I think when a director can hold an audience for 3 hours in a small cabin in the snow with mostly only dialogue to keep the story moving is something to be loved and enjoyed, Tarantino is special and so are his films.
He could only hold me for about 90 minutes. At this point it's like trying to watch another Adam Sandler movie. Do you even really need to see it to know what it is?
But clearly he's too self indulged for his own good, ouATIH his latest one has several scenes which begins nowhere & goes nowhere,& most importantly are boring/uninteresting
+J Wizard Phoenix I've seen it once and to me it's not nearly as awful as its reputation suggests. I rather liked its insane drug-trip vibe. It's campy in parts but it's both a great-looking film and has a great score, arguably better than the Mike Oldfield music from the first movie. For some reason I didn't pick up on the music from that movie here, but if so, nice touch. Whatever one may think of the movie you'd have a hard time convincing me that the score is bad. I also didn't pick up on the music from The Thing, which made me sad, as I've seen that one twice (the first time was a looong time ago though). Thinking of this as a western parallel to The Thing I think makes me like this movie even more than before. How much of the score was original, btw? Is it all tracks from previous films Morricone scored or is there some original pieces here?
+J Wizard Phoenix I was at a party 30 years ago in the Wicklow mountains at the directors house(he wasn`t there).The kind of night where we downed live frogs with vodka.I de fogged days later with an award for the Heretic in my possession.A small square kind of heavy lump of transparent plastic with the title embedded in the centre.Silly little story but when does any one here the Heretic referenced ?
+jonjonmcjonjon There is one track from Exorcist 2 (during the close-up of the horse dragging the carriage across the snowy plains), and two from The Thing if I recall. The rest is original Morricone music (aside from the song obviously).
I honestly didn't feel like it was long at all. It flew by for me. I thought it was excellent. I was fully engrossed from beginning to end, it was worth waiting for.
Been trying to figure out recently, in the run up to this film, what my problem with post-Jackie Brown Tarantino is, and Kermode just nailed it- emotion, humanity and a message always come second to the spectacle, of violence and of words. Genius critique.
I honestly wish QT would do something totally out of his comfort zone for his last movie...like science fiction or a romantic comedy. He's made a couple of great films, but I feel like history isn't going to be kind to him because he really is quite immature emotionally and intellectually.
Actually, this is the first Tarantino film in ages that I haven't found the post-modernism maddeningly distracting. I always forget what a great film-maker he is because I always end up thinking about the films he's referencing, rather than the film he's making, but I didn't this time around. And while the film is long, I can't think of anything I'd want to cut. In fact I could have done with it being twice as long; 3 hours for the film, and added to the beginning, another 3 hours of driving through the snow in Ultra Panavision 70.
Gaming Series I felt everything in the cabin was good except for the over the top violence, if he had toned that done he would have kept the suspense and I would have enjoyed myself rather than feel like the movie was a chore.
it's not Tim who was playing Christoph Waltz it's Pete who was pretending to be an upper middle class Englishman called Oswaldo Mobray, you can see it at the end of the film when he breaks character while dying of a gunshot wound and starts speaking in his original cockney accent
He's only made nine though! The first two and Inglourious Basterds (or however it's spelt) are the best. It wouldn't be difficult to name t least a dozen greater directors in the history of this relatively new art form.
I just love the way that the soundtrack is always spot on for his films. Went into the film a bit worried after seeing a few negative comments, they couldn't have been more wrong.
Definitely needed 30 or so minutes trimmed off. I agree with Kermode that Tarantino needs someone that can reign him in but also in the way he portrays extreme violence, the end of the movie was just comical, it was almost slapstick. I was completely thrown out of the tense final moments, I even noticed some of the squibs were missed timed.
TheDonBarracuda Her name is Sally Menke. Maybe she was able to wrestle with Tarantino to tighten up. Every artist cradles their babies. An outside voice is sometimes needed to reel it in a bit.
+TheDonBarracuda I don't think the extreme self-indulgence popped up in his movies until after Jackie Brown, which was the last one he wrote with someone else (I'm not sure if he wrote it with Avary or not but nonetheless it was an adaptation so he was bound to that story which probably helped keep him in line a bit). He's clearly a great talent I just don't think he has the discipline to do stuff like Pulp Fiction or Reservoir Dogs on his own. But he (inexplicably) still seems to be nominated for and win awards for every movie he does and he does really well at the box office so I don't think anything's gonna change
One of the only reasons I watched this film was because of the 65mm/70mm cinematography and Ennio Morricone's music. The film, which is a bit overlong, is not at all bad. However, it requires several viewings in order to reveal itself.
Tarantino is like that genius auteur kid - an enfant terrible even. Ever since his first film the guy has demonstrated absolute brilliance. But he never grew up. He never matured as an artist. He falls back on his strengths and never challenged himself. Which is a bit frustrating. And he's becoming way too self indulgent of late. Which is very disappointing. For me The Hateful Eight is Tarantino's worst film.
Good observation. Jean Renior had stated a theory that every filmmaker ends up making the same film after their first one to some degree. To me what bothers me about most of Quentin's post Jackie Brown work is that he chose to go back in time with his stories, but used similar dialogue patterns. That had worked very well in the modern context of his first 3 films, but to me it seems to be too contrived in his recent "historical" films. To me, on the other end of the spectrum, the Coen Brothers pull off their obscurities in old world contexts verses modern. Which, by the way I'm very excited for their latest film next month :]
You should watch it again. Better the 2nd time around.... Quentin makes b movies for the mainstream this is what everyone seems to forget. No filmmaker is like him currently and that's why he is special. Some try and copy him but they do not have the charm or dialogue in there films. When he stops making films it's gonna be very boring. This film was in his top 3 and is 3 times better then the basic Revenant which is gonna win Oscars. My only complaint about The Hateful Eight was that it was overly violent really. This was his most violent film I think or I was more effected by the violence in this film then his other films for some reason.
You should watch it again. Better the 2nd time around.... Quentin makes b movies for the mainstream this is what everyone seems to forget. No filmmaker is like him currently and that's why he is special. Some try and copy him but they do not have the charm or dialogue in there films. When he stops making films it's gonna be very boring. This film was in his top 3 and is 3 times better then the basic Revenant which is gonna win Oscars. My only complaint about The Hateful Eight was that it was overly violent really. This was his most violent film I think or I was more effected by the violence in this film then his other films for some reason.
I thought it was one of Tarantino's more enjoyable films, though I at least partly agree with Mark. While it didn't feel too long, in the sense that it never really dragged for me, he may be right in the sense that it might have been a better film if it was shortened.
Really interesting point as far as the characters not simply having their own voices, but being Tarantino's voice imprinted on other people. It strikes me that in his best films, like Inglourious Basterds and Pulp Fiction, there's a genuine sense that the characters maintain their own sense of self (Bruce Willis, Christoph Waltz and Brad Pitt as big examples). I like The Hateful Eight, but it's easily his worst as far as forcing everyone to use his own voice.
I like the 4 hour extended version actually. I laughed at “Bob” at one point while he was plucking the chicken. The wide angle interior and exterior shots were fantastic. I enjoy the surface of the piece. Yes there are a lot of similarities and almost references to other films but I found those kind of nice too. My only gripe with Tarantino is his frequent assumption that I actually want to figure out implied (unseen) dialogues that set up a current conversation between characters. For example: the discussion of “the Lincoln letter” started by oswaldo mobrey upon meeting Chris Mannix. At what point did someone mention the Lincoln letter to him? I try to imagine writing that scene in my head and can’t see Domergue or the Hangman mentioning it him.
I went to see it yesterday and thought it was very good. A tense build -up to the almighty, bloody finale. Ennio Morricone's score was superb too. Found myself humming it on the way home.Why can't films take their time and give you your moneys worth.
