Read Mixed User Reviews for The Hateful Eight

4

bradchengDec 31, 2015

I just got back from seeing "The Hateful Eight" and my head is
spinning because it's such a weird movie I'm not sure if it's somewhat good or exceedingly awful. What's sad is that it starts off wonderfully -- I felt myself
getting excitedI just got back from seeing "The Hateful Eight" and my head is
spinning because it's such a weird movie I'm not sure if it's somewhat good or exceedingly awful. What's sad is that it starts off wonderfully -- I felt myself
getting excited by the prospect of Tarantino returning to form for
about a half hour -- then keeps getting sillier and sillier until it's
nothing but a comedy -- and the comedy is so unsubtle, it might have
been made by Mel Brooks or Jerry Lewis on acid.

What's funny is the much touted, rich color of the Panavision stock and
the fake cabin interior of "Minnies Haberdashery (not a hat in sight)"
makes the film look like the over-saturated movies from the sixties
like "Paint Your Wagon" which always looked vaguely fake to me -- a
plastic universe cobbled together on a back lot and lit with huge
overhead arc lights. Add big splashes of red blood and it started to
look like the garish color of some the 60s Disney films, so there was
this bizarre set of associations going through my head.

When the finale of the film turns to grand guignol slapstick in these
hyper-pumped colors, I felt like I was having a flashback to a bad 60s
Dick van Dyke comedy like "Fitzwilly" or "Cold Turkey," and, honestly,
I left the theater stunned by the near absurdity of it all. It's as if
someone unearthed an awful 60s comedy (Sergio Leone? Hah? That's a
laugh) that was buried in the vaults by the studios.

This "love letter to the cinema" is really a love letter to himself, as
Tarantino riffs off elements of his own movies like "Reservoir Dogs"
and throws in some steals from Paul Thomas Anderson (it almost sounds
like Anderson doing the narration. Narration? Where the $%^& did that
come from? Wow, talk about the weakest attempt I've ever seen to clue
an audience when some sloppy structuring fails the film.)

The dialogue is Tarantino-lite, like a second-rate writer trying to
imitate him (Samuel Jackson's goading of Bruce Dern is probably the
worst monologue Tarantino has written) and the story is Agatha Christie
with a lobotomy. There are some good performances (Kurt Russell is
great as John Wayne) and some awful ones (Tim Roth at his over-the-top
worst) but the film itself unravels like a spoonful of spaghetti
Western. And this isn't a spaghetti Western, it's a pizza and beer
comedy. I'm sure it will be a big hit at frat houses across America.

I'm amazed how some people (known critics, as well) even venture to
justify the racial undercurrent as social commentary. Tarantino has
never written symbolically or allegorically. He writes character, and
that's that. "The Hateful Eight" is a "political statement" in the same
way that "I Spit on Your Grave" is an indictment of contemporary
religion. Please.

How do I sum this movie up in one word? Well, the one that comes to the
top of my head right now is: "Goofy." Maybe those big Panavision camera
got to Tarantino because he subconsciously started to think he was
making a bloody version of "It's a Mad, Mad, Mad, Mad World."
I need to have a drink. At this rate, I have to say "thank god there's only two more to go."… Expand

10 of 18 users found this helpful108

All this user's reviews

4

StuffHobbesDec 28, 2015

Typical Tarantino.
The first half of the story is intriguing.
A Who-Done-It style film, set in a wild west backdrop quickly turns to pointless garbage as the second half of the film demolishes everything the first half had accomplished.Typical Tarantino.
The first half of the story is intriguing.
A Who-Done-It style film, set in a wild west backdrop quickly turns to pointless garbage as the second half of the film demolishes everything the first half had accomplished.
What a waste.… Expand

9 of 17 users found this helpful98

All this user's reviews

4

themattman2Jan 18, 2016

If you’ve seen any of Quentin’s previous films, you know he’s pretty loose with his language–like the f-bomb is just another adjective. If you’ve seen Django Unchained, then you know he’s pretty loose with the n-word, too. Some people calledIf you’ve seen any of Quentin’s previous films, you know he’s pretty loose with his language–like the f-bomb is just another adjective. If you’ve seen Django Unchained, then you know he’s pretty loose with the n-word, too. Some people called it “authentic,” but I felt it was a little jarring. There was a point early in the movie when one character drops the n-word and another character says, “You know, black people don’t like to be called that.” At this point, I wondered if this film would be free of the n-word, or at least very light on it. Psych! The rest of the movie is very heavy on the word.

The movie itself seemed like a stage play. One character walks up to another character and spills his entire life story as an introduction. The second character responds by spilling his entire life story. Both stories serve as an introduction for the audience, but come off as un-natural. I had a writing teacher describe this as “soap opera dialogue.” It was odd to see it on-screen. The Broadway production of The Hateful Eight is gonna be huge.

The gore was heavy… In some parts of the movie I would consider it over-the-top. There was one scene that caused all of us to gasp. If you’ve seen The Kingsman, and you call that a “ten” for violence, I’d call this one an “eight.” It sneaks up on you, too. For the first part of the movie, little to no violence. Then BAM! Violence is hot and heavy. There’s at least one scene where I think there was violence just for violence sake–I don’t think it was realistic for that character to act that way.

If you put the language and gore aside, how was the movie? Well, it’s quite a lot of both to put aside, but I’ll try. It definitely put you into what Wyoming during a blizzard in the Old West would feel like. The sets and costumes looked terribly authentic. You see characters ride in a stage coach, and you find yourself marveling at how rough it seems in comparison to modern automobiles.

The characters wind up in a trading post cabin in the middle of nowhere on their way to a town in the middle of nowhere. It oozes authenticity, and is an eye-opener to what life was like in the Wild, Wild West.

