The Hateful Eight

[UTK]

Saw it in 70mm last night. Anyone else do the same?

Overall I really enjoyed the film. The first act was very slow, but the dialogue was well-written so I didn't mind just listening to the characters talk for a long time. After the intermission, it was just straight craziness to the end. My main problem, though, is that it sort of feels all over the place. The first half seemed well-written and linear, and then there's suddenly a lot of jumping around, Tarantino randomly begins narrating...it felt like Tarantino went crazy with a story idea and wrote it in 3 hours while high on Adderall, and nobody edited it. I know Pulp Fiction is like that, but it all came together full circle in the end. This movie had a fairly linear storyline until it got to the halfway mark. But all that aside, the film was still very good, and there's a serious tension among the characters that begins near the beginning and literally never subsides. It made me feel so uneasy (in a good way.) Also, it feels exactly like Reservoir Dogs in some parts. Don't know if that's a positive or a negative thing.

I know that there was 15 or so extra minutes in the 70mm version, but I'm not sure what they were. I'm assuming it was all the shots in the intro of the film. Very long and very wide shots of snowy mountains and such. They were great shots, and great use of 70mm. But two-thirds of the film takes place inside of a cabin, so after the first act (with a couple of notable exceptions), it didn't feel much different than watching the normal theater resolution.

Personally, I'd rank it lower on Tarantino's film record, but I definitely enjoyed it. I'd give it a 7.5/10

[Hanley!]

I heard that while the 70mm doesn't make the film all that visually impressive during the cabin scenes (which make up most of the film), the benefit of using 70mm was that he was able to fit more of the characters in a single frame than he otherwise would have been able to. So you can study the reactions of other characters when one character is talking or doing something, and it can tell you more about them. It's supposed to add to the tension and the mystery of the film. I haven't seen it yet, so I'm not sure if it really did make a difference. But if it does help, I actually think that's probably a better reason to use 70mm than scenery porn (not that I necessarily have anything against that either).

My problem with Tarantino films these days is that they feel overlong and unedited and sometimes downright messy and I'm worried that might be what's happening here. I love Reservoir Dogs and I love a lot of the actors in this film, so I'm very interested in seeing it. But some of the reviews make me think that I might have some problems with it - some of the same that you seemed to have.

When I hear people say that there's too much talking, I'm not too concerned because Tarantino has great dialogue. But when people tell me that it's overlong and there's a flashback that doesn't need to be there, I start thinking "damn, those do sound like dumb things that Tarantino would do".

Still, I will see this soon. It sounds like even if it has problems there will be enough positives to make up for them. That being said though, I really didn't care that much for Django so hopefully this is an improvement over that.

[Daz]

I thought it was one of Tarantino's best. I'm not a huge fan of his work to tell the truth, and I thought the singular setting allowed for more focused story telling and real tension. The whole film is basically an extended, western version of the opening chapter of Inglourious Basterds.

The film is a bit long, but it's very engaging and the dialogue is so good that you don't really mind it. It doesn't feel poorly paced at anyrate, because even though it is set in one place and it is essentially just people talking, it does always feel as though there's something going on.

As far as the flashback goes, it's perhaps a little unnecessary but it does add a certain flavour you wouldn't have gotten otherwise. It's a good scene, but the same story (more or lesS) could have been told without it.

It does have some typical Tarantino traits that irked me though, like the narration (he's done the same thing in multiple films and it's always fucking annoying, and nobody seems to mention how weird it is), but getting into the nitty gritty of anything beyond that might constitute spoilers so I'll leave it there.

I would say it's definitely worth seeing though.

[SortaCreative]

I actually thought it was really bad.

It was overly indulgent. The film could have been an hour shorter easily. I did like the setting but I felt like Reservoir Dogs is a better version of that "type of film". To me there are two styles of Tarantino films. There's the fun and entertaining films he does (Inglorious Basterds for example) and then there's the "look at my vision, aren't I just great lol" films he does (this and Death Proof for example). It meandered. It was muddy, it wasn't very entertaining until maybe the last hour and the twist was just lame.

I felt like the tension you're referring to wasn't there at all. For the first hour it was slow, it didn't really crank up the tension until a very specific point in the film. But after that point, within twenty minutes the film goes utterly mental. The tension had no time to build up and is undercut by the "twist". I feel like the flashback undermines any of the tension the film may have built up and should not have been introduced.

Dialogue as ever was good. Technically, outside of length and editing, can't fault the film, Well made and shot.

Not for me, ultimately. Tarantino is very hit and miss for me. Death Proof is the only film i've ever walked out of half way through watching in the cinema. But then I utterly adore Inglorious Basterds. If I had to give it a number, i'd give it a 5/10.

[Everlong]

It was overly indulgent. The film could have been an hour shorter easily.

This basically describes every Tarantino movie ever.

[Matteo]

But if it does help, I actually think that's probably a better reason to use 70mm than scenery porn (not that I necessarily have anything against that either).

I think all the great filmmakers understand this, and I agree. Even though 65mm photochemical film spawns a high resolution image, that is seldom the reason why filmmakers espouse it. The extremely wide framing is its number one advantage, especially if you're photographing on Ultra Panavision 70 (which Tarantino did), and also using lenses that have an extensive scope range (almost double that of 35mm(. All films that have been shot in 65mm and presented in 70mm have done so because they want to capture the vastness of a certain geographic space. Tarantino elected to do this, but in a room, and that's actually quite experimental. Good on him.