This hasn't ended up one of his more popularly liked entries but I have to say it's one of my favourites from among his films, and I think this touched on why. I think he does the Reservoir Dogs thing really well. And... this was basically that. And I like that, and I liked this. Didn't feel too long to me. I think different viewers are affected in different ways by length... you can be more on the side of a long length being a bad thing in and of itself, or you can be more on the side of length being completely scaled according to how much you're engaged by it. We're all somewhere between those extremes. Neither's better or more correct than the other, it's just preferences. I think I'm quite a lot on the latter end of the scale. I can stand an enormously long thing if I felt I got something out of it, but I can't put up with even a moderately long thing if by the end of it I felt my time was wasted. I guess some people got that thought from this film, I didn't I suppose. If I made films myself I'd almost certainly make stuff people hated for being too long, because in all art you don't create for an audience, you create for yourself and hope an audience attaches itself to it, since to do anything else is nothing more than insincere guesswork. Having said all that I'm not immune to the guy's flaws. I do find the style of his stuff quite grating at times. I still think Dogs is his best.
Every Tarantino film I have seen has stuck with me ever since. Not the greatest films I have ever seen, but easily modern day classics, especially this masterpiece. I don't think people realise how hard it is to make a 3 hour film built on shear dialogue. There is only 1 major setting, and the characters give alot of exposition. However the film didn't feel 3 hours, yes it was long, but by no means did I get bored. I'd give it an 8/10 for sure. The writing took the trophy for me, easily the element that made the film so memorable.
I'm usually inline with Marks reviews, but I have to disagree with his issue over how long it is. Really didn't bother me at all. I was completely captivated from beginning to end. Watched the Panavision version at Odeon, London Leicester Square, been a while since I had a good quality film experience like this, amazing! Tarantino is one of the few proper film makers still around.
I saw it it 70mm. It looked great. I hope they do this with other films in the future. I didn't think it was too long. It was paced very well and the performances keep your attention throughout.
I'd love to hear Mark's suggestions about what scene or dialogue to cut from the movie to make it shorter, because every single scene means something. For the life of me I could not suggest losing one minute of the movies run time.
most of tim roth and michael madsen scenes could be cut. sam jackson stage coach scene, zoe bell scene, guitar scene, lincoln letter at dinner scene could all be trimmed
When they lay the line to the outhouse, for one. It's never important and we don't need to see them do it. There's at least 10 or 15 minutes of stuff like that. There's a blizzard, we get it. If the guide line isn't coming back, why spend so much time establishing it.
@@trinityj1 It's kind of amazing how the movie spends so much time setting up details like the outhouse line and the broken door latch and then it never ends up doing anything with them. We get an entire scene of one character going out into the cold, traveling to the outhouse and back, and then collapsing down next to the fireplace because he's nearly frozen to death. We get two scenes that play out in real-time of people entering the haberdashery through the front door and having to painstakingly nail the door shut each time. Perhaps the most egregious example is the hidden trapdoor to the basement cellar. The pay-off for that ends up being that Sam Jackson gets shot in the balls. For me, the movie really devolved after the intermission. Such a letdown that Tarantino didn't even use these elements once the bloodbath finally kicked off.
I have great respect for Kermode but I can't help believing that all professional critics are far too involved with the subject to give an average audience opinion. When I watch a film it is usually with an open expectation of an enjoyable experience, not a view taken with a magnifying glass. That said I loved this film, it took me on a ride that I was sad to get off. Critics seem to leave the cinema remembering the negatives, I leave full of the positives.
I thoroughly enjoyed this one. In my opinion it was a big step up from Django and Inglourious Basterds and felt like a return to form reminding me of Reservoir Dogs and Pulp Fiction. Definitely could have been shorter and I understand your criticisms and actually agree with some but I really liked it how it was too. Maybe I'm biased because I'm a huge fan of Quentin's but I suppose it all comes down to personal taste.
+Lemonhead118 for me it might work better viewed at home on Blu, viewed in chunks or 'episodes'. I think each chapter is quite good if considered on their own.. but that defeats the object if it can't hold my attention as a whole movie. I agreed with Mark, just over-indulgent, even for Tarantino and in need of some sharp editing and reigning in. As a movie's it's a blazing mess.. so disappointed in spite of some good moments and fine performances.
Oddly enough, I find myself totally at odds with Mark on this one. I've always enjoyed Tarantino's overindulgence in dialogue, and aside from the late-movie flashback that didn't seem to add much until I reflected on it later, I didn't think the length (with the intermission, of course) was an issue at all. To address his larger issue, I don't think for one second that the film's self-indulgent surface ever forgets about its thematic underpinning. Various characters' reactions to the Lincoln letter mark key turning points in the movie, and the last chapter of the movie makes the entire films thematic statement pretty pointedly: that people who hate one another can only get along by passing their hatred off onto a common enemy (shown through Minnie's "no Mexicans" sign and the lynching of Daisy Domargue).
I've been listening to movie reviewers for months now. I thought there were several who were good. This guy's casual recant of this movie blows them all away.
In summary, narcissism prevents artistic maturity and creating masterpieces. Brilliance can encounter road blocks and Tarentino hasn't found a way around his own personality.
Spot on. For me, all the characters ended up talking in the same "Tarantino" tough-guy-speech talk, and in doing so lose their individual character. I became emotionally detached from the film and did not care about any of the characters towards the end, they were all the same and it became predictable. Then it started resorting to violence for the sake of humour, which defused all the tension. Disappointing and a shame, imo.
violence for the sake of humour? thats interesting. the violence is a result of all the tension that's built up. Your detachment is probably what made you feel this way. I mean they were all having that tough guy speech cuz thats exactly how those characters are. Most of them were bandits or racist. To each their own right.
Didn't think they were all the same or talked the same way. Tim Roth's character wasn't a tough-talking one (at least when disguising himself as Oswaldo Mobray). I thought Bob the Mexican was funny as hell because he was obviously such a bad "actor" and suspicious from the very start. Great performance by Damian Bichir!
+Pixel Power Not at all. Jackie Brown has become seen at QTs finest because the more you watch it the more you like it. Nobody in 97 was trumpeting it as his best. Same for Inglorious, a lot of people were very 'meh' about it, but over the years it has grown in stature. I think over the repeat viewings people will appreciate it more, especially when watching at home where the length isn't as intense shall we say. Anyway I could be wrong, just an opinion
+Rigsby 1 To be honest the more I watched JB the more I disliked it. It overlong. Should have been 1hr 40mins. Pulp Fiction is in my opinion his very best work. It's OTT Tarantino but perfectly formed. After PF I like DU because it was fun. IB & KB outlive their welcome. I know DU isn't perfect but at least I had a blast with it. Mark Kermode is right. QT is self indulgent & it stops him from being as good as he could be.
+Chris Johnson That's fair. His films can be quite divisive even to people who like him. I personally preferred Inglorious to Django which is the one film of his I'm in no real hurry to watch again.
Great film that flowed well with me. Kept me engaged - would make a good stage play too. Kermode is bang on the money about Tarantino though - he creates movies that are nearly magnificent but leave you feeling frustrated.
I had the pleasure of seeing the 70mm Roadshow version in all of it's 2:76:1 scope glory and it was gorgeous. Thanks to the team at the home of 70mm projection in Victoria. The Astor Theatre in St Kilda. The last classic single screen (Big Scope Screen) cinema left in Melbourne. I agree with Mr Kermode that the dialogue could easily have been cut by thirty to forty minutes without anything being lost. However, given the talent behind and in front of the camera. What's so bad about a display of self indulgence? Given the insulting, vapid nature of 90% of Hollywood cinema. I enjoyed the film more on a technical than a narrative level. By pure coincidence,just a few days before seeing the film I'd pulled out a DVD of Richard Schickel's restoration of Samuel Fuller's, "The Big Red One" (1980,1999). So when i saw a certain bit of iconography in the opening moments of "The Hateful Eight" that echoed the opening and another key moment in Fuller's film, I pretty much knew what I was in for. That and the obivious allusions to John Carpenter's "The Thing" (1982). Allusions, uh, ok right out lifts in certain scenes. If you've seen and enjoyed the film, I recommend you take a look at "The Big Red One" and enjoy a great performance from Lee Marvin. He would of sorted these guys out easily.