But the language and gore… It was tough to stomach. Was language really that rough at that time? I thought language of today was a product of hip-hop, street culture. Am I just being racist? I need to do some Googling now and find out when heavy language became a “thing.”… Expand

4 of 8 users found this helpful44

All this user's reviews

6

foxgroveJan 14, 2016

The opening credits of ‘The Hateful Eight’ rather egotistically state that this is the eighth film by Quentin Tarantino. Presented in 70mm and complete with an overture and intermission, this can be seen as either a vanity undertaking by itsThe opening credits of ‘The Hateful Eight’ rather egotistically state that this is the eighth film by Quentin Tarantino. Presented in 70mm and complete with an overture and intermission, this can be seen as either a vanity undertaking by its director or as a passion project by someone who loves cinema and the old traditions it stood for. The story outline is a mere strand and it is overblown to epic proportions (a staggering 187 minutes) that it cannot possibly hope to sustain. Things start promisingly enough with Kurt Russell’s bounty hunter escorting Jennifer Jason Leigh’s Daisy, by stagecoach in a raging blizzard, to her date with destiny on the gallows. En-route they meet up with Samuel L Jackson and Walton Goggins before holing up with the rest of the titular number in a cabin which is the home of ‘Minnie’s Haberdashery’. The torturous corkscrewing of the plot plays out from here, but interest is lost after a while due to the overly talky first half. The intermission when it comes is almost a relief. Things pick up considerably after the break and the screenplay introduces flashbacks, narration and a plot twist that livens things up no end. These devices are, in fact, Tarantino’s forte. This second half also lets rip in the blood letting department and anyone who has seen a Tarantino film before will know exactly what to expect. The cast have a lot of fun, with the best performances coming from Samuel L Jackson, Jennifer Jason Leigh and, especially, an unknown Walton Goggins. The film is technically proficient, although when the actors are competing with both Ennio Morricone’s forceful score and the sound effects of the raging blizzard, much dialogue is lost as a result. The 70 mm presentation is stunning and Robert Richardson’s cinematography of both interiors and exteriors is ravishingly beautiful. It may not be vintage Tarantino, but despite the flaws it somehow manages to stay with you long after you have left the cinema.… Expand

3 of 6 users found this helpful33

All this user's reviews

6

NathonasMar 18, 2016

Hateful Eight is an entertaining film, but Tarantino's previous work is better. The dialogue, plot, and characters are simply not as good as in his previous films, and the whole thing feels a little bit tedious and drawn-out.

It'sHateful Eight is an entertaining film, but Tarantino's previous work is better. The dialogue, plot, and characters are simply not as good as in his previous films, and the whole thing feels a little bit tedious and drawn-out.

It's certainly still fun to watch and has all of the characteristic Tarantino things, but they're just not executed as well and feel a little obvious and tiring. For example, the film randomly throws in characters with non-American accents just for the hell of it rather than having a serious reason or explanation. Also when you really get down to it, the story is very simple and doesn't need to be drawn out for so long.… Expand

3 of 6 users found this helpful33

All this user's reviews

6

HfahmyJan 22, 2016

Snowy, cold, over lengthy, bloody, theatrical. These are the main keywords for this movie. All events occur in one location, the rest store for travelers "Minnie's Haberdashery". The first half of this more than three hours show is extremelySnowy, cold, over lengthy, bloody, theatrical. These are the main keywords for this movie. All events occur in one location, the rest store for travelers "Minnie's Haberdashery". The first half of this more than three hours show is extremely boring with long dialogues involving racism and almost no real events. The second half is packed with violence after the plot of the gang was revealed. Now, which gang? The theatrical show is about a gang who killed the rest house owners to free the sister (Jennifer Jason Leigh) of their leader, sent to be hanged by a bounty hunter (Kurt Russel). The plot is spoiled by the arrival of a hangman (Samuel Jackson) and a would be sherif (Walton Goggins). The acting in general is good specially by Samuel Jackson, Jennifer Jason Leig, Kurt Russel, Walton Goggins. Directing is pretentious, the scenario is not for a movie packed with places and moving. The opening music is nice and reminds the Good, the Bad, the Ugly and for Few Dollars More. At the end of the more than three hours, no one is left alive, blood is shed generously every where. All in all, a "show" that can be missed; if attended you have to be patient or have nothing else to do.… Expand

2 of 4 users found this helpful22

All this user's reviews

5

NikolayGJan 30, 2016

I saw this because Inglorious Bastards was fun, and because Jennifer Jason Leigh is an unparalleled actress but she's about vanished this past decade. The Hateful Eight would finally give me a chance to see her in a movie again. However, thisI saw this because Inglorious Bastards was fun, and because Jennifer Jason Leigh is an unparalleled actress but she's about vanished this past decade. The Hateful Eight would finally give me a chance to see her in a movie again. However, this movie is the Samuel L. Jackson show, with everyone else getting a small piece of the pie; there are so many cast members that each piece is relatively small. So JJL didn't get much to sink her teeth into. But hey, I love Samuel L. Jackson, too, so it still could have been great.

Problem is...

...this movie has no point. It has no soul. It has no purpose. It has no emotional core. It has no theme. It has nothing but a kooky plot about scheming and killing that any 12 year old could make up during recess period. I mean, there is just nothing to this.

And to top it off, it's way too long. When they showed one of the characters removing his gloves loosening one finger at a time before taking them off, I knew we were in for trouble. The exact same script could have been shot with a half hour or forty minutes less running time and it would not have felt rushed. This film as shot just feels so slow it's painful, especially the length of time before they get to the cabin where most of the movie takes place. This is one of the only movies I ever fell asleep in, and it was for about fifteen minutes during that opening phase when the stagecoach is heading for the cabin or store or haberdashery, whatever the place is.

I do not recommend this movie, but if you must see it, rent it and fast forward when things get slow.… Expand

2 of 4 users found this helpful22

All this user's reviews

4

talonps1Mar 15, 2016

Definitely, some good acting along with some good actors with some clear professional and artistic shots of the camera. That is literally all that is good about this movie. I won't rant on about the dull, shock value, politically drivenDefinitely, some good acting along with some good actors with some clear professional and artistic shots of the camera. That is literally all that is good about this movie. I won't rant on about the dull, shock value, politically driven drivel that is the story rather this sums it up...

The Hateful Eight = Reservoir Dogs part II minus everything that actually made Reservoir Dogs spectacular.… Expand

2 of 4 users found this helpful22

All this user's reviews

5

CanisrahDec 25, 2015

So like many I generally enjoy Tarantino films. After sitting through The Hateful Eight (THE) however I'm concluded that this is one of his weaker offerings.

While one of the strengths of Tarantino's films is held to be dialogue - I thinkSo like many I generally enjoy Tarantino films. After sitting through The Hateful Eight (THE) however I'm concluded that this is one of his weaker offerings.

While one of the strengths of Tarantino's films is held to be dialogue - I think THE manages to cross the line from smart and immersive dialogue into borderline pointless self-indulgence. Endless discussions between characters which don't necessarily add much to the progression of the plot (such as it is).

The narrative itself has some appeal - but it's strung out over such a long time-frame and climaxes in a pretty banal shower of blood that leaves the viewer wondering why they sat through 2.5 hours of smug dialogue just for a pretty standard bloodletting in the last 15 minutes.

There's some good characters there - and some interesting moments; a strong cast makes for enjoyable viewing in parts, but in my view this film doesn't have enough substance to warrant it's length. Nor does it hold the viewer's attention for the duration in the same manner as the director's previous film.

