The Hateful Eight 70mm Roadshow [open spoilers]

There is another thread about this movie that looks like it’s getting derailed into a debate about piracy. Now that the movie is actually released, maybe we can have a thread talking about the film?

Has anyone seen the 70mm release of the movie?

I saw the 70mm version yesterday and thought it was excellent. Not the best Tarantino film, but an awesome film still. If you love Tarantino this film will not disappoint. It’s funny, suspenseful, and very violent. The dialogue and acting are wonderful, and Samuel L Jackson is wonderful, as always. Walter Goggins actually was more wonderful than he normally is.

The 70mm film and wide aspect ratio definitely contributed to the viewing experience. The shots of the wagon traveling in the snow looked spectacular. I don’t know if it helped the indoor scenes where most of the film took place, but I’m glad I saw it in 70mm rather than the general release.

The best scene was probably the scene before the intermission. My theater broke out in applause after the scene ended. 'A captivating tale of black dicks and white mouths" was how the narrator described it.

I caught this early yesterday evening. The whole ‘experience’ aspect definitely added something - we saw it at a historic theater with a full audience of the types of people who would go out of their way to see this. I loved the first half: from the Overture through the scene right before the intermission you mentioned, everything built beautifully to that first-half climax. I was a bit more hit or miss with the second half; it worked, but I wasn’t as completely captivated. Walton Goggins really stood out for me as the best performance. I don’t know if I’ll go out of my way to rewatch this one, but it was Tarantino top to bottom and I’m really happy I saw it.

Excellent movie, I especially liked the fact that we got programs. Looked wonderful and I had no idea where the movie was going at any time.

The Hateful Eight is one of the best films I’ve ever seen. I’ve watched it three times now. It was absolutely “rivetting” every single second.

I especially love the performance of Jennifer Jason Leigh. There is one scene where she foolishly tells the bounty hunter, “When you get to Hell, tell them Daisy sent you”. He then grabbed a pair of handcuffs and began to put them on her.

She cried out, “No. No. No. No” and he slugged her in the mouth and replied, “Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes.”. That had to be my favorite moment in the film.

There’s almost no one who can write and direct a film better than QT.

There is a theater in downtown Toronto showing it in 70mm. I hope to see it this week.

I saw the 70mm version on the 25th. I went in expecting a QT movie and that’s what I got. I was entertained from beginning to end. But…

The showing I went to had a projection issue of some kind. Part of the screen was just slightly out of focus*. It wasn’t bad enough for me to ask for my money back, but it sort of ruined the whole reason for seeing it 70mm!

I read that the premier in LA had projection issues and that other theaters had problems – some of them had to finish the screening by using the digital version. The IDEA of a 70mm roadshow is great, but if the theater owners can’t reliably present the film in that format, it isn’t worth it.
*after the movie I joked to my brother that Jennifer almost always seemed to be in focus, while Kurt always seemed to be just a wee bit blurry around the edges.

I think that all the 70mm did, from a functional standpoint, was prevent them from using any CGI. Otherwise, the film didn’t look any better than a modern film nor any more immersive. Instead, the picture didn’t fit the screen fully and rather than have a rough edge on both top and bottom, our theater chose to raise the image to the top of their screen, so at least the top was a hard line, but the bottom was still a fade-off. That made it slightly annoying, that the focal point was slightly higher on the screen than normal. But more noticeable was that any light colors flickered noticeably. And so any scenes with snow were obviously flickering as you watched.

The first half or two-thirds of the movie seemed good. I felt like the dialogue was less clever than Tarantino’s usual and instead was simply expository and so the scenes seemed a bit long, compared to the payoff. But, the characters were interesting and it did a good job of building up tension and working towards a decent Agatha Christie style who-gunna-do-it.

But then in the second part of the movie, all of the murder-mystery tension goes out the door and instead it turns into a slow blood fest. Not an exciting one, just a few overly-dramatic deaths one by one, with over-the-top blood and exploding head effects that seemed too cheesy to mesh well with the fairly serious tone that everything else had.

We also get a sudden and complete reveal of who everyone is, pretty early into the latter chunk of the movie. And that revelation basically tells us that the first two people to have died are really the only characters that anyone would want to root for in the whole movie. So the rest of the killings, besides being not terribly action-packed and a bit silly, are also all of people we don’t like against other people we don’t like. Watching a bunch of people that you don’t care about kill another bunch of people you don’t care about isn’t very thrilling.

And despite all of the exposition in the movie dialogue, we don’t actually get a very good sense for any of the characters. They all either remain mostly unexplained or display heavily conflicting attributes depending on what the story needs and what Tarantino thinks would be humorous for a second.