Tarantino is inspired by other films, Kermode dwells on any connection to other films. I often chime with Kermode, but his misfiring of Tarantino reviewing (and his total disregard of video games as a medium at any extend) really grinds my gears.
I loved the lighting inside the cabin and did become invested in the Young Confederate soon to become sheriff and the Union officer and the relationship between them that adapts and culminates with the pair of them fighting evil.
Absolutely loved this movie, saw it at the cinema and never got bum ache once, and actually laughed out loud at times. Then went home and thought about it for a couple of days.
Enjoyed this movie a lot. In my opinion the length is a plus to this film and gave some unexpected pacing. It gives the viewer the opportunity to really settle into this surrounding. I had a feeling like I was going to spend a couple of days with these characters just as they thought them selves. And you don't see things coming, it keeps you guessing till the very end.
Just seen this.Much more brooding, atmospheric and interesting than his recent efforts. Definitely warrants a rewatch on dvd when it comes out. It is however too long, and I saw the shortened version. Flawed but excellent. Also, does anyone agree with the argument that Jackie Brown is the Tarantino movie for those who don't like Tarantino movies? A very solid and rather cool movie but I feel it lacks some of the Tarantino wild brilliance we see in some of his more hit and miss efforts.
+Davross I've never heard that argument before but I think the "Tarantinoisms" that Jackie Brown lacks are probably down to it being an adaptation of the book Rum Punch. I also think one of the reasons Kermode hasn't been as much of a fan of QT post Jackie Brown is because he believed in that film QT seemed a more mature film-maker. However when Jackie Brown didn't have the same success as Reservoir Dogs or Pulp Fiction, he retreated into the pastiche/homage/rip-off (pick one) tactics that made him famous to begin with.
Yeah I'd forgotten how much of a dissapointment Jackie Brown was at the time, it was only after repeated viewings that I learned to appreciate it. Coming after the atg Pulp Fiction (still his best imo) many people, and myself included, were rather underwhelmed by the rather conventional feel of JB.
This is an excellent review by Mark. Since Kill Bill, a Tarantino is style over substance, a template that doesn't allow one to get emotionally invested in the characters. As a result, the violence will always end up feeling cartoonesque and, though enjoyable on a stylistic level, it lacks emotional impact. I've come to accept it as QTs hallmark. Matter of fact, I think it contributes to why his films can be watched over and over again. And indeed, usually I find myself rewatching set pieces more than entire films. Still, one of the very few directors who's work I will always gladly pay that ticket for.
I always enjoy the Tarantino movies because he is self indulgent. How many directors today have that luxury?? In an age where streaming cinema is becoming as formulated as a cereal box it's nice to be taken away from the norm. Real cinema.
+JAKE MOO True. Whatever QT's flaws, his films are distinctive. Most mainstream cinema, even if I find much of it watchable or enjoyable, is very "cookie-cutter" - all these Marvel superhero films being one example that springs to mind.
Wut... too long? Me and my friends as we left the cinema had one single complaint about the movie. It should have been longer. The suspense and excitement was there the whole movie. Dialogue and acting was fantastic imo. Wasn't bored for a second, which is a massive achievement imo considering the amount of dialogue.
The length criticism is something I get, but do not agree with in the case of Tarantino's films. Personally, I love QT's characters and the dialogue they speak. Another hr would've pleased me. But I wish that Mark and UK audiences could experience the road show version of the film where there is not only a 12 min intermission, but has an overture and is projected in 70mm. Those that are complaining about time would benefit from an intermission.
+halfasianAL i dont mind a long film if I find it engaging for the whole length. I thought the hateful eight was ok but not good enough to justify its length. the scene where Tarantino narrates is as tedious as the scene in Django where he plays an Australian. I'm certain this film would have been better if it was shorter. There's some stuff to really like in this film, but the gratuitous nature of the gore just seemed out of place and really took me out of the film. He's a great director, and I love many of his films but he really needs to be more disciplined and less self indulgent.
Fair enough. The scene you describe with QT doing the VO, I get what you mean. Your point reinforces my own. That exact scene is where the film picks up from the Intermission. At the length it runs, a break is totally warranted. But I do disagree with your criticism in regards to indulgence and discipline. I would much rather see films made with a definite authorship over material than simply meeting typical demands of fitting art into an allotted box. I think it's refreshing to see a film with such singular vision come out of Hollywood. Nolan's INTERSTELLAR is another that comes to mind along with PTA's THERE WILL BE BLOOD. It's rare to see pure 'director's films' created from the studio system. Is it indulgent? Possibly, yeah. But I applaud the ambition by these filmmakers. If you have the opportunity to see HATEFUL in it's roadshow format, take it. Cheers.
This is actually my 2nd favourite movie of all time, and I thought it was his best. Whenever I finish this movie, I always want to watch it again right after. Just a testament to how good this movie is. And sam should have won that oscar. I'll stop gushing now XD
@melagkomas20 I don't know man, it just had everything I loved in it, a great story, great characters, an amazing cast, wonderful cinematography and more. I just think it's so underrated. And yes, I can see how it's a little jarring that this is my second favorite movie, but I just love it. Sorry if you don't like my opinion.
Anyone who is honest and has followed his career would see that he has gradually become more and more self indulgent over the years. You could actually say it started post Pulp Fiction. Death Proof was not the wake up call it might have been and as long as his movies continue to make money he can pretty much do what he wants. It will be interesting to see how his movies fare in 20-30 years time. How many will hold up well?
Pulp Fiction is for me Tarantino's masterpiece & I simply cannot ever see him making anything better. If he were making it today it would run for at least six hours & have to be split into two films. The whole Royale With Cheese / Big Kahuna Burger scene would be at least an hour long.
Shame Mark didn't comment on the use of slow-mo during pretty much every gunfight; it was unusual for Tarantino, who usually goes for blindingly realtime bullet flying, and I found it highly effective.
Hateful 8 started out promisingly but ending up just rambling to its conclusion almost feeling like a lesser director attempting to do Tarantino. You could say that around half of his output is overlong but for the most part he has had great success so has been able to fall back on that but imo Inglorious, Django and H8 were all overlong and would have definitely benefited from some scissor work, maybe even Jackie Brown as well. In particular I think Django suffered the most as with a tighter running time it could have been great instead of just being good.
I agree with Mark's criticisms, although my net opinion was more positive. It's very close to being a masterpiece if it was trimmed down and had a slight shift in focus, but as it is it's a decently entertaining show if you enjoy the dialogue and the violence and a crude and morbid exercise in nihilism if you don't enjoy those aspects. Personally I lean towards the former camp but even I thought the violence was a bit much on my first viewing. I'll probably see it again in the theatrical cut (although I think I might miss the intermission and overture). We'll see if my thoughts change at all
I think Mark Kermode is one of the few critics I feel are worth listening to. The mark of a good critic is while you might not necessarily agree with them, but they always have an intelligent point to bring up, and he makes a valid point about the treatment of Daisy Domergue. She is just as bad and nasty as the other male characters (Tarantino even likened her to Susan Atkins), and John Ruth as a character has a reputation for brutality, and would probably have treated a male prisoner in exactly the same way. Tarantino does treat his characters equally callously, and gender bears no relevance here. Another example being Kill Bill. A lot of movies with kick-ass women in it, you're always aware at the back of your head that they look pretty damn glamourous despite being in a brutal fight, but Uma Thurman gets absolutely SOAKED in blood, like a male action star probably would. Although the film as a whole paled in comparison to Django Unchained and it did drag in places, the 70mm experience was AMAZING. Good watch overall.
I thought it was just bad storytelling: why did Russels character suddenly know about the fact that there was someone there who wanted to help the woman? Why was there a dramatic need for Jackson to do his speech? In True Romance Hopper can't lie and will be tortured to the point of giving up the location of his son, so he does the only thing left; commit suicide by insulting Walkens character to the point that he kills him. No such character need here. And why that flashback scene at the end (and film it as it it was terribly tens while it was a bunch of armed men against unarmed women and an old man). And if (NO SPOILER) the end is as it turned out, why did they not act sooner? It all just made no sense on any character and story level. Never did it have the intensity or cleverness of say the first scene in Basterds.
