The Hateful Eight

[DocSportello]

SPOILER!



Question: Why didn't Minnie seem angry about the Mexican being there during the 'earlier that morning' sequence? After that big speech from Sam Jackson about the "No dogs or Mexicans" sign? Did I miss something? Was that just another instance of Sam Jackson's character making something up to hopefully catch him in a lie? I thought he was telling the truth at that point.

[Neil]

SPOILS

bruce dern's character. why was he there, other than to provide sam with his moment at the end of part 1? in part 2, we learn more about dern's place in the habberdashery, but for what? he's already dead and has no bearing on the story.

I think by the end of Part 1, after General Sandy Smithers is shot, which is the first death of the film, the audience asks the same question you do. That's sort of the point. The answer turns out to be a common theme found in film, which is the unpredictable human element that adds chaos to a planned event. Also, the idea that the gang took him in to "look more natural" doesn't strike a chord with you?
I think it's hilarious, and it's a nuance like this reminds me of something in Hitchcock's "Dial 'M' for Murder," when Tony's clock battery dies.  In a movie full of wild cards, while the tensions rise, Dern's character is the catalyst or Wild Card that pushes the narrative forward because of happenstance. First act of violence in a room full of questionable liars, so we ask why was he there?  Turns out he's a General in the Confederacy looking for his son who, "would've already been home had he done what he set out to do, (paraphrase)," and he's got no business being in the middle of that situation in the first place but he coincidentally turns out to be someone with whom Warren shared a battlefield. Not only does it give Major Marquis Warren a nice speech, but it also builds tension through the same sort of serendipitous chaos I'm describing because that whole situation between Warren and Smithers diverts not only the attention of the audience but some of the characters too. In Chapter 3 when Warren is telling a Confederate General that his son sucked his dick, and never gave him the blanket, the coffee gets poisoned. After the coffee is poisoned the shit hits the fan and the plot moves quicker exponentially.  That's the best I can do. But I haven't read/watched/listened all the interviews of his about this film, so perhaps i'm reaching.

[Reelist]

spoils, all SPOILS!

Question: Why didn't Minnie seem angry about the Mexican being there during the 'earlier that morning' sequence? After that big speech from Sam Jackson about the "No dogs or Mexicans" sign? Did I miss something? Was that just another instance of Sam Jackson's character making something up to hopefully catch him in a lie? I thought he was telling the truth at that point.

I didn't notice how she reacted to him, but did find it odd that a black woman would be as discriminating as Warren claims. I just chalked it up to a "eh, they were different times" at first, but I think you're right that he was lying. Really, Warren is tired of everyone ganging up on him with that goddamned N word and needs to do some of his own bullying. So, he not only intends to take these men's lives but completely get into their heads before doing it. He even says it in that derogatory way "Metskin", I'd never heard it like that before. It's always bad when you have 'skin' in the word to categorize a group of people.

As you watch the movie, it becomes more and more apparent that practically everyone is spinning a web of lies when they open their mouths. The only honest member of the 8 is John Ruth. In fact, it's convenient that his character dies off early on so we don't have to deal with the icky situation of whether he's going to rape Daisy that night, which is probably his only hidden agenda that luckily we don't have to reckon with as an audience.

[SiliasRuby]

Spoilers, maybe.

A strange and unique piece of filmmaking. I wish that Jennifer Jason Leigh had more quentin tarantino talking scenes but her monologue was incredible. saw it in 70mm and was impressed by how it was presented.

[Reelist]

There's one line of Jennifer's where she says "He's Sooo Right!" but It's pronounced like "He's soooo rad". It immediately brought me back to Fast Times

[Gold Trumpet]

bruce dern's character. why was he there, other than to provide sam with his moment at the end of part 1? in part 2, we learn more about dern's place in the habberdashery, but for what? he's already dead and has no bearing on the story.

Spoilers

In terms of plot, no, he has little bearing. Luckily, Tarantino got more to focusing on idiosyncrasies in personality and situations over plot in this film. I didn't remember this film for the big reveal two thirds of the way through or how the plot did a full 180, but how unpredictable the story was scene from scene. His last two films trudged a lot through the story and felt too standard for me because I knew what was generally coming, but one thing I at least liked about Death Proof is how in the moment the scenes were. It's Tarantino's best talent and he plays to better effect in this film. Definitely his best historical film. He should finally move on now because I don't think he's going to top this.