Also borderline irritating is the niggling feeling that we're being preached at with some sort of social or political perspective which undermines historical authenticity (though this is a minor point as I doubt the film is trying to be authentic any more than a comic book western is shooting for historical accuracy).

In summary - it's OK - but self-indulgent and ultimately underwhelming.… Expand

10 of 21 users found this helpful1011

All this user's reviews

4

CallidorDec 30, 2015

The cinematography was great, acting was good obviously. But it is just another piece of ego porn from Tarantino. The story was predictable and shallow, it felt very very drawn out and I found myself checking the time to see when it wouldThe cinematography was great, acting was good obviously. But it is just another piece of ego porn from Tarantino. The story was predictable and shallow, it felt very very drawn out and I found myself checking the time to see when it would freakin end.

Its ok for some mild brainless entertainment, but it is no way a well done movie imo. Tarantino has done a lot better in his past and I fear all the ego stroking he has received over the years have gone to his head and now he primarily makes shallow, predictable ego porn for himself and his sycophants to marvel at.… Expand

7 of 15 users found this helpful78

All this user's reviews

4

AreYouSeriousDec 28, 2015

Long winded, and generally quite boring. It only kicks into gear in the last 40 to 50 minutes once the actual story reveals itself.

The opening sequence of Inglorious Bastards is a 23 minute scene in a single room with two men that isLong winded, and generally quite boring. It only kicks into gear in the last 40 to 50 minutes once the actual story reveals itself.

The opening sequence of Inglorious Bastards is a 23 minute scene in a single room with two men that is totally and utterly compelling - not one scene in The Hateful Eight has anywhere near the level of skill or execution.

Sadly, it's Tarantino's weakest enter in years.

But I'm sure the blind Tarantino lovers will embrace it...… Expand

8 of 18 users found this helpful810

All this user's reviews

4

ThundermaxJan 16, 2016

The worst of Tarantino's movies. Extremely slow pacing and boring, dialogues are just long and tedious blah blah without any wit or charm. At least one hour too long, maybe more. I had to apologize to my wife for bringing her to see this s***t.

4 of 9 users found this helpful45

All this user's reviews

4

njlakeFeb 5, 2016

As far as Tarantino movies are concerned, this is among the worst... Coming from Inglorious Basterds and then Django (which was only a slight step down) this was a huge drop off. The movie is about a bunch of people stuck in a room that sortaAs far as Tarantino movies are concerned, this is among the worst... Coming from Inglorious Basterds and then Django (which was only a slight step down) this was a huge drop off. The movie is about a bunch of people stuck in a room that sorta kinda know each other from some loose affiliation that have way too much dialogue.

So, my experience with it? I think this basically sums it up – have you ever had to go somewhere with a friend and they run into someone that they barely knew from their hometown and you have to sit there through their awkward conversation, get introduced for one second then get back to listening to them talk for too long about something you couldn't care less about? That's basically what this movie is. Even when it starts to get interesting (the 3rd act) it's really not interesting.… Expand

4 of 9 users found this helpful45

All this user's reviews

6

ScienceAdvisorMar 14, 2016

Unfortunate. With so much buildup, and such richness of characters, the ending is disappointing and needlessly wasteful. Instead Tarantino should have re-watched some of his classics, like "4 Rooms" for example, and remembered what made hisUnfortunate. With so much buildup, and such richness of characters, the ending is disappointing and needlessly wasteful. Instead Tarantino should have re-watched some of his classics, like "4 Rooms" for example, and remembered what made his name so great. This deserves to be re-shot with a new last 30 minutes, so it can take a place of honor on the classics shelf. Though the homage to "The Thing" was worth the price of admission, and probably built-up expecations (beyond the over-hype) for the rest of the movie, for anyone that recognized it.… Expand

4 of 9 users found this helpful45

All this user's reviews

4

Unladenswallow0Jan 13, 2016

(for full effect, please read this voice in 70mm Samuel L Jackson)

Wow, this movie was hyped up to the reaches of heaven and earth as the greatest thing to touch the screens of Earth since Mel Gibson died on the cross. Tarrantino, you are(for full effect, please read this voice in 70mm Samuel L Jackson)

Wow, this movie was hyped up to the reaches of heaven and earth as the greatest thing to touch the screens of Earth since Mel Gibson died on the cross. Tarrantino, you are my man, but **** i think your time is up. What was that you said about Directors losing their mojo as they age? I think you'd better get yo'self a Directoscomy because i think youve got whatever M night Shalaman has stuck up his ****

Dont get me wrong, the movie was decent. It had an amazing score, some fantastic camera work and some tense moments that had me on the edge of my seat. But jesus, it was 3 hours, 3 hours and i cant say in truth that at times i wasnt checking my watch. If you like a lot of dialogue, and you like very very slow build up, then this is the movie for you. But man, it felt like at the end Tarantino just said **** it, lets just kill the ****… Expand

4 of 9 users found this helpful45

All this user's reviews

6

WindrammerDec 29, 2015

The first half of the movie was enjoyable. Not remarkable, but still good. But pretty much exactly halfway through the movie it seems that Tarantino started getting excited, and the movie started getting weird. It lost a lot of substance inThe first half of the movie was enjoyable. Not remarkable, but still good. But pretty much exactly halfway through the movie it seems that Tarantino started getting excited, and the movie started getting weird. It lost a lot of substance in the glee of the mayhem, and it was just tiring. It felt like a story that wasn't fully fleshed out, and a pace that wasn't given thought. The plot is still clever, and in that it almost feels like kind of a waste with the execution.… Expand

7 of 17 users found this helpful710

All this user's reviews

6

csw12Dec 25, 2015

Like many movies this year, part of the film is great and the other not so much. The hateful eight has a horrible beginning but by the half way point because something worth seeing. The second half has better dialogue, better acting, andLike many movies this year, part of the film is great and the other not so much. The hateful eight has a horrible beginning but by the half way point because something worth seeing. The second half has better dialogue, better acting, and something to keep your eyes open. There is no excuse for the length.… Expand

9 of 24 users found this helpful915

All this user's reviews

6

CaptiosusDec 28, 2015

I am not a Tarantino fan: I like some of his movies but dislike others. That said, I enjoyed Hateful Eight, which was Tarantino's take on a spaghetti western with limited locations, character development and dialog driven suspense. DespiteI am not a Tarantino fan: I like some of his movies but dislike others. That said, I enjoyed Hateful Eight, which was Tarantino's take on a spaghetti western with limited locations, character development and dialog driven suspense. Despite the styling, the 70mm filming process, and the Ennio Morricone score, Hateful Eight was one of his so-so films.