Andrew Watt It does seem like this concept could work wonderfully. I really like movies that are build on a simple concept mostly taking place in a single location and some of the movies get the added thing of almost playing out in real time which all can work great. Like a very tight constructed whole. So I can see this turning great with an edit. Maybe even a fan edit.
I was looking forward to Hateful 8 and while I didn't think it was bad at all, I do think that it could have been alot better. I also think that Bone Tomahawk released that same year, was the film that hateful 8 could have been.
Kermode's views on Tarantino match mine completely. Stunning, awesome, mesmerising, witty style over sneering, off-hand, post modernist, witty substance. Very little humanity and empathy. Still looking forward to seeing the film though.
Seems like Kermode gave Tarantino a fair review. I'll admit that I haven't seen this film, but I totally agree that, whilst Reservoir Dogs was great, Django Unchained was way too indulgent, and it totally lost all meaning towards the end of the film. It looks like Tarantino made the same mistake with this one.
the post-modern self-referential bit made me think of that shot in Django Unchained when there is a super fast zoom to DiCaprio turning around. when the trailer for django played before prometheus, that part a lot oflaughs cause it's like, "oh cool it's Leo DiCaprio that's funny " I think Tarantino relies on it a bit much these days he needs to just make a straight laced move no gimmicks
Mark is entitled to his opinion, and I respect many of his observations. However he gave a glowing review to "Spectre", which I thought was truly awful. Not a patch on "Casino Royale". I'll watch "The Hatefui Eight" , and draw my own conclusions.
I just got back from seeing it this afternoon. Had several really good parts in it, but I think on the whole there were far too many copied bits from Django Unchained, a far superior film in my opinion.
I honestly didn't feel like the movie was that long. It felt like a regular 2 hour film to me. I was having a lot of fun in the theater watching this film. But opinions are opinions.
I agree with him about post Jackie brown the films lacking the emotional connection, but I think Django is different - you do care about him and his wife, and when he rescues her you do feel emotion. I did, I was cheering him on
@@humblescribe8522 yeah it’s pacing there is odd, but for me the ending where he rescues his lady and they ride of together is an emotional experience that I don’t ever normally get with a Tarantino film. I love them but i don’t feel emotionally invested in them, but I am cheering on Django every time
As with all film critics, their opinions are just that, the opinion of one person so they can't possibly pretend to speak for the masses. Mark Kermode seems to dislike every film i've ever managed to endure listening to a review about by him so he clearly has different tastes and seems to fixate on things that really do not matter. If I was a film critic critic then i'd probably be saying that Mark Kermode runs on way too long as well and needs reigning in.
I didn’t finish it. Dialogue for dialogues sake. Input designed to shock for the sake of shocking without being overly relevant to the scattered plot. I honestly couldn’t or didn’t care about how any of the characters developed individually or collectively. The story lacked cohesion and pace. The association that occurs between light humour and casual violence in a real life setting was wholly unrealistic. Especially when it interacts, between, and in the presence of total strangers. “Once Upon a Time in Hollywood” it was worth the wait. Quite possibly his greatest work to date.
I think it’s a great great film, I take his point about not emotionally connecting with them, but I think what sustains it is the story itself - who is lying? Who are the bad guys and who are the good guys? I think all the stuff in the haberdashery works great. I agree it takes too long to get there- those lingering shots of the stage coach could be shorter I agree with his main point about Tarantino - no one seems to tell him no. I thought Once Upon A Time... was far too self indulgent and over long, it needed a lot of trimming. But I think The Hateful 8 works better than that does
I think the "postmodern frisson" to which Kermode refers may extend to Tarantino's title for his film. Tarantino advertises that this is his 8th film (if one considers KB 1+2 a single film) although as Mayo asks, "What about Four Rooms"? Is this then Tarantino's 8 1/2 film? If so, this leads me to wonder whether in calling his 8th film The Hateful Eight, is he referring as much to his own directorial filmography? Applying Fellini's approach to his 8 1/2 film, which is a self-aware biographical modernist journey into a filmmaker's anxieties about his own persona and creative process (and much more), is Tarantino playing with a similar form of self-reflection? Is this why he returns to his first film without so much as a shrug? I have no answers.
Mark Kermode looks like the old dude from Up
Made my day.
+Pokefan2199 Not Marks though
+BobbyHil Well that made me chuckle. He needs to know. He always says he looks like Nixon, but this is way better.
+BobbyHil
Mark will be down after hearing that. :)
+BobbyHil LOOOOOL
I think when a director can hold an audience for 3 hours in a small cabin in the snow with mostly only dialogue to keep the story moving is something to be loved and enjoyed, Tarantino is special and so are his films.
Absolutely right.
In the cabin for 2 hours.
He could only hold me for about 90 minutes. At this point it's like trying to watch another Adam Sandler movie. Do you even really need to see it to know what it is?
He’s a fantastic writer and director and has created some brilliant pieces of art
But clearly he's too self indulged for his own good, ouATIH his latest one has several scenes which begins nowhere & goes nowhere,& most importantly are boring/uninteresting
Only Mark Kermode can remember things from Exorcist 2 The Heretic
+J Wizard Phoenix I've seen it once and to me it's not nearly as awful as its reputation suggests. I rather liked its insane drug-trip vibe. It's campy in parts but it's both a great-looking film and has a great score, arguably better than the Mike Oldfield music from the first movie. For some reason I didn't pick up on the music from that movie here, but if so, nice touch. Whatever one may think of the movie you'd have a hard time convincing me that the score is bad.
I also didn't pick up on the music from The Thing, which made me sad, as I've seen that one twice (the first time was a looong time ago though). Thinking of this as a western parallel to The Thing I think makes me like this movie even more than before.
How much of the score was original, btw? Is it all tracks from previous films Morricone scored or is there some original pieces here?
+J Wizard Phoenix Only non movie buffs can´t remember anything from Exorcist 2.
+Rogerio Barbosa I like that you consider that to be an insult.
+J Wizard Phoenix
I was at a party 30 years ago in the Wicklow mountains at the directors house(he wasn`t there).The kind of night where we downed live frogs with vodka.I de fogged days later with an award for the Heretic in my possession.A small square kind of heavy lump of transparent plastic with the title embedded in the centre.Silly little story but when does any one here the Heretic referenced ?
+jonjonmcjonjon There is one track from Exorcist 2 (during the close-up of the horse dragging the carriage across the snowy plains), and two from The Thing if I recall. The rest is original Morricone music (aside from the song obviously).
I honestly didn't feel like it was long at all. It flew by for me. I thought it was excellent. I was fully engrossed from beginning to end, it was worth waiting for.
I personally love this film. It's like a 5 act play and there's no real Tarantino-esque violence until halfway through, it all feels earned.
Been trying to figure out recently, in the run up to this film, what my problem with post-Jackie Brown Tarantino is, and Kermode just nailed it- emotion, humanity and a message always come second to the spectacle, of violence and of words. Genius critique.
@@ccc-fj1ko So? A take doesn't have to be unique to hold merit.
I honestly wish QT would do something totally out of his comfort zone for his last movie...like science fiction or a romantic comedy. He's made a couple of great films, but I feel like history isn't going to be kind to him because he really is quite immature emotionally and intellectually.
I want a 7 hour version
Actually, this is the first Tarantino film in ages that I haven't found the post-modernism maddeningly distracting. I always forget what a great film-maker he is because I always end up thinking about the films he's referencing, rather than the film he's making, but I didn't this time around. And while the film is long, I can't think of anything I'd want to cut. In fact I could have done with it being twice as long; 3 hours for the film, and added to the beginning, another 3 hours of driving through the snow in Ultra Panavision 70.
