Quote :

" I was hoping after Django that this one would be more of a true western. I really liked the first 30 minutes or so before they got to the cabin, but kept hoping they'd leave the cabin and actually get to Red Rock at some point."

Yeah, but that is kind of QT's thing in all of his films. He frequently doesn't deliver on the film's main theme.

For example:

Reservoir Dogs is a heist movie where you don't see the heist.

Inglourious Basterds is a WWII movie where you don't see any battles.

Death Proof is about girls going to a destination that they never get to.

Pulp Fiction is a gangster movie where you never actually know what people are fighting over (you never see what's in the brief case).

And so on. It just makes sense to me that this is a western where you don't get a showdown in the middle of a town. Every Western has at least one scene like that.

[Edited on January 4, 2016 at 5:24 PM. Reason : k]

1/4/2016 5:22:08 PM

Quote :

"Why isn't O.B. counted as part of the 8? Because he wasn't hated, or because as an audience member you could trust him?"

They're all murderous jerks except for O.B., who is just an innocent pawn in the whole mess. Including Jody would give away the climax.

Quote :

"Death Proof is about girls going to a destination that they never get to."

Well, that's just not true at all. Yes, Mike kills the first set of girls on the way home, but them going home is not a plot point. The second set of girls not only get where they're going (to the Challenger), they also reach their secondary destination after they kill Mike. Also, THIS IS NOT WHAT THE MOVIE IS ABOUT AT ALL. THE MOVIE IS ABOUT BADASSES TAKING REVENGE.

1/4/2016 7:06:53 PM

Quote :

"Well, that's just not true at all. Yes, Mike kills the first set of girls on the way home, but them going home is not a plot point. The second set of girls not only get where they're going (to the Challenger), they also reach their secondary destination after they kill Mike. "

I don't think that you get exactly what I am saying. It is not exactly the same for both parts because they are slightly different, but yes in the first part it is about them going to a lake house that they never get to. What happened with Stuntman Mike was an unintended side plot: The entire plot device driving the dialogue in that film was about the girls preparing to go to the lake house, and Stuntman Mike just interrupted those plans. Just like the second part of the film is about girls working on a movie, but you never actually see any part of the movie set or anything. You (the viewer) don't know what the film is about, even though all of the girls were actively working on the film (the cheer leader was still in her costume). So, in a way it is about them going to a destination that they never get to, because you never learn about the film since Stuntman Mike interrupts their plans, and so I just lumped them both together.

It is exactly like in Reservoir Dogs: The heist is the whole reason why the characters are pulled together, but you never see or learn anything about it. QT does this on purpose in all of his films (except for Django and Kill Bill) as it subtly builds tension because he basically keeps the main plot device hidden from the viewers. This is not just a QT thing, btw, it is just a very effective technique or theme that many directors use to build suspense or tension in a film. For example, one of the coolest parts of the Matrix is that saving and preserving the culture in Zion is ultimately one the main plot devices, but you never actually see what Zion looks like. You just hear about it and then the viewer is forced to imagine what Zion looks like on their own. That is definitely a part of film making that has died off in the last seven years or so, as it is more common for directors to explain everything with exposition.

And seeing the challenger was never a planned destination. They intended on picking up Zoe and then spending a day together because they were all actively working on set and only had a day off.



[Edited on January 5, 2016 at 5:11 AM. Reason : j]

1/5/2016 4:58:19 AM

Does anyone know how long the 70mm presentation will be available at Southpoint? Movie website only shows locations, no dates, and showtimes for Southpoint only appear to be updated through tomorrow. Will it still be in theaters through the weekend?

1/5/2016 11:28:16 AM

Quote :

" Located in: The Streets at Southpoint Address: 8030 Renaissance Pkwy, Durham, NC 27713 Phone: (919) 313-6627"

[Edited on January 5, 2016 at 12:07 PM. Reason : s]

1/5/2016 12:07:09 PM

Going to see this tonight. The non-70mm version is at a more convenient time, but will I miss much seeing this version instead? Its still 2 hours 47 minutes.

[Edited on January 5, 2016 at 1:14 PM. Reason : x]

1/5/2016 1:14:38 PM

i'm not a film expert, but i felt like there were only a few scenes where 70mm would make a difference

1/5/2016 1:20:50 PM

and there's the extra 15 minutes, i guess

1/5/2016 1:36:40 PM

Intermission is pretty nice for bathroom/snack break. Especially for such a long movie. Also you get a program.

TBH though, I could have done without the violent shaking in the beginning, the movie cutting out near the end and having to wait for it to restart, and having to sit in the 2nd row.

Quote :

"one of the coolest parts of the Matrix is that saving and preserving the culture in Zion is ultimately one the main plot devices, but you never actually see what Zion looks like."

Good point. One of the main reasons the sequels sucked.

1/5/2016 1:51:22 PM

Quote :

"Located in: The Streets at Southpoint Address: 8030 Renaissance Pkwy, Durham, NC 27713 Phone: (919) 313-6627"

The only places less likely to answer the phone than a movie theater are post offices. That being said, I did try that, no answer, and thought I would ask a group of people that possibly have similar interests in this.

