Started By
Message

just saw hateful eight- spoilers

Posted on 12/29/15 at 11:02 am
Posted by dallastiger55
Jennings, LA
Member since Jan 2010
27710 posts
Posted on 12/29/15 at 11:02 am
first off- huge QT fan, however wasnt a huge fan of Django


i LOVED this movie for the first 2 hours. i thought it could be top 3 for me, however i thought the final 45 minutes lacked punch and honestly was just reservoir dogs set in the old west.

the pacing and dialogue was perfect, but i just dont see why at the end when people start killing each other he has to take it to another level with the blood and effects, etc.

if you shoot a guy, he drops dead, i dont need to see blood all over everything and there head explode.


overall, i gave it a solid B, good movie but could have been better. Samuel L was awesome. Roth good as always.

thoughts?
This post was edited on 12/29/15 at 11:16 am
Posted by Mad_Mardigan
Baton Rouge
Member since Aug 2012
1925 posts
Posted on 12/29/15 at 11:06 am to
I really liked it. Glad Walton Goggins got the spotlight he deserves.

Russell did great.

Samuel L. was well...Samuel L.

Jennifer Jason Leigh was fantastic.

quote:

Waltz good as always


Waltz was not in the movie.
Posted by dallastiger55
Jennings, LA
Member since Jan 2010
27710 posts
Posted on 12/29/15 at 11:15 am to
Sorry. Lol. I meant Roth. I always get them confused, not sure why
Posted by Dr. Shultz
Baton Rouge, La
Member since Jun 2013
6391 posts
Posted on 12/29/15 at 11:23 am to
That role had Waltz written all over it though. I assume that was what they had in mine for Waltz the first go around before everything changed.
Posted by pkloa
Member since Jan 2011
2264 posts
Posted on 12/29/15 at 11:37 am to
Tarantino loves the gore, no doubt. IMO, the best scene in the movie was Daisy's reaction to Jody's grey matter splattered on her. She had been dehumanized the entire film, and finally her shell broke.

For award season, which nominations would you give?
JJL- Supporting Actress?
Cinematography?
Screenplay?
Director?
Goggins- Supporting Actor?
Posted by Mad_Mardigan
Baton Rouge
Member since Aug 2012
1925 posts
Posted on 12/29/15 at 12:07 pm to
JJL and Goggins I could see getting nominated.
Posted by dallastiger55
Jennings, LA
Member since Jan 2010
27710 posts
Posted on 12/29/15 at 12:20 pm to
JJL was annoying as shite, but i guess that means shes doing a good job at her role, lol

Posted by Mad_Mardigan
Baton Rouge
Member since Aug 2012
1925 posts
Posted on 12/29/15 at 12:29 pm to
Oh, I agree. But she did get one hell of an arse whoopin'. Her rant at the end was pretty great though.
Posted by massiveattack
CharLIT/Chapel Chill
Member since Oct 2010
11554 posts
Posted on 12/29/15 at 12:35 pm to
Ending left a lot to be desired for how well the build up was done
Posted by LeonPhelps
Member since May 2008
8185 posts
Posted on 12/29/15 at 1:01 pm to
quote:

i just dont see why at the end when people start killing each other he has to take it to another level with the blood and effects, etc.


This is why I hate Tarantino and will never watch another movie of his. That dude is a sociopath and would be a serial killer if not for the movies to serve as an outlet for his bloodlust.
Posted by biglego
Ask your mom where I been
Member since Nov 2007
76305 posts
Posted on 12/29/15 at 1:42 pm to
quote:

i LOVED this movie for the first 2 hours. i thought it could be top 3 for me, however i thought the final 45 minutes lacked punch and honestly was just reservoir dogs set in the old west.


So it was like Django
Posted by mizzoubuckeyeiowa
Member since Nov 2015
35499 posts
Posted on 12/29/15 at 1:46 pm to
quote:

JJL was annoying as shite,


This.

The role wasn't written right. The whole movie felt slightly off. Tarantino was off his game this time around. It was way too long and sort of tedious.
Posted by Baloo
Formerly MDGeaux
Member since Sep 2003
49645 posts
Posted on 12/29/15 at 1:48 pm to
I absolutely loved it. It was a throwback to Reservoir Dogs, but I think a director returning to his more simple and familiar structures after the ambition of his recent projects (which didn't land 100%) can be a good plan. This is a man who has survived the movement in film he spawned, and is now derided in snobbier circles as a throwback to a less enlightened era. So, what is his response? To double the frick down on the violence and discomforting language.

This is a movie by a man who knows he is untouchable. Or, more accurately, he knows he is disdained by this ultra sensitive era of critics, constantly clutching at their pearls while they overpraise films stacked with artifice or are so personal they never stretch beyond navel gazing. Tarantino welcomes their disdain. He courts it. And he can wind them up for the simple reason that he makes really good movie that you can't just dismiss out of hand despite their violent and ugly cores.