If someone ever references Tarantino, will they be referencing Tarantino or referencing the film Tarantino was referencing?
it was missing shape shifting alien & flamethrower :)
I think this is one of his best films to be honest. And for me it wasn't too long at all, so yeah, opinions!
+Roonun That like, your opinion man.
Gaming Series I felt everything in the cabin was good except for the over the top violence, if he had toned that done he would have kept the suspense and I would have enjoyed myself rather than feel like the movie was a chore.
***** Only Tarantino knows how long it needed to be because it's his film.....Maybe....i don't know:P
+RetroMammoth If you say so man
***** ......
Tim Roth was playing Christopher woltz
Waltz was prolly shooting Tarzan while this was shooting.
Or Clive Warren.
it's not Tim who was playing Christoph Waltz it's Pete who was pretending to be an upper middle class Englishman called Oswaldo Mobray, you can see it at the end of the film when he breaks character while dying of a gunshot wound and starts speaking in his original cockney accent
@@NxDoyle Rebecca De Mornay was busy too
Correct
"a post-modern frisson, what is one of those?" - the kind of sentence you only hear in a Kermode & Mayo review
+maniq minah he must have heard Sean Lock use the word "frisson" in the 8 out of 10 cat Christmas special
It's like when Woody Allen grabs Marshall McCluhan from behind a screen to deflate a professor.
All of his flaws aside, I can almost always expect a spectacular film experience when I watch a Tarantino film.
Death Proof was one of the worst films I've ever seen. I suppose it all hangs on what is meant by "spectacular".
@@jimnewcombe7584 well, if you watch only 5 star masterpieces once in a year, Death Proof would turn out to be one of the worst films you ever saw!
Tarantino makes me angry. He ought to be producing masterpieces. I really hope we get at least one more great film from him one day.
+number94 He's never produced a masterpiece...
number94, why ‘ought’ other than you feel greedily entitled to great art?
I heard that there was going to be a follow on from Kill Bill featuring the daughter.
Once upon a time in hollywood
Strange how the humour in the film was not mentioned. The repeated door closing scenes brought some big laughs from the audience I was in.
One of Tarantino's better films, the final act is sublime, hilarious, cruel.
He's only made nine though! The first two and Inglourious Basterds (or however it's spelt) are the best. It wouldn't be difficult to name t least a dozen greater directors in the history of this relatively new art form.
I just love the way that the soundtrack is always spot on for his films. Went into the film a bit worried after seeing a few negative comments, they couldn't have been more wrong.
I watched the movie twice and I will watch it a third time. The scenery is just amazing and this tale is rich and well written.
*Kill Bill* is two films. I paid twice, it's two films. End of discussion.
I'm well aware of what he says. My wallet says differently.
+SpacePyjamas Well he did actually shoot it as one film, but split it into two..
Acharich Speaks
I think once he heard he could do it as two, he expanded a lot of stuff and made some changes.
+hanshotfirst1138 your wallet is irrelevant.
+Jesse Compton this brings up a very interesting discussion. I wished you would have elaborated more. People are so type lazy.
Kill bill had emotion. I cried when she finally got her baby back!
Yup. It was a deeply emotional and moving film.
Definitely needed 30 or so minutes trimmed off. I agree with Kermode that Tarantino needs someone that can reign him in but also in the way he portrays extreme violence, the end of the movie was just comical, it was almost slapstick. I was completely thrown out of the tense final moments, I even noticed some of the squibs were missed timed.
+TheDonBarracuda I keep thinking about his editor's death. I wonder if that would have made a difference.
Auntkekebaby I didn't hear about that!
TheDonBarracuda
Her name is Sally Menke. Maybe she was able to wrestle with Tarantino to tighten up. Every artist cradles their babies. An outside voice is sometimes needed to reel it in a bit.
+Auntkekebaby agreed
+TheDonBarracuda I don't think the extreme self-indulgence popped up in his movies until after Jackie Brown, which was the last one he wrote with someone else (I'm not sure if he wrote it with Avary or not but nonetheless it was an adaptation so he was bound to that story which probably helped keep him in line a bit). He's clearly a great talent I just don't think he has the discipline to do stuff like Pulp Fiction or Reservoir Dogs on his own. But he (inexplicably) still seems to be nominated for and win awards for every movie he does and he does really well at the box office so I don't think anything's gonna change
I thought Tim Roth’s accent was delightful 😁 Making a film that was almost all talk, and never dull, was quite an achievement.
It’s funny he called his British accent “preposterous” because Tim Roth is… British. Lol
@@daveyhavok1708 Yes, he is, but it's not like that's anywhere close to his real accent. Even the character is putting it on.
One of the only reasons I watched this film was because of the 65mm/70mm cinematography and Ennio Morricone's music. The film, which is a bit overlong, is not at all bad. However, it requires several viewings in order to reveal itself.
'let's slow it waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay down'.
'a post- modern frisson ' sounds like a dish from Heston Blumenthal
I love the dialogue!
dialogue is what makes a movie for me the more that I get the more I like I thought this movie was too short!
Tarantino is like that genius auteur kid - an enfant terrible even. Ever since his first film the guy has demonstrated absolute brilliance. But he never grew up. He never matured as an artist. He falls back on his strengths and never challenged himself. Which is a bit frustrating. And he's becoming way too self indulgent of late. Which is very disappointing.
For me The Hateful Eight is Tarantino's worst film.
Good observation. Jean Renior had stated a theory that every filmmaker ends up making the same film after their first one to some degree. To me what bothers me about most of Quentin's post Jackie Brown work is that he chose to go back in time with his stories, but used similar dialogue patterns. That had worked very well in the modern context of his first 3 films, but to me it seems to be too contrived in his recent "historical" films. To me, on the other end of the spectrum, the Coen Brothers pull off their obscurities in old world contexts verses modern. Which, by the way I'm very excited for their latest film next month :]
Deathpoof is a horrendous film.
+poontang3zizo Bravo. You're on point.
You should watch it again. Better the 2nd time around.... Quentin makes b movies for the mainstream this is what everyone seems to forget. No filmmaker is like him currently and that's why he is special. Some try and copy him but they do not have the charm or dialogue in there films. When he stops making films it's gonna be very boring. This film was in his top 3 and is 3 times better then the basic Revenant which is gonna win Oscars. My only complaint about The Hateful Eight was that it was overly violent really. This was his most violent film I think or I was more effected by the violence in this film then his other films for some reason.
You should watch it again. Better the 2nd time around.... Quentin makes b movies for the mainstream this is what everyone seems to forget. No filmmaker is like him currently and that's why he is special. Some try and copy him but they do not have the charm or dialogue in there films. When he stops making films it's gonna be very boring. This film was in his top 3 and is 3 times better then the basic Revenant which is gonna win Oscars. My only complaint about The Hateful Eight was that it was overly violent really. This was his most violent film I think or I was more effected by the violence in this film then his other films for some reason.
I thought it was one of Tarantino's more enjoyable films, though I at least partly agree with Mark. While it didn't feel too long, in the sense that it never really dragged for me, he may be right in the sense that it might have been a better film if it was shortened.
Completely agree with mark about the violence being affectless. It would be alright for a 90 minute movie, but not for a 3 hour film
My favourite Tarantino film. If not one of my favourite movies…period. Endless rewatching ability for me. Love everything about it.
Really interesting point as far as the characters not simply having their own voices, but being Tarantino's voice imprinted on other people. It strikes me that in his best films, like Inglourious Basterds and Pulp Fiction, there's a genuine sense that the characters maintain their own sense of self (Bruce Willis, Christoph Waltz and Brad Pitt as big examples). I like The Hateful Eight, but it's easily his worst as far as forcing everyone to use his own voice.
I like the 4 hour extended version actually. I laughed at “Bob” at one point while he was plucking the chicken. The wide angle interior and exterior shots were fantastic. I enjoy the surface of the piece. Yes there are a lot of similarities and almost references to other films but I found those kind of nice too. My only gripe with Tarantino is his frequent assumption that I actually want to figure out implied (unseen) dialogues that set up a current conversation between characters. For example: the discussion of “the Lincoln letter” started by oswaldo mobrey upon meeting Chris Mannix. At what point did someone mention the Lincoln letter to him? I try to imagine writing that scene in my head and can’t see Domergue or the Hangman mentioning it him.