Kurt Russel’s character is presented, throughout the movie, as very cautious and suspicious, making all the right choices to try and keep on top of the situation that he’s in. But then he’s caught out as a gullible fool. The characters make a small to-do about his being more moral and just than everyone else, but then he keeps beating on Daisy rather than just tying her hands behind her back and gagging her.

Samuel L. Jackson’s character is presented as a capable and discerning badass, as well as extra canny, who initially seems to like to stay silent, keep his thoughts to himself, and ambush people. But then he turns into the world’s biggest show-off, braggart, and troll. From his latter behavior, it seems implausible that he would ever have survived to the age he seems to be regardless of how smart he may be. He seems to revel in pissing people off and doing it big and loud, where lots of other people would get pissed off as well. That just doesn’t come off as plausible. He also appears to know everything there is to know about the Habidashery and, while maybe not certain who is good and who is bad, pretty confident from early on that there’s a real threat hidden there. Yet he never checks the basement. We’ve also seen that he can set up a clean kill at need, so it makes no sense that he wouldn’t take out the Mexican, who it seems that he had enough information to know was a danger pretty soon in. His cautious investigative style and brash, inflammatory styles are at complete odds.

Walter Goggin’s character is ambivalently displayed as racist or not-really-caring-about-race-too-much depending on the moment and is basically incidental and not terribly smart, capable, nor confident until the last 10 minutes of the film. But then his personality transitions into something else entirely, for the purposes of the plot, but it is displayed for such a short period of time that I couldn’t really say what it is.

And Daisy basically never seems to gain a personality through the whole thing despite quite a bit of opportunity. Does she sort of vaguely enjoy getting beat up? Maybe she’s a masochist, or maybe she’s buying time and plotting. Except she never really shows either. She cackles in joy once she might have the upper hand and makes a decent last speach, but never seemed particularly crafty before that point.

No one else ever given any background, except as a bunch of murder-loving bad guys.[/spoiler]

Tarantino seemed to be resistant to revealing anything about the character’s pasts which could properly flesh them out for us, except via expository dialogue. He wastes his one flashback to reveal what had happened in the haberdashery before everyone got there, all of which gave no amazing revelations (yes, the General’s presence is explained, but he could just as easily have arrived later). If you cut down on the expository dialogue and kill that scene, you could easily have added a few flashbacks into the early life of the characters, to reveal more about their personalities and properly flesh them out. Even the ones who were baddies all along, it should have been possible to show snippets from their past which would present them as one thing, but make sense in a different light after the reveal. You don’t need to refrain from flashbacks entirely, even in a movie where people are lying about who they are.

The choice of Ennio Morricone for the music worked brilliantly. The movie starts off kicking ass by simply letting Ennio’s music play. But then Tarantino ruins this by intermixing some modern selections into the score, which doesn’t work very well when swapping back and forth with Ennio’s music.

Overall, I’m glad to see Tarantino go a slightly different direction, with trying to do something more like Ten Little Indians and less 70s Exploitation. But, ultimately, he wasn’t able to maintain it. The characterization was off; the pacing was off; the tone was inconsistent; the dialogue was long-winded; and Ennio Morricone’s musical abilities were partially wasted.

The movie was enjoyable. I’ve certainly seen worse. But it easily could have been much better. Most of the flaws seem to relate to Tarantino’s inability to restrain himself from being himself. Regardless of tone, characterization-to-moment, or whatever else, if it got in the way of some clever cinematic moment he’d conjured up, deprived him of a head explosion, or whatever else then so be it. I’d probably vote that the movie seems to indicate that he has too many yes-men and fanboys around him. He needed a few people giving him real, critical feedback.

Umm… I find it interesting that this was your favorite part.

I saw the roadshow at the Music Box here in Chicago. They had installed a brand new 70mm screen and new sounds system and it looked and sounded amazing. The film fit the screen perfectly.

Loved the movie. Want to see it again.

Patton Oswalt was at the same screening I was at and told me afterwards that he loved it.

I’m seeing in on Thursday. I can’t wait. It has been a long time since I’ve been to a movie with an intermission.

I just got back. It was the first Tarantino movie I’ve ever seen and I greatly enjoyed it. I went to the 70mm showing because, well, because I could.

Envy. I should have seen it at the Music Box. I was there on Monday to see the documentary Hitchcock/Truffaut and peeked in the big theater where H8 was playing. It looked great and there was a big crowd there too, surprising for a Monday, but not surprising for this. Instead, I saw it Tuesday, normally a discount day, at Century Evanston. I paid full price which I expected, but it was on a normal-sized screen in a smallish theater! “70mm” my ass. I liked it but after it was over I thought, I never need to see this again. Now I’m re-thinking and might go see it again where I should have gone in the first place, the Music Box.