ALL of the characters are, as the name implies, hateful bastards. There's not a "good" character in the lot. The suspense comes in wondering how they're going to die and if they're all who they say they are. Walton Goggins as Chris Mannix carries the movie, in my opinion, with Jennifer Jason Leigh as Daisy Domergue coming in a distant second. Samuel L. Jackson as Marquis Warren is, well, Samuel L. Jackson (which is to say we know what to expect from him in this kind of role). My biggest character disappointment came from Kurt Russell as John Ruth, a bounty hunter and one of the first characters the audience is introduced to. His performance is decent but the character is utterly forgettable.

Ultimately, the movie runs too long and the end sequence flashback, although necessary to tie up loose ends, really disrupts the flow and suspense. Tarantino as the 'narrator' in some scenes really kinda sucked (sorry, don't have any better way to describe it) and, although I understand the style Tarantino was aiming to copy, the movie really didn't need a 12 minute intermission. Although it has the trademark Tarantino gore, it's more subdued than in his past movies and it doesn't dwell on the gore like, say, Kill Bill or even Django Unchained.

Overall I enjoyed it but it won't be for everyone. I give it a 6 out of 10 but I enjoyed it enough that I'll probably pick it up on blu-ray when it comes out.… Expand

2 of 6 users found this helpful24

All this user's reviews

5

TVJerryJan 8, 2016

After a slow set up, 2 bounty hunters (Kurt Russell and Samuel L. Jackson) and one fugitive (Jennifer Jason Leigh) end up snowbound in a small cabin with 6 other suspicious types. As is typical with writer Quinton Tarantino, there’s lots ofAfter a slow set up, 2 bounty hunters (Kurt Russell and Samuel L. Jackson) and one fugitive (Jennifer Jason Leigh) end up snowbound in a small cabin with 6 other suspicious types. As is typical with writer Quinton Tarantino, there’s lots of conversation…most of which lacks his typical sharp edge. This chatter goes on way too long before the action fun begins (probably 2 hours into it’s 2:47 length). The whodunit nature of the plot becomes convoluted and the payoff isn’t worth the loooong wait. Don’t get me wrong, there are some enjoyable elements: some of the characters are fun (esp. Leigh’s crusty delivery) and the final bloodbath is full of his trademark violence and humor. Not his best.… Expand

2 of 6 users found this helpful24

All this user's reviews

6

dirkdeaglerJan 6, 2016

Mixed feelings on this one.

In general, I was a fan of most of the cast before coming to the theatre, and I really liked the performances from Samuel L. Jackson, Kurt Russell, Jennifer Jason Leigh, Walter Goggins, and Bruce Dern. Jackson,Mixed feelings on this one.

In general, I was a fan of most of the cast before coming to the theatre, and I really liked the performances from Samuel L. Jackson, Kurt Russell, Jennifer Jason Leigh, Walter Goggins, and Bruce Dern. Jackson, Russell, and Leigh really seemed to inhabit the characters. The interplay between Jackson and Bruce Dern produced a really memorable scene. Russell and Leigh had good chemistry as a bounty hunter/outlaw handcuffed together.

Michael Madsen really stuck out in a bad way. His faux-cowboy accent was just terribly unconvincing and he came off as trying to be the same character from Reservoir Dogs with a lame outfit and accent. Also not sure what they were trying to do with the "Bob" character-- apparently an attempt to caricaturize representations of Mexicans in Westerns but it was just kinda incomprehensible.

The film's structure was jarring. The opening really took it's time setting the stage and introducing the principal characters, and the initial scenes in Minnie's Haberdashery were fairly slow-paced. I was expecting a slow build through the first half of the film, and then an increasing pace as the volatile dynamics between the characters played out. I actually enjoyed the slow build-up through the first half of the movie, so the transition to Tarantino's voice-over narration to start Chapter 4 felt out-of-place and like an artificial device to speed up the plot development. The narration and the flashback chapter really robbed the "whodunnit" aspect of the film of its earlier promise owing to the slow buildup. I would have liked to see what this film would have been if the events played out a little more naturally, with the audience not having complete information.

Knowing this was a Tarantino film, I expected over-the-top violence walking into the theater. In some cases, the violence helped drive the theme that post-Civil War America really was a pretty nasty place. Tarantino more than made his point though, and at some point the violence almost crossed over into slapstick territory. The film's tone wasn't exactly solemn throughout, but the second half of the film seemed more devoted to humorous moments than to resolving the plot in a comprehensible way. The forced fellatio scene just felt out of place, and took away from an otherwise great scene.

I'm not a big enough Western enthusiast to understand all the homages Tarantino felt he needed to include to do a proper tribute to the genre. I left with the lingering feeling that Tarantino included certain homages or references at the expense of making a tighter film.… Expand

2 of 6 users found this helpful24

All this user's reviews

6

YorkManDec 25, 2015

H8 is not one of Tarantino's best films. It's good, but falls well short of the brilliance he's created in the past.
The storyline is cliched and has none of QT's usual inherent nods toward the audience that people can pick up and feel likeH8 is not one of Tarantino's best films. It's good, but falls well short of the brilliance he's created in the past.
The storyline is cliched and has none of QT's usual inherent nods toward the audience that people can pick up and feel like there's something added for those of us who have watched/listened to the films/music he references.
It's not even like the direction is very good either, it does almost seem like a 'paint by numbers' movie, rather than something which will make the viewer gasp at the sheer audacity. It's very muted and basic.
The now de rigeur 'out of sequence' storytelling in this film also seems lazy and practically out of place, it doesn't seem to ebb and flow, doesn't ask the audience to fill in the blanks as they go along.
However, the film is somewhat redeemed by the fantastic acting, by (almost) all concerned. Kurt Russell and Sam Jackson should both be applauded for their work, and the supporting cast are also all on top form.
Except for Michael Madsen. He looks bored and uninterested, but it could also be that he plays the character who has the least interesting lines to say.
Overall, it's probably at least 40 minutestoo long, and beyond the excellent cast/performances, it's not 'classic' Tarantino.
However it's not by any means a 'bad' movie, but if you've ever seen a 'traditional' Western and can look beyond the over the top violence, then it's a movie you've seen many times before.… Expand

6 of 19 users found this helpful613

All this user's reviews

4

ObertorJan 10, 2016

I love you Tarantino, but this movie was disgusting. I'm a big fan, but this movie is unforgivable. Murder for the sake of murder.. Just terrible in almost every way.