[03]

ok. i think i'm ready.
spoilers


i'd like to start off by apologizing to those who asked me for the
copy of the script i had. i'm not sure exactly where it is and
obviously cannot redownload it, but i'm sorry for not getting back
to you guys.

so i've had huge problems with attempting to review this film.
i'm not really sure exactly how i feel about it, so maybe by the
end of this i will come to some kind of conclusion.

my gut reaction is that i hate it, but i'd like to dissect why i
do, because i really hate disliking a tarantino film.
he's the pulp fiction guy, he made reservoir dogs, he's one of the
most admired and ripped off and icon filmmakers of our time. you
have certain expectations when you go into one of his films. not
like scorsese or fincher or whoever where you know they're amazing
filmmakers but anything could happen, good or bad. this is one of
those guys where you have a fairly solid idea of whats going to go
down, how its going to look, certain signatures of the mans style.

this felt like tarantino fan fiction, by the man himself.
what surprised me was that i had already read the script, already
knew what was going to happen, that it had already been written out
and structured, BUT it still felt like a fucking freestyle randomly
written on the fly piece of static bullshit.

examples:
"you have a letter from lincoln?"
"yes"
"abraham lincoln?"
"yes"
"the president?"
"yes"
"of the united states?"
"yes"
"of america?"

"oui"
"what does that mean?"
"yes"

i mean, jesus fucking christ. this is a man whose dialogue heavy
films made every other director in the nineties ejaculate in their
pants and attempt to recreate it. the dialogue in this film is so
boring and stretched out and completely uncreative.
the blowjob story is obviously supposed to be the watch story, the
explanation of the bible verse, the radio station bet from death
proof, the conversation with the french dude in basterds, and it
failed immensely. it felt like the most half assed, half handed,
pathetic attempt at an iconic moment. and it really genuinely
angered me. this man is a very intelligent writer, and i felt
fucking cheated.

how is it that he can almost effortlessly create
these fascinating conversations that implant themselves eternally
into our culture and then come up with some bullshit about sucking
dick? i mean seriously who gives a fuck?
he's creating these characters without even knowing what he's going
to do with them.
"yeah lets have bruce dern be there. why? well he's part of the
story. lets make him have a past with this one guy. which one? i
dont know we'll figure it out. and then later we'll explain why
he's there. we'll make it work. trust me."
"so why doesn't he just kill those other guys? well, we'll make it
so he needs to not kill them.
why would he trust that guy? he's obviously not trusting. well
we'll make it so maybe he trusts them kind of even though he's
willing to kill anyone that interferes."

and who the fuck is this bob guy? he is hands down the most boring
mexican of all fucking time. and he looks like and sounds like a fucking white guy.
i was legimitately confused, i thought it was a joke, like oh we're gonna have this one guy pretend to be mexican and one pretend to be british, kind of thing. but no, he was just awkward and horrible and had zero personality.
the bartender in pulp fiction had more personality and believability in his less than ten minute scene than half the actors in this three hour long piece of shit.

 these characters are so confusing. why
in gods name are they doing this elaborate story?
"yeah we're gonna come to this place and kill everyone there in
cold blood to save this chick but the one guy that has her we're
just going to do this long weird fiction that ends up with him dead
anyway even though we've had a million opportunities to just kill
him and take the chick."
in the very beginning we establish that the main characters are willing to kill no matter what to accomplish their business. so why in the fuck does this story even exist? and vice fucking versa!!! why don't the gang just fucking kill them the second they pull in?!?!

it seriously makes no sense. who gives a fuck about anything that
happens in this movie? why is he not making us care? how did he
make us care so much about all of his other characters in his other
films but with his latest he just creates these empty vapid people
who have no purpose or value?

and what the fuck is up with people mispronouncing names?
is that supposed to be funny? because it's really just annoying and
stupid. marquis is pronounced motherfucking mar kee and domergue is
not pronounced goddamn dahmer goo. if it's supposed to be cute or
westerny or whatever, it fucking failed. everytime they say each
others names wrong i feel like i'm watching a little kid pretend to
be a filmmaker.

the whole four passengers sequence was obviously qt figuring out he
wrote himself into a corner and trying to make the best of it.

i've seen it three times now, rewatching soon, i'm really hoping that i can eventually enjoy it, but i am absolutely shocked at how much you guys liked it.

[wilder]

I agree with your points 03, I was disappointed too. Found myself in stride with Matt Zollier Seitz's review, beginning with the paragraph "The problem isn't how Tarantino tells the story..."

