What did /tv/ think of "The Hateful 8"?
I love movies with good dialogue, and this definitely had it. Tarantino always produces with dialogue in my opinion. I thought it was beautifully shot, very well acted with memorable characters. It's not his best, but overall a VERY solid movie.
the fucking SJW's that think this film is racist and misogynistic need to read a fucking history book. This film portrayed the time period well, and you bet your ass Nigger was a common word back then. Also I guess nobody understand Tarantino is a Wigger, lelz.
Why is this movie getting trashed by critics?
Was it really that "boring"?
I mean, the movie never seems to claim that it's going to be Kill bill action, so why the fuck are people dissapointed?
It just looks like The Elder Djangos V: Skyrim.
It doesn't look like anything new.
I want Tarantino to stop with this heightened reality goof-fest hes been parading and make something more laidback.
The shootout in Candyland Ranch was where he jumped the shark.
I laughed at all the funny parts, like one should. People are too fucking sensitive to things such as name calling. If he replaced the racially charged words with generic cuss words, people wouldn't be crying at all. And nobody gave a fuck that Samuel Jackson's character was racist too, who said "cracker" amongst other things.
one of the best parts
it is absolutely not boring. The film has AMAZING character development, which involves a lot of dialogue. Fucking mongs don't like a movie if there isn't an explosion every 2 goddamn seconds.
>I want Tarantino to stop with this heightened reality goof-fest hes been parading and make something more laidback
>I want Tarantino to stop using his trademark film style
this movie was laid back, you pre judging sack of shit. go see it.
EXTREMELY well developed, fun characters, super interesting, incredibly deep, engaging as fuck and stellar humor. thanks to Tarantino for having a movie where he literally doesn't care about progressive values and goes for a 100% time accurate portrayal. Good on ya buddy.
Also lol when the girl got hit lmao
That sucks. Some people were practically rolling from the sharing bananas with the nigger comment and everyone found her getting bitch slapped constantly hilarious. Nobody cared when I cracked open some tallboys either. This was in New York too, I was kinda surprised
He said it himself that Basterds was his masterpiece. Basterds had way better long drawn out scenes full of dialogue and brilliantly mixed three languages and actors from other nations. Compare the opening sequence of Basterds with the openings of Django and Hateful Eight. It's not even close.
Well just because he said Basterds was his favorite, and his best, does not make it objectively so. I LOVE that movie, but I still see every one of his movies as a blank slate, so that I can form a practical opinion.
Also he wasn't trying to make another Inglorious Basterds....he is just telling another story.
I'm not a Tarantino fan so I went in with low expectations and ended up loving it.
My one complaint is that the BIG BLACK DINGUS scene went on too long and felt like I was reading Louisposting or something, that shit was ridiculous.
Despite that, the Sheriff and the Major were GOAT.
>I thought it was beautifully shot, very well acted with memorable characters.
These sound like non-opinions you use to make it sound like you like a movie when you really didn't it's just by one of your favorite directors
meh, the scene worked fine for me, it was some comedic relief
>saying wyoming isn't beautiful
>saying the whole move wasn't filmed/shot in a beautiful way
are you kidding me? do you want me to give specific examples? I loved the entire intro, that was shot beautifully. I loved the panned out flash back scenes. beautifully filmed is self explanatory.
And the characters WHERE memorable. I remember each and every one, after only seeing it ONE time. I cannot say the same about a ton of other movies.
I recently watched "Bram Stokers Dracula", because I wanted to see how it differs from the book. While I love Anthony Hopkins, there are a lot of fucking forgettable characters in that movie....rather boring. This is just an example of many.
I loved the racism/sexism, but aside from that it was Tarantino's worst. It was long, and it felt long. There was little reason for it to be so long. the 4 gang members had the drop on the arriving 3, and Kurt Russel even entered with Daisy alone, they could have easily killed him while he was busy with the door.
tarantino is actually a good filmmaker, just as a person its hard to take him serious sometimes and even though the dialogue is great you cant help but feel awkward thinking that this guy wrote it.
WARNING /TV/ CONTRAIAN OPINIONS ITT!!!
Hateful 8 panned by critics and audiences all around, so /tv/ claims it's QT's best since Jackie Brown. Despite most of the story crafted by greentext from /b/ and slapstick humor.
Only redeeming parts of this movie were OB and Joe Gage.
This movie was soooo fucking good. People say the dialogue is too much and the ending was a bit cartoonish, but both are entertaining as fuck. Didn't know that QT had a foot fetish the other day though.