4 of 13 users found this helpful49

All this user's reviews

5

FranzHcriticDec 26, 2015

I would have given Tarantino an seven, or maybe eight, owing to the film's length and the overload of dialogue. For the first half, one scene, and I'm not spoiling. One scene gave me a sort of nauseating feeling that the bold, climacticI would have given Tarantino an seven, or maybe eight, owing to the film's length and the overload of dialogue. For the first half, one scene, and I'm not spoiling. One scene gave me a sort of nauseating feeling that the bold, climactic second half which contained the Tarantino that I love, couldn't recuperate. It's not a bad film, and for the most part, it's every bit what I expected from Tarantino. But just one scene made all the difference.… Expand

4 of 14 users found this helpful410

All this user's reviews

5

jayman69Jan 5, 2016

Big fan. But agree here with the non-sayers. Loved the opening Title sequence, Ennio's music, the camera shots....alI 60's western material, and the first 4 chapters I could sit through enjoying (even though he does go overboard with someBig fan. But agree here with the non-sayers. Loved the opening Title sequence, Ennio's music, the camera shots....alI 60's western material, and the first 4 chapters I could sit through enjoying (even though he does go overboard with some dialogue-doesn't Tarantino know westerns are best known for less dialogue?) Anyway....chapter 5 totally unnecessary...ruins the momentum and flashback not needed in his style in this instance. Should've just went for the good ole guts ending. EDIT. Trim da fat.
Like I mentioned...I was bored after chapter 4. Would've been about an 8 if he sealed the deal earlier...… Expand

2 of 7 users found this helpful25

All this user's reviews

6

JimmyJackDec 31, 2015

I'd give the first half (or at least the first hour) a 2, and I'd give the second half a 7 or an 8. So I settled on a 6 because I really enjoyed the last third of the movie.

The first hour is almost all dialog (and not very well-writtenI'd give the first half (or at least the first hour) a 2, and I'd give the second half a 7 or an 8. So I settled on a 6 because I really enjoyed the last third of the movie.

The first hour is almost all dialog (and not very well-written dialog at that), while very little actually happens. It's basically an hour of setup that needed serious editing. Oddly enough, in the second half of the movie where the action happens, Tarantino himself does a few almost unnecessary voice-overs (that sound very amateurish) explaining some things... If he was going to do that anyway, he could have done it in the first half to give us the character back-stories that took forever and weren't worth the time.

The last 40% of the movie is exciting -- if you enjoy Tarantino-style bloodbaths -- and almost feels worth the wait. Sam Jackson and Walton Goggins (who was awesome on Justified) made it interesting. Michael Madsen (the guy who always comes across like he's trying way too hard to act and sound cool) was a set piece, and a couple of other characters were so-so.

Quentin should have chopped half of the first half, added some kind of extra dimension with something/anything happening somewhere else (maybe in the nearby mountains?), and gotten some objective feedback and re-written some of his annoying dialog. (Hey Q, when you speak personally, you sound a bit mental. You're f-ing annoying when you talk, and your characters shouldn't sound like that! So get a clue. The dialog in the first half of this movie was almost as bad as the dialog in your last movie with Kurt Russell -- which sucked. Kurt was good in this movie, but his character didn't have the chance to be great.)

The ending seems to suggest that Tarantino made the whole movie as a social commentary on racism -- how bad it was in the 1800s, and how far we still have to go. He makes his point by saturating us in racism and hate, which is probably only enjoyable to people who resonate with racism and the excitement of watching brutal violence. So he gives us our thrills, while at the same time telling us we shouldn't enjoy it. I'd say the man himself must be internally conflicted to create the movies he creates. (Yes, of course that's an understatement. We all know Tarantino must be majorly F-ed in the head to make the movies he makes. But that's why we enjoy them :)

Lastly, the whole hullabaloo about 70 mm is pointless when most of the movie takes place in a stagecoach and a cabin.… Expand

2 of 7 users found this helpful25

All this user's reviews

4

AxeTDec 26, 2015

I was assigned to work on one of Tarantino's films once and after screening it the producer I worked for asked me what I thought of it. My reply was, "There can be no doubt Tarantino is a genius… a very demented genius." It's become clearI was assigned to work on one of Tarantino's films once and after screening it the producer I worked for asked me what I thought of it. My reply was, "There can be no doubt Tarantino is a genius… a very demented genius." It's become clear he is an adolescent who never grew up and his films reflect that, which can work to greatness or not so much. A new Tarantino western for Christmas was something high on my expectations list this year which has been the biggest year of high expectation movies ever.

The best thing about the film besides the expected grand snowy landscape photography (shot in Colorado doubling for Wyoming) is the memorable score by the legendary Morricone. Also Kurt Russell. The worst thing about it is that it's essentially written as a stage play that though rife with Tarantino's masterful style which always includes long passages of seemingly endless mundane dialogue, seemingly that is, and the gift for being able to make you pay attention just doesn't deliver enough in the end in what comes off as more contrived than what this talent has concocted in the past. The Agatha Christie mystery aspect is welcome for sure, but the over-the-top gratuitous, sadistic violence isn't. Nor is some of the sick depraved dialogue. Of course you expect that with an adolescent, however genius his creations can be. Frankly though it's a bit unbelievable that a director of his stature either doesn't understand, doesn't remember, or likely flies in the face of the Hitchcockian principle of suspense over shock value always.

As for the 70MM roadshow special engagement in select cities, while a nice novelty the fact is you cannot see any difference in the image other than the frame being slightly wider. Little imperfections even on a brand new print are a welcome novelty purely for nostalgia sake, but I defy anyone to see any more detail over a standard 35mm print or DCP. You can't on existing size screens short of IMAX. 70mm in this day and age is a hoax. IMAX is today's bigger better 70. Maybe not to a purist like Tarantino, but you're talking about someone who still probably plays vinyl records and insists he will quit the business rather than go digital. The aesthetic difference between seeing this movie in film or digital amounts to about 5% of the overall experience when you take into account all the components of the storytelling.

"Reservoir Dogs" 8, "Pulp Fiction" 10, "Jackie Brown" 6, "Kill Bill Vol. I" 6, "Kill Bill Vol. II" 8, "Death Proof" 9, "Inglorious Basterds" 10, "Django Unchained" 5… Expand

4 of 16 users found this helpful412

All this user's reviews

5

kmdcanadaJan 6, 2016

This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. CMON!? You start the movie off so well, 3 great interesting characters. Then it's like a "who dunnit" setting with a bunch more interesting characters... and you effin cop out and just make it a stupid snuf gore movie for no reason!!!