1/5/2016 4:09:14 PM

Yea, I was curious as to why you would shoot a locked room movie in 70mm

1/5/2016 9:32:53 PM

^ Yeah I was a bit confused why he made such a big deal about the 70mm when 95% of the movie takes place indoors. The shots of the landscape in this movie do look great. They're just few and far between.

1/9/2016 11:06:53 AM

Thoroughly enjoyed it. Just want to clarify something








SPOILERS









The BJ scene didn't actually happen, correct? Warren just makes that up to piss off the General enough to go for the gun, justifying Warren shooting him. At least that's how I interpreted it, since Warren was prone to fabrications.

1/9/2016 1:27:54 PM

^It's not made clear, but I doubt it happened. One of the major points of the Lincoln Letter is that he is a bullshitter. They cover that immediately before the this part.

1/9/2016 2:57:29 PM

Quote :

"Yea, I was curious as to why you would shoot a locked room movie in 70mm"

There are a lot of places in the film that use the extreme width of the frame.

1/9/2016 7:43:05 PM

Yea plenty of wide landscape shots and up close face shots too. I remember one shot in particular where it was a fairly close up/detailed shot of the cabin AND the outhouse. They are like > 100ft apart. It looked unreal.

1/9/2016 9:59:16 PM

Going to see this tonight. Can't believe it's already gone from half the theaters in the Raleigh area...less than 3 weeks after Christmas, wtf?

1/12/2016 4:51:52 PM

^Apparently bombing in theaters and some groups boycotting because of Tarantino's latest political comments.

1/12/2016 6:48:11 PM

Of course it is...how many people in America these days can sit in a theater for nearly 3 hours to watch a movie that hardly leaves a single room.

I watched it again, and I liked it better the second time.

1/12/2016 10:29:40 PM

ghetto

1/13/2016 9:54:43 AM

https://www.facebook.com/topic/The-Hateful-Eight/382870421891741

2/5/2016 4:26:01 PM

Trim about 45 minutes of this and it's a much better movie. That or use the extra time to go into the exploits of the gang or a scene in red rock and we might have some better context for the rest of the story.

The long shots of the wilderness and the blizzard prep were all fine and dandy but they ran long and didn't move the story along.

2/8/2016 1:29:58 PM

^^^^ I too thought it was a lot more enjoyable the second viewing. Really liked it the first time, but knowing the characters from the start really lets you enjoy their respective personalities and interactions more.

[Edited on February 8, 2016 at 2:07 PM. Reason : carrot]

2/8/2016 2:06:49 PM

It's really weird watching Tim Roth play Christopher Waltz

2/10/2016 12:45:04 PM

Finally saw this, and loved it, but I love most things he does. I don't really understand why people need more sets and scenery to keep their interest. There was plenty going on in that room to keep me entertained.

Also I thought the running gag about the front door was hilarious

QT, on his inspiration for the film:

Quote :

"In November 2013, writer-director Quentin Tarantino said he was working on a new film, another Western. He stated that it would not be a sequel to Django Unchained,[5] though he later admitted that his first attempt at the story was as a Django sequel in novel form titled Django in White Hell, but he quickly realized that Django's character did not fit the story.[6] On January 12, 2014, the film's title was announced as The Hateful Eight.[7] The film was inspired by 1960s Western TV shows including Bonanza, The Virginian and The High Chaparral. Tarantino said: Twice per season, those shows would have an episode where a bunch of outlaws would take the lead characters hostage. They would come to the Ponderosa and hold everybody hostage, or go to Judge Garth's place — Lee J. Cobb played him — in The Virginian and take hostages. There would be a guest star like David Carradine, Darren McGavin, Claude Akins, Robert Culp, Charles Bronson, or James Coburn. I don't like that storyline in a modern context, but I love it in a Western, where you would pass halfway through the show to find out if they were good or bad guys, and they all had a past that was revealed. I thought, 'What if I did a movie starring nothing but those characters? No heroes, no Michael Landons. Just a bunch of nefarious guys in a room, all telling backstories that may or may not be true. Trap those guys together in a room with a blizzard outside, give them guns, and see what happens.[8]"

[Edited on February 10, 2016 at 8:44 PM. Reason : It's up for 3 Oscars ]

2/10/2016 8:41:57 PM

Went and saw this on Saturday. Never have I seen so many people walk out of a movie theater halfway through before, but I contemplated it too. The writing seemed overly caustic, even for Tarantino.

2/16/2016 7:57:01 AM

This has been running a while now...I'm surprised there were that many people in the theater to walk out.

Must not have been die hard Tarantino fans.

2/16/2016 8:00:00 AM

It was a theater in downtown Baltimore that served drinks; probably a crowd mainly of people looking for something to do after Valentine's day dinner.

2/16/2016 12:53:21 PM

QT can do no wrong. His films always please.

8/12/2017 2:25:48 AM

Still not a fan of the Kill Bill movies. I've liked just about everything else though.

Well, there was the one time where he made a movie with a thoroughly fantastic car chase, but unfortunately the rest of the movie was just a bunch of useless dialogue.

8/12/2017 9:50:46 PM

Useless dialogue in a Tarantino movie? It's more likely than you think.

8/12/2017 10:07:23 PM

He is the star of my sexual nightmares.

8/12/2017 11:20:18 PM

bttt

new movies to discuss/rank

11/1/2019 12:49:41 AM