No one takes the word "cracka" seriously though. The word "nigger" was used to put black people down during and after slavery. The words have entirely different implications and contexts. Not saying that people should call other people "cracka" but if you get offended by it you're a fucking pussy
I'm a Spanish speaker and it sounded overdone to me, surprised because Bichir is a native speaker and a genuinely good actor, I just feel he could've done a much better job with the accent.
You're an idiot if you think you can just walk up to a black person and call them negro and think you're in the right because "it means black lol why are they getting so offended??" Are you autistic? I don't care if you don't care about talking like a normal human being but "negro" does not just mean "black" now. Words have connotations to them. Curtailing speech to avoid annoyingly offensive/inane/obsolete connotations is a part of life and it doesn't just apply to words having to do with race. It's basic fucking linguistics you shitlord
I'm sorry that you think evolving language is ridiculous. Language changes. Certain words become obsolete as time passes. There is nothing wrong with that, it happens in all cultures and languages, and its unfortunate you care so fucking much because it has to do with race
I think this is Tarantino's peak. It has everything signature to him, but subtler. All his other films have been a bit over-the-top for me (which is fine, it's just his style). But the Western setting really lends itself to his style since it's pretty much always been over-the-top.
The violence is less frequent yet more powerful, the dialogue is intense but fitting, the pacing is beautifully done. It's like Tarantino - 1, leaving us with a subtler version of his best films.
It's definitely my favorite of 2015 - but I guess that's not saying much.
I was looking forward to Tarantino dialling it back a bit in scale after his last three, but I think it's possibly his weakest film. The dialogue feels laboured, and is no where near strong enough to carry the story for almost three hours. The pub seen in Basterds does what this film sets out to, infinitey better and in a fraction of the time.
very racist movie
>strip man naked
>have him give you a bj or else he will kill him
>kills him anyway after humiliating him
>then tells the story to father
>then kills father after humiliating him too
>laugh about it
>he is the good guy, because slavery
>everyone laugh at tiny dicked whitey
none of them are "good" you fucking idiot. It's called "the hateful 8" for a reason. But here is your guaranteed fucking reply
Just came back from the 70 mm, last day it's still in theaters. The print was great, reminded me of spaghetti westerns (even with all the snow) though I wished my theater had masked the screen properly. And sadly I couldn't get the Kurt Russell booklet, they only had the Michael Madsen ones.
Also fuck, I forgot how loud the whirring of a mechanical projector is.
Movie was a bit meh in my opinion. Great Tarantino dialogue as usual but I thought some of the humor was very forced ("TWO PIECE OF WOOD" "ASK ME IF I GOT A FAT ASS"). It also felt like it was the elaborate theatrical performance it started as with all the asides. Slamming a narration halfway through was stupid, it was completely useless and took me out. 6/10 for the ending, only Dogville (incidentally a movie that Tarantino loves) made me want a film to kill a character more.
>implying any of them were "good"
>implying Warren didn't kill him in self-defense
>implying that wasn't part of the plan
>implying the dingusing even happened since we know that Warren bullshits dumb crackers and was just baiting the old fuck
I really wanted Senor Bob to end up being an undercover Fed or something with Wallace's suspicion of him an all, I feel like that would've put a neat twist on the movie. While I was fully satisfied on the twist given, I thought it might've been interesting if they gave Bob more of a character other than "suspicious Mexican"
I had a really bizarre dream last night that I was watching this movie and Samuel L Jackson's character clarifies to someone that he didn't actually make Sanders' son suck his dick, and instead he actually have Chester a handjob before he shot him.
One of the weirder dreams I've had in a while.
Did anyone actually kind of doubt that Wallace BLACKED Smither's son? The whole thing just felt like a story just to egg on the old fool so he could justify shooting him. I know that was the point of the story, but I kinda question its validity.
But I feel like the fact that the Lincoln letter being fake too adds to the argument that he never actually facefucked Smithers' son, he proved that he lies to white people so he can make it in "their world" and by playing by their rules (i.e. shooting Smithers in self defense so he could kill him as opposed to murdering him so that he would be protected under white law)
>Tarantino always produces with dialogue in my opinion.
If you go in thinking that, then of course you're gonna like this movie. QT has basically become a caricature of himself. If you want to enjoy his movie you have to go in thinking "I am going to watch a QT movie" because you give him a pass on shit he does that you wouldn't any other director.
Imagine if during the revenant there was a point where the movie would jump ahead 15mins and have alejandro narrate what happened during that time for 5mins.
>an dhats whye diss chapata iz cawled...... johnfitzgerhaldhasasecret
He also looked terrible. fat, sweaty and wearing too much makeup.