What a total waste of a great cast and an awesome start! It's like a big FU to your audience. Making a guy suck another guy off and kill him so his father picks up a gun? Why?… Expand

1 of 4 users found this helpful13

All this user's reviews

6

oDjentoJan 17, 2016

Quentin Tarantino is one of this era’s greatest script writers who usually writes incredibly intricate scripts with quotable dialogue that you’d typically be repeating over and over again after the films first viewing, but The Hateful EightQuentin Tarantino is one of this era’s greatest script writers who usually writes incredibly intricate scripts with quotable dialogue that you’d typically be repeating over and over again after the films first viewing, but The Hateful Eight sadly doesn’t provide such material and therefore is depressingly an unsatisfactory event from the director.
The Hateful Eight is undoubtedly set out as a stage play, and this Is a rather cool idea, especially with the 70mm panovision which gives view to the whole “stage” basically portrayed on screen. This provides some rather tasty cinematography, which is better shown in the interior shots rather than the exterior; the latter seeming more like filler shots in a nature documentary.
However, whilst performances by the cast is great – not one person brought it down – the dialogue of the film just feels so clunky in retrospect of other Tarantino work, which is devastating. I was watching this film enjoying the visual aspects of the film and also the performances (and humour), but I never came across a section of dialogue that I thought was exceedingly poignant or memorable; not even Samuel L. Jacksons monologue which you’d expect to be something due to previous work. That monologue is a high point in the film but isn’t anywhere near as good as some of his other work.
The film also does NOT seem to long, as at no point did I feel bored and want it to finish, but the layout of it is a bit clunky, and I must say that this film does seem a little like a clusterf**k of a lot of Tarantino’s work; it’s almost as if all his films had a fiery orgy and this was what was created from the ashes.
Another problem I found was the opening. The score at the beginning was great (as it was throughout the film) but that doesn’t mean they can get away with a few nice wintery shots and a slowly approaching wagon as the opening to excite us. Think about recent efforts; Landa’s opening dialogue swapping between languages to intimidate the farmer, Schultz showing is charming and well-spoken character only to then show his impressive marksmanship and free the slaves, and even going back further to Pulp Fiction’s incredible dialogue on robbing and sudden character change. This film had a nice score to start, but provided nothing else.
As I was saying earlier the layout did seem kinda clunky, with some numerical problems getting in the way later on and the back and forth aspect used to explain certain things later just feels cheap.
There were some interesting biblical and angelic imagery and symbolism laid out across the films run time which was interesting (one of those being Domergue’s angel wings) that add a unique angle to the film, but it doesn’t elevate the film to Tarantino’s previous levels.
All in all, The Hateful Eight is worth the watch to see some good performances, over the top violence (not overused here though) and exceedingly dark comedy, but walking in with certain expectations due to previous work of his you might have may leave you feeling unsatisfied in certain fields.
A good film but just not as realised as his other work.
6.5/10… Expand

1 of 4 users found this helpful13

All this user's reviews

6

Rebecca31Jan 9, 2016

If I could sum up this movie in one word it would be "overkill." Tarantino has given us over 3 hours of people talking in the snow, people talking in a carriage, people talking in the snow again, people talking in a cabin and endless bloodIf I could sum up this movie in one word it would be "overkill." Tarantino has given us over 3 hours of people talking in the snow, people talking in a carriage, people talking in the snow again, people talking in a cabin and endless blood and gore. With so much potential it ends up being a bit of a joke; that is if you find mutilation, woman beatings and the n-word hilarious. The two biggest problems, the length and Samuel L Jackson's over acting. Yet you'll be entertained, shocked and disgusted all at the same time and if that's what Tarantino was going for well done. Recommended for all you mad bastards out there.… Expand

1 of 4 users found this helpful13

All this user's reviews

6

jowaad_anwarFeb 25, 2016

Cons - Unnecessarily long, barely any plot, terrible ending, poor character development, windy/pointless dialogue, tedious, boring, racist, sexist..
Pros - the score, the acting, some of the dialogue, the violence at least barely kept meCons - Unnecessarily long, barely any plot, terrible ending, poor character development, windy/pointless dialogue, tedious, boring, racist, sexist..
Pros - the score, the acting, some of the dialogue, the violence at least barely kept me awake
I'm a Tarantino fan, but this was probably his worst movie...… Expand

1 of 4 users found this helpful13

All this user's reviews

5

jraz81Dec 27, 2015

Quentin Tarantino’s “The Hateful Eight” stars Samuel L. Jackson, Kurt Russell, Jennifer Jason Leigh, Walter Goggins, Demian Bichir, Tim Roth, Michael Madsen, and Bruce Dern as the eponymous eight. As the film begins, two bounty hunters, JohnQuentin Tarantino’s “The Hateful Eight” stars Samuel L. Jackson, Kurt Russell, Jennifer Jason Leigh, Walter Goggins, Demian Bichir, Tim Roth, Michael Madsen, and Bruce Dern as the eponymous eight. As the film begins, two bounty hunters, John Ruth (Russell) and Major Maquis Warren (Jackson) meet in the midst of a blizzard in post-Civil War Wyoming while Ruth is escorting a prisoner, Daisy Domergue (Leigh) to Red Rock where she is set to be executed. Along the way, they pick up the town’s new sheriff, Chris Mannix (Goggins). When they reach the cabin, they meet the other half of the octet: Oswaldo Mobray (Roth), Joe Gage (Madsen), Bob (Bichir) and General Sanford Smithers (Dern). The characters stay put in the cabin for the remaining 2 hours of the film, as the action slowly unfolds into a bloody battle.
Of all of Tarantino’s previous films, “The Hateful Eight” most closely resembles “Reservoir Dogs”, another movie that confined a handful of seedy characters to a single location where a tense situation erupted into a turbulent shoot-em-up. However, where Reservoir Dogs was a sprint, the Hateful Eight is a marathon, and that’s not a wise creative decision to make for a film whose sole purpose is to entertain. With no overly likable characters, no discernible moral or social message, and even a noticeable lack of the snappy dialogue that Tarantino usually provides, The Hateful Eight must completely rely on a clever story, and while there are a few interesting surprises along the way, at the film’s conclusion, it’s difficult not to wonder what the point of the preceding events were.
Tarantino may be a victim of his own success - widely regarded as a cinematic genius for the last 20+ years by seemingly everyone in Hollywood, many of the typical checks and balances that pervade the film development process are likely waived or laxened for him, and as a result, his films have gotten progressively less polished. “The Hateful Eight” is the work of an auteur with significant talent but insufficient self-discipline.
“The Hateful Eight” is probably Tarantino’s weakest film to date - however, given the quality of his oeuvre (Pulp Fiction, Reservoir Dogs, Inglorious Basterds, Django Unchained, Kill Bill), this is hardly substantial condemnation. I predict “The Hateful Eight” will be very polarizing to audiences. Some will enjoy it for its signature Tarantino features - over-the-top violence, surprising plot twists, unapologetic candor, and an ensemble of colorful characters; others will dislike it for its’ claustrophobic setting, plodding pace, unnecessary digressions, and nihilistic connotations. If the former sounds good to you, I recommend it; if the latter sounds unappealing, I recommend you pass.… Expand