I went to see it yesterday and thought it was very good. A tense build -up to the almighty, bloody finale. Ennio Morricone's score was superb too. Found myself humming it on the way home.Why can't films take their time and give you your moneys worth.
This hasn't ended up one of his more popularly liked entries but I have to say it's one of my favourites from among his films, and I think this touched on why. I think he does the Reservoir Dogs thing really well. And... this was basically that. And I like that, and I liked this. Didn't feel too long to me. I think different viewers are affected in different ways by length... you can be more on the side of a long length being a bad thing in and of itself, or you can be more on the side of length being completely scaled according to how much you're engaged by it. We're all somewhere between those extremes. Neither's better or more correct than the other, it's just preferences. I think I'm quite a lot on the latter end of the scale. I can stand an enormously long thing if I felt I got something out of it, but I can't put up with even a moderately long thing if by the end of it I felt my time was wasted. I guess some people got that thought from this film, I didn't I suppose. If I made films myself I'd almost certainly make stuff people hated for being too long, because in all art you don't create for an audience, you create for yourself and hope an audience attaches itself to it, since to do anything else is nothing more than insincere guesswork.
Having said all that I'm not immune to the guy's flaws. I do find the style of his stuff quite grating at times. I still think Dogs is his best.
Every Tarantino film I have seen has stuck with me ever since. Not the greatest films I have ever seen, but easily modern day classics, especially this masterpiece. I don't think people realise how hard it is to make a 3 hour film built on shear dialogue. There is only 1 major setting, and the characters give alot of exposition. However the film didn't feel 3 hours, yes it was long, but by no means did I get bored. I'd give it an 8/10 for sure. The writing took the trophy for me, easily the element that made the film so memorable.
I'm usually inline with Marks reviews, but I have to disagree with his issue over how long it is. Really didn't bother me at all. I was completely captivated from beginning to end. Watched the Panavision version at Odeon, London Leicester Square, been a while since I had a good quality film experience like this, amazing! Tarantino is one of the few proper film makers still around.
I saw it it 70mm. It looked great. I hope they do this with other films in the future. I didn't think it was too long. It was paced very well and the performances keep your attention throughout.
I'd love to hear Mark's suggestions about what scene or dialogue to cut from the movie to make it shorter, because every single scene means something. For the life of me I could not suggest losing one minute of the movies run time.
most of tim roth and michael madsen scenes could be cut. sam jackson stage coach scene, zoe bell scene, guitar scene, lincoln letter at dinner scene could all be trimmed
When they lay the line to the outhouse, for one. It's never important and we don't need to see them do it. There's at least 10 or 15 minutes of stuff like that. There's a blizzard, we get it. If the guide line isn't coming back, why spend so much time establishing it.
@@trinityj1 It's kind of amazing how the movie spends so much time setting up details like the outhouse line and the broken door latch and then it never ends up doing anything with them. We get an entire scene of one character going out into the cold, traveling to the outhouse and back, and then collapsing down next to the fireplace because he's nearly frozen to death. We get two scenes that play out in real-time of people entering the haberdashery through the front door and having to painstakingly nail the door shut each time. Perhaps the most egregious example is the hidden trapdoor to the basement cellar. The pay-off for that ends up being that Sam Jackson gets shot in the balls. For me, the movie really devolved after the intermission. Such a letdown that Tarantino didn't even use these elements once the bloodbath finally kicked off.
I did not think this film was to long at all. The build-up as the passenges were picked helped to make the film. It's pure entertainment.
If the dialogue was bad, i’d agree. But it’s poetry. I’ll listen to poetry accompanied with beautiful imagines for 3 hours any day.
LOL Have you actually read any poetry?
It's absolutely farcical at points. I don't know if I would call it outright "bad" but it surely isn't poetry either.
Saw the "Roadshow" version of this and while it's way too long I still loved it.
I have great respect for Kermode but I can't help believing that all professional critics are far too involved with the subject to give an average audience opinion. When I watch a film it is usually with an open expectation of an enjoyable experience, not a view taken with a magnifying glass. That said I loved this film, it took me on a ride that I was sad to get off. Critics seem to leave the cinema remembering the negatives, I leave full of the positives.
I thoroughly enjoyed this one. In my opinion it was a big step up from Django and Inglourious Basterds and felt like a return to form reminding me of Reservoir Dogs and Pulp Fiction.
Definitely could have been shorter and I understand your criticisms and actually agree with some but I really liked it how it was too. Maybe I'm biased because I'm a huge fan of Quentin's but I suppose it all comes down to personal taste.
+Lemonhead118 for me it might work better viewed at home on Blu, viewed in chunks or 'episodes'. I think each chapter is quite good if considered on their own.. but that defeats the object if it can't hold my attention as a whole movie. I agreed with Mark, just over-indulgent, even for Tarantino and in need of some sharp editing and reigning in. As a movie's it's a blazing mess.. so disappointed in spite of some good moments and fine performances.
I want it to be longer. I have watched the extended version of once upon a time in america with no breaks lol. This is nothing.
+Lemonhead118 you're absolutely correct.
Oddly enough, I find myself totally at odds with Mark on this one. I've always enjoyed Tarantino's overindulgence in dialogue, and aside from the late-movie flashback that didn't seem to add much until I reflected on it later, I didn't think the length (with the intermission, of course) was an issue at all.
To address his larger issue, I don't think for one second that the film's self-indulgent surface ever forgets about its thematic underpinning. Various characters' reactions to the Lincoln letter mark key turning points in the movie, and the last chapter of the movie makes the entire films thematic statement pretty pointedly: that people who hate one another can only get along by passing their hatred off onto a common enemy (shown through Minnie's "no Mexicans" sign and the lynching of Daisy Domargue).
Agree 100%. To me this is Tarantino's most substantive movie.
I've been listening to movie reviewers for months now. I thought there were several who were good.
This guy's casual recant of this movie blows them all away.
In summary, narcissism prevents artistic maturity and creating masterpieces. Brilliance can encounter road blocks and Tarentino hasn't found a way around his own personality.
As a huge Tarantino fan I completely agree with this
Two things: The cinematography and the music. Excellent.
Spot on. For me, all the characters ended up talking in the same "Tarantino" tough-guy-speech talk, and in doing so lose their individual character. I became emotionally detached from the film and did not care about any of the characters towards the end, they were all the same and it became predictable. Then it started resorting to violence for the sake of humour, which defused all the tension.
Disappointing and a shame, imo.
violence for the sake of humour? thats interesting. the violence is a result of all the tension that's built up. Your detachment is probably what made you feel this way. I mean they were all having that tough guy speech cuz thats exactly how those characters are. Most of them were bandits or racist. To each their own right.
I mean you would think that a cabin for of bounty hunters and killers would have a few tough guys don’t you?
Didn't think they were all the same or talked the same way. Tim Roth's character wasn't a tough-talking one (at least when disguising himself as Oswaldo Mobray). I thought Bob the Mexican was funny as hell because he was obviously such a bad "actor" and suspicious from the very start. Great performance by Damian Bichir!
I loved it. Think it'll be judged as one of his best over repeat viewers
+Pixel Power Not at all. Jackie Brown has become seen at QTs finest because the more you watch it the more you like it. Nobody in 97 was trumpeting it as his best. Same for Inglorious, a lot of people were very 'meh' about it, but over the years it has grown in stature. I think over the repeat viewings people will appreciate it more, especially when watching at home where the length isn't as intense shall we say. Anyway I could be wrong, just an opinion
+Rigsby 1 To be honest the more I watched JB the more I disliked it. It overlong. Should have been 1hr 40mins. Pulp Fiction is in my opinion his very best work. It's OTT Tarantino but perfectly formed. After PF I like DU because it was fun. IB & KB outlive their welcome. I know DU isn't perfect but at least I had a blast with it. Mark Kermode is right. QT is self indulgent & it stops him from being as good as he could be.
