I'm a huge fan of Tarantino, but I'm sorry, I just couldn't bare watching this film. First off, the dialogue was way too excessive. And yeah, I get it, Tarantino is known for dialogue. That's his style. But this dialogue was exceptionally bad and boring. I wasn't buying Jennifer Jason Leigh's performance for a second. I stopped watching it once they arrived at the cabin. I could tell this was going to be an endless dialogue-fest. Not for me.
shareWell, I tried again... And this time I liked it. What it made me think of--was a really vulgar Alistair MacLean novel. By the beginning of Chapter Four (Domergue's got a Secret) that impression was very strong. And by the time Major Warren is saying "But, you didn't count on the blizzard... And you didn't count on the two of us." well, that's that. Maclean protagonists may have said almost that exact thing in about three different novels.
I also love the look of the film, including the incredible stage-lighting in Minnie's Haberdashery, which probably annoys some people. The score is a mixed bag with a lot of recognizable cues from The Thing and one from Exorcist II, butit is Morricone, so there's that.
Solid enough that I will watch the roadshow version at some point despite having only a mediocre copy of it.
The Thing? What is that about?
shareYou should see it. The Thing is about a bunch of guys in Antarctica that all start getting killed by a thing that absorbs them and imitates them. But make sure it's the 1982 one and not the original which frankly I find a bit boring. I like movies from the 50s but I didn't care for the original Thing. Because of the way movies were done back then they of course couldn't have the Thing absorbing and imitating people in it. Plus there is an annoying character in the original who acts stupid the whole movie and doesn't get taken out til near the end.
Morricone who did the music on this did the score for the Thing and uses some of his tunes from that score in this movie. Which makes it ironic this was the movie he finally won an Oscar for.
The Thing (1951) is one of my favorite movies.
I detested the boring special effects overdone 1982 version.
The original had great characters, a plot, and a point.
The 1982 version just had special effects that got old and everyone else soon copied.
What I was asking what, was does the thing have to do with the H8?
Morricone used music from his score in the 1982 Thing in the music score for Hateful 8.
share "The score is a mixed bag with a lot of recognizable cues from The Thing and one from Exorcist II, but it is Morricone..." Tarantino was probably responsible for getting Morricone to re-use music from other films. Not that either The Thing or Exorcist II have anything to do with this film.
You sir, know when to hold them and know when to fold them. I wish more people had your instincts.
shareI got a kick out of this movie, and I don't like much of Tarantino's stuff, but this one and Inglourius Basterds are pretty good. Jackie Brown is funny. You have to be in the right frame of mind to get into some of these movies. Never cared much for Pulp Fiction or Django, but they had some clever scenes.
shareI was able to make it through the entire film but I wasn't very impressed with it. It has some decent acting but something about it just didn't quite work.
It's almost like it doesn't quite equal the sum of it's parts. Everything is there, you got top notch actors, good cinematography, above average dialogue but the story itself is just not that interesting. I view this as Tarantino's gore fest, it's got lots of blood but no real substance to the film.
Those of us that like blood and guts would probably get into this but people that want something a little deeper and more meaningful should look elsewhere. I'll give it a 5.5 out of 10.
Shame really because I like Tarantino's movies.
I'm of a very similar opinion. Every piece of the movie is stellar. The cast, the performances, the setup, the payout, the dialogue, the camerawork, and the music - everything - is amazing. But together, I don't like the movie.
Ironically, I think it's because the characters are despicable. Maybe this isn't a "fair" critique because the movie is called "The Hateful Eight," so me saying, "I didn't like it; they're so hateable," isn't really valid. But that's what I'm saying.
The thing is, it's not because they're nasty people who do nasty things to one another, it's because I feel like the point of the movie is to revel in nastiness. To wallow in schadenfreude. To indulge in the worst of one's self and the worst of others. It is, in short, no more moral or artistically interesting than watching the Jerry Springer Show. It's saying, "Ooh! Look at how vile this is! Isn't this vile? Let's hate together." It's like turning Sith or something.
I feel bad saying it, because I respect the clear amount of work, effort, and artistry that went into bringing the film about. But when the film has nothing to say AND just feels mean-spirited, I can't get into the picture.
Also, it makes me sad knowing that they busted up that guitar.
I hear ya, Ace. TH8 is a missed opportunity from one of Hollywood's top directors.
This thing just didn't work, it's frustrating to watch because you want to get into it then something happens that tells the viewer "screw your feelings" this is a western that Jack the Ripper would enjoy. Why he made this is a mystery but I could see Tarantino saying "because I can" as his reply.
Lol..
I think switching back and forth between Ruth capturing Daisy and Marquis and his horse troubles would have improved the film. Then going to the stage coach confrontation would have been interesting.
This would've added some much needed character development. But what do I know about writing scripts and directing... :)
I think he made it because he wanted to do something like The Thing or And Then There Were None where you can't tell who the baddie is in a room full of people. That pressure cooker atmosphere is very appealing. I think that's probably how he started working on it, and it just became this.
share