3 of 14 users found this helpful311

All this user's reviews

5

shoulderoforionDec 31, 2015

For a Quentin Tarantino movie this was plodding and tiresome, was more of a play turned movie, and not a great one at that, better luck next time, I hope

3 of 14 users found this helpful311

All this user's reviews

6

InFijiJan 12, 2016

This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. This is a marginally entertaining movie; not bad but not necessarily good either. At heart, a loosely constructed story of eight (nine, actually, but who's counting) hateful people, all of whom are dead or dying by the end of the film.
Is there a hidden meaning behind it all, some underlying theme that warrants greater consideration? Sadly, no. Although S.R. Jackson plays his customary role as the prototypical angry black man - the portrayal serves no higher purpose - nor is it moving, nor actually very good. Gratuitous, yes, agreed - having any relevance other then the base overdone character, no.
Is there some hidden twist, some terrifically entertaining moment when all might startle and say, "Didn't see that coming?" Again, no. Sure, some guy hiding in the basement - is that a surprise? Shouldn't Jackson's character, so terrifically astute when it comes to signs and stews, wondered about the possibility?
Granted, Pulp Fiction and even Kill Bill were near brilliant. What happened?… Expand

1 of 5 users found this helpful14

All this user's reviews

4

TLHGJan 2, 2016

So, generally, I think this movie is worth watching and is worth the ticket. The movie starts off with the right foot. Tarantino really seems to have grown as a director with this movie, as the movie promises a mature work along the firstSo, generally, I think this movie is worth watching and is worth the ticket. The movie starts off with the right foot. Tarantino really seems to have grown as a director with this movie, as the movie promises a mature work along the first hour and a bit further. No other Tarantino movie delivers the atmosphere he was able to build right from the first scene. The first set of characters was marvelously played and their interaction during the first three quarters of the movie (but mostly during the first half) was really well crafted (the highlight being the dynamics between Kurt Russel and Jennifer J. L.). Moreover, for most part of the film, Tarantino seems to be over all that little audiovisual tricks that were part of his "unique style" in his early years but have become annoying Tarantino clichés lately. As the dialogues run and new characters are introduced, the plot becomes very intriguing and mysterious. At a point, the story reaches a very interesting puzzling edge that makes you, as the audience, start playing a detective in your own head, developing hypotheses of solutions. At this point, the movie is doing great (except for one forgivable unnecessary and childish attempt to make the watcher feel uncomfortable - as long as this one attempt remained as an isolated manifestation of Tarantino's need for thinking he is shocking the audience, it would be harmless to the quality of the movie) and there isn't much time left to screw ups, so you really think that this can be one of the great movies of the year. So Tarantino has every one in the crowd right where you would want them: everybody is eager to learn the answer to the puzzle, everybody is dying curious to see which bizarre hateful character will march triumphant from the mess they put themselves into, and what does Tarantino do? He simply does the laziest job in concluding the story. The answer to the puzzle is completely silly and backed with inconsistencies in the plot. The outcome of the messy situation is the least interesting anyone could come up with. Tarantino simply kills all the fun with the last 30 minutes of the movie.
So why did I say the movie is worth watching? Well, up to the least minutes, the movie is great and could be Tarantino's finest job. Up to then, the movie is really good and worth the money. And why did I say Tarantino seems to have grown as a director with this one? Because he really does! When it comes to directing, he couldn't do much better. The directing is very mature and is one of the reasons the movie builds up so well. The problem here is Tarantino as a writer. After this one, he really should retire from that position or call someone to help him with the ending of the story.… Expand

1 of 13 users found this helpful112

All this user's reviews

6

kman5473Jan 2, 2016

It's Reservoir Dogs in post-Civil War Wyoming. Quentin Tarantino manages to repackage himself without anything new. It is completely disappointing. Even with the promise of 70mm, 2/3s of the story takes place in the same room! Except for theIt's Reservoir Dogs in post-Civil War Wyoming. Quentin Tarantino manages to repackage himself without anything new. It is completely disappointing. Even with the promise of 70mm, 2/3s of the story takes place in the same room! Except for the exteriors, it is such a waste of attempting to use this feature as the one to bring back 70mm in a big way. I expected so much more from this, and it fell very short. Most, but not all, of the dialogue is solid as to be expected, but the plot is SO predictable that even the "big twist" fell flat. In addition to this, the editing was off in certain places. Cuts in the opening credits felt that they came too late, while one shot of Leigh after her nose is broken by Russell seems to hold for too long just so the next cut comes on the beat from when the music picks up. Maybe pick a different song? Maybe fade in the music from later in it? This is far from a work of art and more just the result of Tarantino being impulsive yet determined about making a Western without doing anything new. Solid performances by the cast do somewhat make up for all of this, and it is undeniable that the film is entertaining and beautiful to watch, it's just absolutely overhyped.… Expand

0 of 2 users found this helpful02

All this user's reviews

6

AffableParadoxJan 7, 2016

Hateful Eight was a good 2hr movie that was stretched into a plodding 3 long Tarantino self-masturbatory film that pandering critics and his blind fans are going to just gush about because of its liberal use of racial slurs and wannabe modernHateful Eight was a good 2hr movie that was stretched into a plodding 3 long Tarantino self-masturbatory film that pandering critics and his blind fans are going to just gush about because of its liberal use of racial slurs and wannabe modern day Woody Allen dialogue...

It almost feels like he had more of a need to out-Tarantino himself instead of making a really good movie. I generally love me some QT movies. This isn't one of them.… Expand

0 of 3 users found this helpful03

All this user's reviews

6

TheKavehJJan 2, 2016

The Hateful 8 is basically a 3 hour whodunnit mystery, and sure it works at some parts, but the other parts have you wondering when exactly the film is ending. Once again, Tarantino delivers, but this time, he delivers the wrong package.

0 of 5 users found this helpful05

All this user's reviews

6

underinJan 10, 2016

The scenery is beautiful. I disagree with the comments that the first half is dragged out. I think the first half is great. It sets up the movie just right however it is the second half which lets the movie down. It has two main flaws:
1.The scenery is beautiful. I disagree with the comments that the first half is dragged out. I think the first half is great. It sets up the movie just right however it is the second half which lets the movie down. It has two main flaws:
1. The suspense is not revealed in a manner befitting a Thriller. It is laid out in the open.
2. Enough character building is not done and not strongly enough. This, I feel is the most important flaw of the movie which makes it second grade when you compare it to Django Unchained or even an Inglourious Basterds both of which movies I idolize. There is no standout performance unlike Django where you had atleast four.