+Chris Johnson That's fair. His films can be quite divisive even to people who like him. I personally preferred Inglorious to Django which is the one film of his I'm in no real hurry to watch again.
+Rigsby 1 Agree
Jackie Brown is his least entertaining film
Simon: "Why would you ignore Four Rooms?"
Me: My god, why wouldn't you ignore Four Rooms?
Great film that flowed well with me. Kept me engaged - would make a good stage play too. Kermode is bang on the money about Tarantino though - he creates movies that are nearly magnificent but leave you feeling frustrated.
I had the pleasure of seeing the 70mm Roadshow version in all of it's 2:76:1 scope glory and it was gorgeous.
Thanks to the team at the home of 70mm projection in Victoria. The Astor Theatre in St Kilda. The last classic single screen (Big Scope Screen) cinema left in Melbourne.
I agree with Mr Kermode that the dialogue could easily have been cut by thirty to forty minutes without anything being lost.
However, given the talent behind and in front of the camera. What's so bad about a display of self indulgence? Given the insulting, vapid nature of 90% of Hollywood cinema.
I enjoyed the film more on a technical than a narrative level. By pure coincidence,just a few days before seeing the film I'd pulled out a DVD of Richard Schickel's restoration of Samuel Fuller's, "The Big Red One" (1980,1999). So when i saw a certain bit of iconography in the opening moments of "The Hateful Eight" that echoed the opening and another key moment in Fuller's film, I pretty much knew what I was in for. That and the obivious allusions to John Carpenter's "The Thing" (1982). Allusions, uh, ok right out lifts in certain scenes. If you've seen and enjoyed the film, I recommend you take a look at "The Big Red One" and enjoy a great performance from Lee Marvin. He would of sorted these guys out easily.
He finds it hard to connect emotionally with one of the hateful 8. Wow. Great review, Ringo.
Instead of wasting 12 min to get to know that QT films are too long and in surface, I'd rather wasting 3 hrs on QT films to be entertained!
Tarantino is inspired by other films, Kermode dwells on any connection to other films. I often chime with Kermode, but his misfiring of Tarantino reviewing (and his total disregard of video games as a medium at any extend) really grinds my gears.
I loved the lighting inside the cabin and did become invested in the Young Confederate soon to become sheriff and the Union officer and the relationship between them that adapts and culminates with the pair of them fighting evil.
Absolutely loved this movie, saw it at the cinema and never got bum ache once, and actually laughed out loud at times. Then went home and thought about it for a couple of days.
Ole Mary Todd is calling, so I guess it’s time for bed!😴
Hi could i say my first gauge of a good film is i cant wait to see it again.I know it seems a bit simple but this film did it.
Mark has been disappointed by Tarantino more often than not recently, but all credit to him for providing this long and thoughtful review.
Enjoyed this movie a lot. In my opinion the length is a plus to this film and gave some unexpected pacing. It gives the viewer the opportunity to really settle into this surrounding. I had a feeling like I was going to spend a couple of days with these characters just as they thought them selves. And you don't see things coming, it keeps you guessing till the very end.
Pulp Fiction, Jackie Brown! Will we ever see films like you again!?
Jackie Brown his best film
Just seen this.Much more brooding, atmospheric and interesting than his recent efforts. Definitely warrants a rewatch on dvd when it comes out. It is however too long, and I saw the shortened version. Flawed but excellent.
Also, does anyone agree with the argument that Jackie Brown is the Tarantino movie for those who don't like Tarantino movies? A very solid and rather cool movie but I feel it lacks some of the Tarantino wild brilliance we see in some of his more hit and miss efforts.
+Davross I've never heard that argument before but I think the "Tarantinoisms" that Jackie Brown lacks are probably down to it being an adaptation of the book Rum Punch. I also think one of the reasons Kermode hasn't been as much of a fan of QT post Jackie Brown is because he believed in that film QT seemed a more mature film-maker. However when Jackie Brown didn't have the same success as Reservoir Dogs or Pulp Fiction, he retreated into the pastiche/homage/rip-off (pick one) tactics that made him famous to begin with.
Yeah I'd forgotten how much of a dissapointment Jackie Brown was at the time, it was only after repeated viewings that I learned to appreciate it. Coming after the atg Pulp Fiction (still his best imo) many people, and myself included, were rather underwhelmed by the rather conventional feel of JB.
He's only made good films. And this was one of the best. It was riveting the whole way thru.
This is an excellent review by Mark. Since Kill Bill, a Tarantino is style over substance, a template that doesn't allow one to get emotionally invested in the characters. As a result, the violence will always end up feeling cartoonesque and, though enjoyable on a stylistic level, it lacks emotional impact. I've come to accept it as QTs hallmark. Matter of fact, I think it contributes to why his films can be watched over and over again. And indeed, usually I find myself rewatching set pieces more than entire films. Still, one of the very few directors who's work I will always gladly pay that ticket for.
5:15 mark talks about Daisy getting punched its nothing compared to the scene in True Romance when James Gandolfini beats up Patricia Arquette
Great film, all the best bits from Reservoir Dogs and Django Unchained rolled into one. 9/10
not a patch on The Great Silence
I always enjoy the Tarantino movies because he is self indulgent. How many directors today have that luxury?? In an age where streaming cinema is becoming as formulated as a cereal box it's nice to be taken away from the norm. Real cinema.
+JAKE MOO True. Whatever QT's flaws, his films are distinctive. Most mainstream cinema, even if I find much of it watchable or enjoyable, is very "cookie-cutter" - all these Marvel superhero films being one example that springs to mind.
Wut... too long? Me and my friends as we left the cinema had one single complaint about the movie. It should have been longer. The suspense and excitement was there the whole movie. Dialogue and acting was fantastic imo. Wasn't bored for a second, which is a massive achievement imo considering the amount of dialogue.
The length criticism is something I get, but do not agree with in the case of Tarantino's films. Personally, I love QT's characters and the dialogue they speak. Another hr would've pleased me. But I wish that Mark and UK audiences could experience the road show version of the film where there is not only a 12 min intermission, but has an overture and is projected in 70mm. Those that are complaining about time would benefit from an intermission.
+halfasianAL i dont mind a long film if I find it engaging for the whole length. I thought the hateful eight was ok but not good enough to justify its length. the scene where Tarantino narrates is as tedious as the scene in Django where he plays an Australian. I'm certain this film would have been better if it was shorter. There's some stuff to really like in this film, but the gratuitous nature of the gore just seemed out of place and really took me out of the film. He's a great director, and I love many of his films but he really needs to be more disciplined and less self indulgent.
Fair enough. The scene you describe with QT doing the VO, I get what you mean. Your point reinforces my own. That exact scene is where the film picks up from the Intermission. At the length it runs, a break is totally warranted. But I do disagree with your criticism in regards to indulgence and discipline. I would much rather see films made with a definite authorship over material than simply meeting typical demands of fitting art into an allotted box. I think it's refreshing to see a film with such singular vision come out of Hollywood. Nolan's INTERSTELLAR is another that comes to mind along with PTA's THERE WILL BE BLOOD. It's rare to see pure 'director's films' created from the studio system. Is it indulgent? Possibly, yeah. But I applaud the ambition by these filmmakers. If you have the opportunity to see HATEFUL in it's roadshow format, take it. Cheers.
Jennifer Jason Leigh steals this. Great performance.
This is actually my 2nd favourite movie of all time, and I thought it was his best. Whenever I finish this movie, I always want to watch it again right after. Just a testament to how good this movie is. And sam should have won that oscar. I'll stop gushing now XD
@melagkomas20 I don't know man, it just had everything I loved in it, a great story, great characters, an amazing cast, wonderful cinematography and more. I just think it's so underrated. And yes, I can see how it's a little jarring that this is my second favorite movie, but I just love it. Sorry if you don't like my opinion.