[03]

thanks for that link, man, he literally said everything im not very good at verbalizing.

[AntiDumbFrogQuestion]

and who the fuck is this bob guy? he is hands down the most boring
mexican of all fucking time. and he looks like and sounds like a fucking white guy.

So he came off as a white guy even though he's the only Mexican in the film.
Interesting first impression of Demian Bichir.

I don't disagree with you on most of your points, btw. Certain things were good, certain things were "oooh look at this mooooovie (And I know you WILL because I've gotcha all hooked from my previous efforts)".

I must say though that I enjoyed Walton Goggins throughout.

[Jeremy Blackman]

In fairness, I pretty much agree about "the Mexican," the actor's actual ethnicity notwithstanding. His accent was over the top and his face was barely visible, like he was wearing a costume and putting on an act. I was sincerely waiting for the reveal that he was not Mexican.

[Reelist]

some of you will harshly judge me for this, but Bob is my favorite character. I laughed at almost everything he said the first time, because it's such an over the top accent and dialect that you can immediately sense something is fishy with him, yet he remains likable throughout. When Warren starts to smell bullshit in his story and we realize Bob has no place there at all, it's kind of impressive how promptly he was able to take charge of the situation even if that doesn't hold up for long. Then when Warren finds out who he was really dealing with later on, chuckles to himself like, "Damn. He almost had me"

[Reelist]

I noticed he never used (The 'N' word) as a punchline. The brashness of the characters saying it may in itself be, but the desired effect is not to make the audience guffaw at it being uttered ( although I'm sure in Mississippi, many will. )

This is interesting, because on second viewing with a much smaller crowd I noticed a woman in the back LAUGHING HER ASS OFF every time that word was said. At first it made me think "Damn. My theory is wrong" but then, I considered the possibility that she might be black and it's just hilarious to hear white people saying it ( because we're not allowed to anymore )

[RegularKarate]

My late thoughts (spoilers live below)
I've seen this in 70mm twice now. Loved it both times, but brought my girlfriend along the second time and she found it boring. It should be noted that she normally really likes any movie I suggest (including all the Tarantino we've watched together), but she especially didn't like this one and felt that all the dialogue was written in monolog for the most part.

- Both times I saw it, the audience laughed at the most inappropriate parts. The first couple handfuls of time the N-word was dropped got a laugh and Domergue's "Monkey's Uncle" line got a huge laugh. Unlike Tarantino's earlier films, where it seemed to be an attempt to be shocking/edgy, this time around seems to be brutal and intense and shoving it in our faces that we don't live in a post-racial society. It's supposed to be ugly, so why are so many people in "liberal" Austin, TX laughing so much? (most of the people laughing were white).

- This is a beautifully shot and paced film, but I don't think it's his best. Maybe not even in the top three for me. Still amazing.

- It's been pointed out that the originally leaked screenplay didn't have the reveal of the Lincoln letter being a lie. I've been washing that around in my brain and am curious about other people's thoughts on the significance of that.

[03]

My late thoughts (spoilers live below)
I've seen this in 70mm twice now. Loved it both times, but brought my girlfriend along the second time and she found it boring. It should be noted that she normally really likes any movie I suggest (including all the Tarantino we've watched together), but she especially didn't like this one and felt that all the dialogue was written in monolog for the most part.

- Both times I saw it, the audience laughed at the most inappropriate parts. The first couple handfuls of time the N-word was dropped got a laugh and Domergue's "Monkey's Uncle" line got a huge laugh. Unlike Tarantino's earlier films, where it seemed to be an attempt to be shocking/edgy, this time around seems to be brutal and intense and shoving it in our faces that we don't live in a post-racial society. It's supposed to be ugly, so why are so many people in "liberal" Austin, TX laughing so much? (most of the people laughing were white).

- This is a beautifully shot and paced film, but I don't think it's his best. Maybe not even in the top three for me. Still amazing.

- It's been pointed out that the originally leaked screenplay didn't have the reveal of the Lincoln letter being a lie. I've been washing that around in my brain and am curious about other people's thoughts on the significance of that.

rk im really glad you said that bc that's a huge deal about the lincoln letter. i remember that from reading the original script and the change is very awkward. i'm not sure really what is gained by making the protagonist into a liar. i think it would have had more power if it was true. nothing much would really have to be changed. and now that i'm thinking about it, the last scene would have been close to tearful if the letter was left real.

also: when are we going to talk about this horrible golden globe thing, or did i miss an existent post?