I hope its the last time Tarantino uses him.
>rewatch Resevoir Dogs the other day
>Remember that Madsen used to be young, fit, and good-looking
Me and my dad thought, for like an hour, that the woman was played by Sharon Stone until someone finally checked the internet.
It was good but never really went past that, and I felt that once
Samuel L. Jackson shot the beaner the whole movie sort of started falling flat. They all eventually died, the end.
Six out of ten.
Agree this killed the movie for me.
Also what's up with 70mm? Most of the movie is inside doors, not some open world scenary like something out of David Lean ,was Tarantino trying to imitate PTA?
Not even him shilled 70mm so hard in The master like Tarantino did.
>that is his style. Tarantino refuses to convert to digital because his style is film, and will always be film. He thinks it looks best.
70mm isn't is style, using film and not digital is his style, but is not quite unique, I mean nolan and PTA also do it, and they don't try to sell that gimmick so hard, maybe Nolan with the IMAX but even that doesn't seem to be in such way like with Tarantino. But that's not the point here, the point here is why use 70mm when you're making a most of a movie in a really small place, using close angles?
> the part where Tarantino stops the film to talk to the audience
Pissed me off that he would break the fourth wall like that after building the tension and atmosphere for like an hour and a half. Also he goes out of his way to remind you of black dicks in white mouths, which really wasn't necessary.
>white confederate racist male cop is the only character with decent morals and is the one who essentially saves the day in the end
umm quentin are ýou okay?
Just came back from the cinema and I'm so impressed that I came to /tv/ after a year to find a thread about it just to say that it was fucking amazing:
It was fuckin amazing.
Almost 3 hours of perfectly written dialogue, I was never bored. Could have been longer and I wouldn't mind, was enjoying it that much.
1. Kill Bill
2. Pulp Fiction
4. Reservoir Dogs
H8ful has great characters, costumes, and scenery but that's about it. The plot was awful, the twist was disappointing, and the ending was meh. I went in expecting 8 badass characters and instead we got three good characters, a crazy bitch we know nothing about, and some randoms who appear to be interesting on the surface but are just generic gangsters.
Django wasn't great but I ranked it higher than H8 because I loved Leo and his character so much.
Mix of obvious shock value tricks and overblown dialog to appeal to both the retarded audience who will go home and tell all their friends that they just watched a movie that "said the n word like 50 times dude!" and the psuedo intellectuals who think the dialog was absolutely outstanding because it was overwritten as fuck. Add in some muh film cred shit like the 70mm shit, an intermission and overture, and a book that makes simpletons think they're part of something larger than life and you have a movie that does an extremely good job at roping in all kinds of dipshits.
Not to say there's not good shit on top of all that - there definitely is and I was able to enjoy a decent portion of the movie in spite of all its trickery bullshit. Doesn't justify that shit though.
The dialogue was fluid and comsistent, but its consistently juvenile and self involved. A lot of the dialogue was pure masterbation on qt's part, and felt like he is losing his grasp on dialogue with a bit of substance this time around.
The story about the son and the dingus was obviously completely made up by Warren. He was just baiting the General into reaching for the gun.
Literally nothing he said proved he had even met the Generals son, or knew what he looked like. Those "flashbacks" were just the Generals imagination, as he pictured what Warren was describing.
Warren is also not a good guy. Everyone in the shack was cruel and hateful, except for perhaps OB.
I had a black guy & his half black daughter siting in front of me.
Durning the intermission
>I didn't think it was going to be this racist
>Those "flashbacks" were just the Generals imagination, as he pictured what Warren was describing.
No shit. He even turns to Bruce Dern and says "Starting to see pictures, aint ya?". He literally tells the audience that what we're seeing is the general's imagination.
And jet fuel cant melt steel beams either? You fuxking idiot, why even form an opinion with that little effort. Critics dont like it because its long, drawnmout and written for edgy 16 year olds.
Tarintino has talked about 70mm in a few interviews.
I think his idea was that going to the cinema isn't worth it for the average film. These days, you can watch any movie at home in good quality and with greater convince.
Are you really missing out on much by watching a digitally filmed movie, instead of in a stuffy, noisy, crowded theater, with over shitty priced popcorn and no bathroom breaks?
70mm was supposed to make the movie going experience worthwhile and unique.
I think he talks about it somewhere in this discussion:
>go to a Tarantino movie
>get offended by some mild violence
If only they had stayed through to the end.
-Kept me interested the entire time, didn't feel at all like a 3+ hour long movie.