Anyone who is honest and has followed his career would see that he has gradually become more and more self indulgent over the years. You could actually say it started post Pulp Fiction.
Death Proof was not the wake up call it might have been and as long as his movies continue to make money he can pretty much do what he wants. It will be interesting to see how his movies fare in 20-30 years time. How many will hold up well?
Pulp Fiction is for me Tarantino's masterpiece & I simply cannot ever see him making anything better. If he were making it today it would run for at least six hours & have to be split into two films. The whole Royale With Cheese / Big Kahuna Burger scene would be at least an hour long.
Shame Mark didn't comment on the use of slow-mo during pretty much every gunfight; it was unusual for Tarantino, who usually goes for blindingly realtime bullet flying, and I found it highly effective.
Hateful 8 started out promisingly but ending up just rambling to its conclusion almost feeling like a lesser director attempting to do Tarantino.
You could say that around half of his output is overlong but for the most part he has had great success so has been able to fall back on that but imo Inglorious, Django and H8 were all overlong and would have definitely benefited from some scissor work, maybe even Jackie Brown as well.
In particular I think Django suffered the most as with a tighter running time it could have been great instead of just being good.
I really enjoyed the film. The interval was great as you could discuss what you thought was in store.....the red jelly bean on the floor!
I agree with Mark's criticisms, although my net opinion was more positive. It's very close to being a masterpiece if it was trimmed down and had a slight shift in focus, but as it is it's a decently entertaining show if you enjoy the dialogue and the violence and a crude and morbid exercise in nihilism if you don't enjoy those aspects. Personally I lean towards the former camp but even I thought the violence was a bit much on my first viewing. I'll probably see it again in the theatrical cut (although I think I might miss the intermission and overture). We'll see if my thoughts change at all
I think Mark Kermode is one of the few critics I feel are worth listening to. The mark of a good critic is while you might not necessarily agree with them, but they always have an intelligent point to bring up, and he makes a valid point about the treatment of Daisy Domergue.
She is just as bad and nasty as the other male characters (Tarantino even likened her to Susan Atkins), and John Ruth as a character has a reputation for brutality, and would probably have treated a male prisoner in exactly the same way. Tarantino does treat his characters equally callously, and gender bears no relevance here. Another example being Kill Bill. A lot of movies with kick-ass women in it, you're always aware at the back of your head that they look pretty damn glamourous despite being in a brutal fight, but Uma Thurman gets absolutely SOAKED in blood, like a male action star probably would.
Although the film as a whole paled in comparison to Django Unchained and it did drag in places, the 70mm experience was AMAZING. Good watch overall.
I thought it was just bad storytelling: why did Russels character suddenly know about the fact that there was someone there who wanted to help the woman? Why was there a dramatic need for Jackson to do his speech? In True Romance Hopper can't lie and will be tortured to the point of giving up the location of his son, so he does the only thing left; commit suicide by insulting Walkens character to the point that he kills him. No such character need here. And why that flashback scene at the end (and film it as it it was terribly tens while it was a bunch of armed men against unarmed women and an old man). And if (NO SPOILER) the end is as it turned out, why did they not act sooner? It all just made no sense on any character and story level. Never did it have the intensity or cleverness of say the first scene in Basterds.
I think it could've made for a brilliant 90 minute movie. But now it's like 3 hours and okay.
Andrew Watt
It does seem like this concept could work wonderfully.
I really like movies that are build on a simple concept mostly taking place in a single location and some of the movies get the added thing of almost playing out in real time which all can work great. Like a very tight constructed whole.
So I can see this turning great with an edit. Maybe even a fan edit.
Tarantino in a nutshell.
I was looking forward to Hateful 8 and while I didn't think it was bad at all, I do think that it could have been alot better. I also think that Bone Tomahawk released that same year, was the film that hateful 8 could have been.
John Carpenter's The Thing. That's exactly what I was thinking. Especially with Russell's beard.
Kermode's views on Tarantino match mine completely. Stunning, awesome, mesmerising, witty style over sneering, off-hand, post modernist, witty substance. Very little humanity and empathy. Still looking forward to seeing the film though.
Seems like Kermode gave Tarantino a fair review. I'll admit that I haven't seen this film, but I totally agree that, whilst Reservoir Dogs was great, Django Unchained was way too indulgent, and it totally lost all meaning towards the end of the film.
It looks like Tarantino made the same mistake with this one.
I agree about Django, one of his lesser films imho, but I liked the Hateful 8 a lot better. What did you think after all?
the post-modern self-referential bit made me think of that shot in Django Unchained when there is a super fast zoom to DiCaprio turning around. when the trailer for django played before prometheus, that part a lot oflaughs cause it's like, "oh cool it's Leo DiCaprio that's funny " I think Tarantino relies on it a bit much these days he needs to just make a straight laced move no gimmicks
Mark is entitled to his opinion, and I respect many of his observations. However he gave
a glowing review to "Spectre", which I thought was truly awful. Not a patch on "Casino Royale".
I'll watch "The Hatefui Eight" , and draw my own conclusions.
I just got back from seeing it this afternoon. Had several really good parts in it, but I think on the whole there were far too many copied bits from Django Unchained, a far superior film in my opinion.
I pretty much agree with Mark on this one, I enjoyed parts of the film but it was long, self-indulgent and lacked true emotional resonance
totally agree about the length and the over talking in the beginning. Was very meh for the first 30 mins too.
I honestly didn't feel like the movie was that long. It felt like a regular 2 hour film to me. I was having a lot of fun in the theater watching this film. But opinions are opinions.
I agree with him about post Jackie brown the films lacking the emotional connection, but I think Django is different - you do care about him and his wife, and when he rescues her you do feel emotion. I did, I was cheering him on
Django is good up to the point where Tarantino appears. He could easily have lost that last 30 minutes.
@@humblescribe8522 yeah it’s pacing there is odd, but for me the ending where he rescues his lady and they ride of together is an emotional experience that I don’t ever normally get with a Tarantino film. I love them but i don’t feel emotionally invested in them, but I am cheering on Django every time
The good doctor was spot on here
As with all film critics, their opinions are just that, the opinion of one person so they can't possibly pretend to speak for the masses. Mark Kermode seems to dislike every film i've ever managed to endure listening to a review about by him so he clearly has different tastes and seems to fixate on things that really do not matter. If I was a film critic critic then i'd probably be saying that Mark Kermode runs on way too long as well and needs reigning in.
Fair review - couldn't argue with any point Mark raised.
I didn’t finish it. Dialogue for dialogues sake. Input designed to shock for the sake of shocking without being overly relevant to the scattered plot. I honestly couldn’t or didn’t care about how any of the characters developed individually or collectively. The story lacked cohesion and pace. The association that occurs between light humour and casual violence in a real life setting was wholly unrealistic. Especially when it interacts, between, and in the presence of total strangers.
“Once Upon a Time in Hollywood” it was worth the wait. Quite possibly his greatest work to date.
I think it’s a great great film, I take his point about not emotionally connecting with them, but I think what sustains it is the story itself - who is lying? Who are the bad guys and who are the good guys? I think all the stuff in the haberdashery works great. I agree it takes too long to get there- those lingering shots of the stage coach could be shorter
I agree with his main point about Tarantino - no one seems to tell him no. I thought Once Upon A Time... was far too self indulgent and over long, it needed a lot of trimming. But I think The Hateful 8 works better than that does
I think the "postmodern frisson" to which Kermode refers may extend to Tarantino's title for his film. Tarantino advertises that this is his 8th film (if one considers KB 1+2 a single film) although as Mayo asks, "What about Four Rooms"? Is this then Tarantino's 8 1/2 film? If so, this leads me to wonder whether in calling his 8th film The Hateful Eight, is he referring as much to his own directorial filmography? Applying Fellini's approach to his 8 1/2 film, which is a self-aware biographical modernist journey into a filmmaker's anxieties about his own persona and creative process (and much more), is Tarantino playing with a similar form of self-reflection? Is this why he returns to his first film without so much as a shrug? I have no answers.