This is an extremely political film,and while he is saying a lot about racism, the sins of our fathers, and slavery as the nation's Original Sin... he's also saved some bile for the PC Left. Ugly topics require confrontation, not retreat. His characters don't hide behind niceties, they may be false (and there are many falsities in the movie), but they don't hide their fractures. The room has to be divided between North and South at one point, and is only brought together as truths get exposed. Dressing up a lie is a cowardly act, pretending its beautiful is immoral. There's a certain honesty to the hate, which doesn't get exposed in regards to other matters.

Yes, the final hour is over the top. But that's when the veneer crashes down. Death is ugly and brutal, and in the end, there is no justice, just frontier justice which, as the hangman tells us in one of his more honest moments, is always in danger of not being justice at all. The ending is vital to the film, because it endorses a tremendously bleak worldview: there is no justice and the only thing that can overcome racism is a mutual hatred of women. Damn, that's dark.

And you could write a thesis on the Lincoln Letter. I do like that in the end, stripped of everything else, Mannix stops to admire the art to lie. Mary Todd... that's a nice touch.
Posted by Napoleon
Kenna
Member since Dec 2007
69078 posts
Posted on 1/2/16 at 12:09 pm to
I didn't really like it, the first hour and a half dragged on and then while I like the "figure everyone out scene" (chapter 3) and I enjoyed chapter 4 the ending didn't do it for me.

So everyone just dies, no one collects. No matter what everyone will have been fricked. I wonder if fifteen men really do show up and find that.

Channing got his head blown clean off, damn. Lots of classic Quentin death scenes.

Posted by Byron Bojangles III
Member since Nov 2012
51662 posts
Posted on 1/2/16 at 12:14 pm to
quote:

if you shoot a guy, he drops dead, i dont need to see blood all over everything and there head explode. 


You don't realize how powerful that gun was
Posted by Willie Stroker
Member since Sep 2008
12881 posts
Posted on 1/2/16 at 3:34 pm to
Good review Baloo. I agree with most of your take on it with only a few additional observations to share.

Throughout the first 2 hours, I marveled at the screenwriting. The screenplay was very well crafted and should be Oscar-worthy.

Some say they have grown tired of Tarantino's excesses. For me, it's that excess that entertains me. I initially felt bothered that Samuel L Jackson's dialogue and delivery sounded as if his Jules character from Pulp Fiction was being recast in a western, but I grew to accept it because it still appealed to me. It's a guilty pleasure and it's over the top, gratuitous, and unrealistic, but why not just enjoy it for what it does well?

Two of my sons share my fondness for Tarantino movies and joined me in the viewing. It takes a skilled director to capture their attention when the bulk of the movie takes place in a single room, and QT pulled it off.

Tarantino's skill with such a dialogue rich movie with limited sets, makes me wish we could get a Tarantino reboot of My Dinner With Andre.
Posted by 911Moto
Member since Sep 2013
5491 posts
Posted on 1/2/16 at 7:12 pm to
quote:

The whole movie felt slightly off. Tarantino was off his game this time around. It was way too long and sort of tedious


Exactly how I felt. IB is probably my all-time favorite movie and I absolutely love Django (both movies get better every time I watch), but this one left me disappointed. Didn't care for most of the acting performances. Roth seemed like he was acting like Waltz acting like the character. Didn't care for Goggins' delivery. Russell was too much over-the-top "gruff" as opposed to really developing a character. Liked Jackson, but the whole BJ story felt too forced. Tatum was good. JJL was good. Overall it just felt too long and boring. I don't mind long movies and don't mind a slow build, but the first hour and a half of dialogue just wasn't that compelling to me. Granted, I didn't like IB and Django nearly as much in the theater as I did on subsequent viewings. But I wouldn't be that motivated to sit through this one again.
This post was edited on 1/2/16 at 7:13 pm
Posted by Patrick_Bateman
Member since Jan 2012
17823 posts
Posted on 1/2/16 at 8:18 pm to
Second dud in a row for Tarantino.

5/10
Posted by Pectus
Internet
Member since Apr 2010
67302 posts
Posted on 1/2/16 at 8:41 pm to
You guys must not like stage plays.
Posted by YNWA
Member since Nov 2015
6696 posts
Posted on 1/2/16 at 8:47 pm to
When's the last time someone made a good western? It's 2016, new Westerns are just boring. The classic ones are good, new ones suck.
first pageprev pagePage 1 of 4Next pagelast page

Back to top
logoFollow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News
Follow us on Twitter, Facebook and Instagram to get the latest updates on LSU Football and Recruiting.

FacebookTwitterInstagram