)

Still struggling to see how anyone but a rabid fanboy could say this was better than 6/10. If another filmmaker had pitched this script, it'd never have been made.

Excellent, everything you said is well put. I would add that the 70mm is used for the audience to focus on the details. Especially since Inglourious Basterds, Tarantino's careful shots of the finer details in a scene emphasize the character's anxiety to zoom in on the seemingly irrelevant aspects of the situation. It's not just fine cinematography, but it enhances the audience's viewing experience, and so much the better for this stage-play on the silver screen, where the finer details if not grand landscapes are the subject of focus.

As for paying attention to details, we're also supposed to pay special attention to each character's testimonies. Most are deceitful; I think John Ruth and Chris Mannix, if he was honest about being sheriff, may be the only ones who are honest. Marquis Warren will lie to save his own arse, but also to get what he's bloodthirsty for (I don't think he got the general's son to do that disgusting act either; just to get him to raise the pistol).

These are just a few points that jumped out at me, among other themes. Check out this interview with QT, you might find some nice insights on the film:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9hINYm034EA

1) Daisy was inhuman, and they treated her accordingly. It's the equivalent of beating a rabid dog. There's an unappealing brutality to it, sure, but also a primal sense of moral autonomy. Not surprising, then, that modern audiences would take some exception to that. But it's not meant to take place in our time. It's not a movie for today. It's a movie for a post-Civil War US frontier by way of Tarantino.

2) I took it as being legitimate. Why? Because it's shocking and repulsive, exactly the undertone that Tarantino wanted to take, and it's meant to infuriate and disgust the audience just as much as the general. If it's made up, it loses that edge and is a character compromise. So I see it as being a true story...

My only gripe is that I felt John Ruth's death and subsequent absence from the film in the second act created a vacuum on the narrative. And although it was the genesis of the movie's most hauntingly beautiful moment(s), his was the character I most identified with. And I missed him. Which I think was actually the point of that...

"I would argue the arm still attached to her by a chain represents the misogynist society of the 1800s. Once she's given power (running the gang), she's still herself back by men (the arm) and is hung anyway".

I, on the other hand, would argue that the arm, attached to her, represents the acts of woman who will do anything to live. And if that includes killing anybody, so much the better. Do you really think that the look on her face as the poisoned men were 'blowing blood', was that of Society-repressed woman?! Sometimes a ruthless, blood-thirsty film villain is EXACTLY what they appear to be, 'our Society's' "moralities" not withstanding. Oh, and villainy in the real World is essentially a war between humans, and animals............ Psychology would have been best if it never reached the Public, it allows people in an armchair pass judgement on qualities of other's, and themselves, that are nothing more than 'fancy excuses'.

Exactly a great film. nicely put.