-Most of the acting was really good
-Cool/original story (IMO)
-Very little substance. I get that it's a kind of portrait of America, but didn't really seem to me to have anything new or significant to say about anything. I've felt that about a lot of Tarantino films though.
-I saw it in a regular theater but none of the film seemed like it necessitated filming it entirely in 70mm. Think Tarantino just wanted to use a fancy camera.
-I'm from the south and some of the character's southern accents were really fucking bad. Not a huge flaw but it took me out of it a bit.
-Haven't had a repeated viewing yet but I can tell this one is going to have close to 0 replay value. I don't really have any interest in watching it again because of how heavily it relied on the plot (pretty much all it had going for it)
decent, worth watching once but not worth theater prices, just watch it at home when you can find a way to watch it for free
It wasn't too boring for sure.
But it was too long. I saw it in a cinema with 15 mins intermission so that helped.
Good movie but not his best. Could have been better. It was too gory like..wow horror level of gorry. Not complaining just..i did not expect it.
The "Whodunnit?" element felt forced as fuck. That white guy that stayed with Sam Jackson at the end was amazing in this movie and IMHO had the best performance. Overall solid movie, I could have done without the "hey black people will win!" at the end.
Still, could have been way better. 8/10 barely
Movie of the year for me. Amazing soundtrack by Ennio Morricone too (he did The Good the Bad and the Ugly etc.) The first western he's scored in 40 years.
>-Haven't had a repeated viewing yet but I can tell this one is going to have close to 0 replay value. I don't really have any interest in watching it again because of how heavily it relied on the plot (pretty much all it had going for it)
hmm...please explain more. I agree about rewatch value but I never thought of it like that. You think that movies that rely on plot don't have rewatch value?
Kurt had waaaay better roles, idk why this board liked his character. I mean..he was good but..he wasn't great or amazing as he can be. His moustache was MVP tho.
Enjoyed it but I'd never watch it again.
FAR too bloated with redundant bits of dialogue that repeat information back and forth between characters
QT jumping in with 'whoops, Domergue knows who poisoned the coffee!' sterilised all tension.
Escape from LA/NY
He was charismatic as fuck in those movies.
I liked the white confederate guy more and Sam Jackson was also good. Bruce Dern had like 10 mins in entire movie but I liked him more.
Idk, I just expcted Kurt Russel to be more of a badass rather than "Eh...i can kill this woman but I won't"
Is that the movie in which he's wearing the eyepatch?
Yeah, he was okay in that movie, but problem is, I never liked it very much.
I also loved the general. To bad he was so brief: he was shaping up to be a great villain.
I mean if some friends were watching it again and asked me to join I would probably do so, but I wouldn't seek it out to watch again because I don't feel like I would get too much more out of watching it again and there are tons of films out there that I haven't seen that I could be watching instead.
Might just be a personal thing but if I feel like I understood the plot of a film well and the film didn't offer much besides the plot, I'm not too likely to watch it again (I would put an exception here for films that made me feel a lot or felt really special/groundbreaking, such as LOTR or the original Star Wars trilogy). I would opt instead to either watch a new film or watch one that I've seen before but that had a lot going on for it so that it would be hard to fully absorb in one viewing.
Like I said, that's just how I do things
oh yes man
the music was beautiful
Yup that's the one.
Oh well, I still value those movies as one of the best action sci-fi movies (yes even the sequel) of all time.
Villain? I know they're all supposed to be bad guys but...to be honest I never really hated any of the characters :/
>Tim Roth was literally playing Christopher Waltz: Mr. Orange Edition
QT: Hahaha Waltz I have great character for you my m8..
Waltz: Hmm...German guy? In post-civil war USA? Why?
QT: Hmm...yeah.. you're right..I'll find another non-US actor I worked it then..
Why have I heard so many people saying Jennifer Jason Lee stole the show and should win best supporting actress? If anybody stole the show, it was either based Goggins or Jackson. Lee hardly said anything the entire time.
QT: Hahaha Waltz I have great character for you my m8..
Chiba: Hmm...asian guy? In post-civil war USA? Why?
QT: Hmm...yeah.. you're right..I'll find another non-US actor I worked it then..
10/10 this guy should get an Oscar nom. if I was in charge of them..he was amazing.
Also...Jennifer Jason lee should get nomination at least (if not oscar) cause..well..how many better supporting actress you've seen than her in 2015 movies?
>that amount of blood
holy shit man
sure I love some of the good old red vino, but that fucking wacky gore was kinda too much,
still enjoyed the fuck out of it, hateful had the blood that mainstream movies did not have that year