Cool. What night was that? What’s he doing in Chicago?

One thing, did I miss something? For as big a deal Major made of how much Minnie hated Mexicans, she didn’t bat an eye or say a word to/about Mexican Bob when he came in with the others.

Key question I don’t believe was addressed in the film:

What happened to the cat?

Story wise, two things stuck out to me that may not be issues on a second viewing:

  1. (As mentioned above) Minnie didn’t appear to have any problem with a Mexican in her haberdashery.

  2. In the first half Mannix asks Oswaldo if he’s heading to Red Rock to hang some specific person. Oswaldo says he is and Mannix asks if he has some piece of documentation. Assuming I am remembering that right I thought Oswaldo said he did and then half a scene later we saw him showing it to Mannix.

Either that’s really weird, or I completely screwed that up in my watching it.

I don’t think 70mm added much, at least not in my projection. Love the aspect ratio but that can be accomplished with digital just as easily. I will admit that I’ve gotten used to flicker and jitter so it was nice to see that again (but not so nice I want it all the time) but it seemed so obvious early on I was wondering if QT added it to the actual film.

Then once it moved in doors I don’t think the aspect ratio added anything at all.

Generally I liked it while watching it but must say that by the end I don’t quite understand why it existed beyond just being a display of brutality. I know that’s always in QT movies but usually I feel there’s a bit more intention behind it than I got this time. Maybe additional viewings will reveal it.

I saw the Roadshow version last night. Local mall multiplex. Nice stadium theater but not the old-school with balcony and curtains, etc.

Good solid B. I’ve always really liked Tarantino’s films. I can handle a movie where people sit around and talk for two+ hours without resorting to CGI or car chases, as long as the dialog is clever and interesting. And The Hateful Eight held my interest for sure.

The movie did remind me of a cross between an Agatha Christie mystery, John Carpenter’s The Thing, and a short story I read as a kid set up in the Klondike(?) about “someone in this cabin is a murderer” and the protagonist has to figure out the clues before he is the next victim. (Possibly a Jack London story???).

Having said all that, this movie is one that I don’t see a lot of DVD rewatch value in. I was on the edge of my seat wondering “who’s in on it?” and who was lying and about what. Now that all that is settled out, I’m not sure it’s worth another 3 hour time investment. However, if the DVD has mega bonus features, I’ll get it b/c I respect and am fascinated with Tarantino’s approach to filmmaking.

Me too, agreed! I decided to skip the NYE festivities and do an 8:00 show of this. It was at least 2/3 full.

It was superbly acted overall. And I loved to 70 mm too much! Instead of just turning your eyes, you need to turn your head sometimes. I missed it so much from some childhood days. It really brings you into the film.

Really well timed and acted especially when JJL plays her song as the coffee is made and poured while the men come in and nail the door shut. (The door nailing bit was really funny too.) The closeup executions were absolutely disgusting and jarring, but I’m a sucker for that Tarantino stuff anyway.

I wonder if the mods can merge these threads as the same question was asked in the other one.

My take: Marquis was trying to goad the Mexican into making a play for his weapon as he had done with the general.

Marquis had already deduced that most of Mexican Bob’s story didn’t add up.

Then when we finally see Minnie, she doesn’t seem the type of person who would have a policy (or a sign) as Marquis had described.

I didn’t get a program :frowning:

A warm black dingus. Lol

Exactly. I saw it where Marquis tells three major lies:

  • The Lincoln Letter
  • Minnie (just to enrage Bob into confession)
  • The oral sex revenge on Smithers’ son. All he had to do was hear his son had died and had questions. That opened the door to make him shoot and Marquis to shoot him in self-sdefense.

I do need a second watching. Not entirely satisfied with ending, but I suppose that’s where the standoff was for our Sheriff. He shoots Marquis, he’d still be killed before he left. Ride to Mexico? My ass. Or I may have liked to actually see the “15 men” from Red Rock to walk in on the Hanged Daisy with Marquis and Chris holding the rope.

It ends like Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid, except in bed.

I was lucky enough to attend the Wednesday screening at the downtown Austin Alamo Drafthouse with surprise appearances by Quentin Tarantino and Robert Rodriguez. They did a Q&A after the movie, and Tarantino said that one of the things he was going for was to make the audience question everything the characters said about themselves (or something along those lines; I don’t remember his exact words). He then asked for a show of hands from the audience to see who thought the sheriff character played by Walton Goggins was actually a sheriff. About half the audience said yes, and the other half said no or was skeptical. Just thought that was interesting.

Needless to say, with Tarantino in attendance, and the seriousness with which the Drafthouse treats special screenings like this, the 70mm screening was flawless!