All in all 6 is a fair score.… Expand

0 of 2 users found this helpful02

All this user's reviews

6

PrimeProjectorsJan 2, 2016

A film that is telling the story of a handful of men, all having a similar attribute, needs to be handled carefully. On the one hand you could have "Seven Samurai" (Akira Kurosawa) that spends its time establishing the situation thoroughly,A film that is telling the story of a handful of men, all having a similar attribute, needs to be handled carefully. On the one hand you could have "Seven Samurai" (Akira Kurosawa) that spends its time establishing the situation thoroughly, then goes to grab each man individually, establishing their ability and personality leading up to their challenge. Or have "Magnificent 7" (John Sturges) , which has a similar premise buy does more to get to the meat of things. Magnificent 7 shows us a situation and then has the characters be shown congruently throughout the situation. One thing to note is "Seven Samurai" is well over 3 hours and "Magnificent 7" is promptly 2 hours. "The Hateful 8" (Quentin Tarantino) is sort playing to both sides and is 2 hours and 47 minutes and I really did feel the extra time wasn't necessary but at the same time it didn't feel that long. While I understand there is an urgency to discover the mystery involved in the film I also star to lose sympathy for the characters. The way we start to learn of our 8 is through, what else dialogue and interactions. But then in the second act (or 4th chapter) something is revealed, I won't spoil but it makes the characters lose personality and let's their title speak for them, not their personality. Even with that the characters weren't exactly as whimsically bastardly as Leonardo DiCaprio performance (Django Unchained) or Christoph Waltz (Inglroious Basterds). As a side note Tim Roth is basically doing Christoph Waltz in this film. Though all the performances are fine, except Samuel L. Jackson, he was great. He really does still have that intimidating glare and powerful voice that he had in Pulp Fiction. Quentin Tarantino uses him very well in his directing, but the others are not quite as illustrious, but I enjoyed Tim Roth and Walton Goggins the most. A lot of the sudden gun shots that are used by Quentin Tarantino a lot are done to great effect here. But the issues I take most with is with the writing. It's not bad it just feels slightly off toward the end. The murder mystery plot seems slightly sudden especially when the dialogue and direction show that it seems to carry great weight, but it didn't quite feel that way. And as I said the characters personalities get lost toward the end and they let their titles speak for themselves. I feel one more rewrite would have made the situations and characters slightly stronger, otherwise it felt spread a bit too thinly. However, there is still enjoyment from Quentin Tarantino's Hateful 8.… Expand

0 of 5 users found this helpful05

All this user's reviews

6

DonathinJan 24, 2016

This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. I have mixed feelings about this Tarantino film. The dialogue is some of Tarantino's best since Pulp Fiction, and there may be more laughs in this movie than any of his others. The cast is superb, featuring some of the best mainstays from previous Tarantino films, and a truly next level performance by Jennifer Jason Leigh; she, in turns, manages to be frightening, hilarious, and even invokes a few moments of sympathy. The characters are fun, and the ending diverges from the more predictable paths of most of the film-maker's movies. The cinematography and score are characters of their own, and some of the best in a Tarantino flick since the Kill Bills.

Those are the good things.

On the other hand, the movie is something of a strange, narrative mess. An hour and a half into the movie, or so it felt, Tarantino injects himself into the story as a heard-but-not-seen voice over narrator. This device is not established in the first half of the film, doesn't emphasize anything of meaning, is poorly executed by Tarantino (a compelling actor he is not), and distracts more than adds to the movie the couple of seemingly arbitrary moments that it is used.

While the first two-thirds of the film play out something like a darkly comedic Agatha Christie story set in the Wild West, the last third of The Hateful Eight promptly jumps off of the rails with some odd plot devices. Just as the viewer is working to figure out who among the company of characters is the traitor, just as the dramatic action is about to boil over, a new character is introduced as the mastermind behind the ill-fated scheme. Anyone with a love for a good mystery yarn knows that you don't make the solution to a mystery be a character that the audience hasn't seen before and has no reason to care about.

Finally, immediately following the wah-wah reveal of the previously "mastermind" behind the mystery, Chapter 5 (the second-to-last titled section of the movie), the film's prolonged "flashback" section was completely superfluous and unnecessary. It offered cameos for some actors that Tarantino likes (and that I like too), but told a story that didn't need to be told in such a literal way. It did nothing that one line of dialogue in the present, and some compelling acting from Jennifer Jason Leigh, couldn't have done to establish the relationship between she and her would-be rescuer.

And, to that end, the film was too long for what it accomplished. Several times, and particularly in the final hour, it lost its wind. And, when it seemed to fly the highest by asking its audience compelling questions (was Marquis' letter truly from President Lincoln? Which one of these sons of sons've **** is going to betray the rest?), it failed to capitalize on what made it unique compared to other Tarantino films by making less interesting narrative choices than it, perhaps, should have.

If the film-makers had respected The Hateful Eight's audience more by not feeling the need to over-simplify the story and spell out every mystery, it would have stood among the best of Tarantino's work. Instead, it ends up being somewhat forgettable, despite all of its verve and grit.… Expand

0 of 1 users found this helpful01

All this user's reviews

5

johannaarMar 18, 2016

Tarantino has done it again, another classic Tarantino style movie that makes us all love or hate him.It's beautifully shot, the haunting score works well, hat's off to his crew as well. The sets and costumes looked terribly authentic.Tarantino has done it again, another classic Tarantino style movie that makes us all love or hate him.It's beautifully shot, the haunting score works well, hat's off to his crew as well. The sets and costumes looked terribly authentic.

Overall worth watching if you don't mind the F and N bombs too much.… Expand

0 of 1 users found this helpful01

All this user's reviews

4

nutterjrDec 22, 2017

I have been known to enjoy Tarantino stories (even True Romance is one of my favourites which he penned) and how he goes about telling them. Often these stories include witty and sharp dialogue which is instantly quotable and lingers in ourI have been known to enjoy Tarantino stories (even True Romance is one of my favourites which he penned) and how he goes about telling them. Often these stories include witty and sharp dialogue which is instantly quotable and lingers in our minds vividly. Unfortunately this story has nothing memorable, dialogue is cheap and the characters are not intriguing enough to care what happens to them. The bloodshed should be cathartic and liberating rather than a gimmick to impress.
This is the movie I would not mind if it was not part of a Tarantino box set that I am gifted down the road.… Expand