|
Consummate Professional posted:I'll be totally honest, me and my roommate both thought it was Waltz and he was just a really incredible actor. God drat it. Still, Tim Roth playing Chris Waltz playing a bandit playing a distinguished english hangman is some Tropic Thunder level of awesome. Aramis fucked around with this message at 06:44 on Jan 1, 2016 |
#
?
Jan 1, 2016 06:39
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 9, 2024 03:31 |
|
|
Casimir Radon posted:You didn't stick around for the after-credits scene? You missed out. Was there really an after-credits scene? The one time I don't stick around--?!
|
|
#
?
Jan 1, 2016 06:48
|
|
|
Big Bad Voodoo Lou posted:Was there really an after-credits scene? The one time I don't stick around--?!
|
|
#
?
Jan 1, 2016 07:03
|
|
|
I just got back from seeing the film IN GLORIOUS DCP. Differences that I noticed (film vs digital notwithstanding):
I'm sure there's more, but that's what stuck out to me. I only saw both cuts once. And it would seem The Confederate's poster is *the rare one*. Haven't heard of anyone having one, but it's gotta exist. Right?? pwn fucked around with this message at 07:46 on Jan 1, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jan 1, 2016 07:41
|
|
|
Wait, was QT's naration after the general's death actually kept in the wide release? It felt to me like that would have been really out of place without the intermission.
|
|
#
?
Jan 1, 2016 07:51
|
|
|
Just got back from the movie. It's good, but I think it's a watch once film for me. Good way to close out 2015.
|
|
#
?
Jan 1, 2016 08:09
|
|
|
Red posted:Really?
|
|
#
?
Jan 1, 2016 15:43
|
|
|
Aramis posted:Wait, was QT's naration after the general's death actually kept in the wide release? It felt to me like that would have been really out of place without the intermission. Oh is this what that was? I saw it last night. It wasn't the 70mm version but some 2h 47m version. That chapter ended and the next one began and yeah it was really out of place and we both left after the movie saying how dumb it was.
|
|
#
?
Jan 1, 2016 16:11
|
|
|
Aramis posted:Still, Tim Roth playing Chris Waltz playing a bandit playing a distinguished english hangman is some Tropic Thunder level of awesome. The part where he switches accents was great, honestly
|
|
#
?
Jan 1, 2016 19:19
|
|
|
I'm amused I wasn't the only one thinking Roth was playing Christoph Waltz which he did a pretty fantastic job. Thought this was alright. A change of pace from Django but would have hoped for more. Saw it in 70MM
|
|
#
?
Jan 1, 2016 21:38
|
|
|
I preferred Roth to Waltz in this role. After winning two Oscars in Tarantino films, there are no small Waltz parts in Tarantino films. I think Waltz would have over shadowed the ensemble too much. Plus this redeems Roth slightly after that loving FIFA film.
|
|
#
?
Jan 1, 2016 22:10
|
|
|
Krispy Kareem posted:I preferred Roth to Waltz in this role. After winning two Oscars in Tarantino films, there are no small Waltz parts in Tarantino films. I think Waltz would have over shadowed the ensemble too much. I made this exact comment to a buddy after the film ended. Maybe it's the increased amount of quality TV shows available these days, but I almost wish this film had been done as a miniseries. The gang members especially had such great potential for depth beyond what was shown. I still really enjoyed it and think Tarantino made the right choice in going a different direction after Inglorious and Django.
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2016 00:15
|
|
|
This is a dumb observation but in the flashback I saw Minnie had a cat and I never saw it again. I can't figure out why it was included at all.
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2016 00:31
|
|
|
I must be in the minority but Tim Roth felt like Tim Roth to me, not Christoph Waltz. I understand why the connection is being made but I don't think it holds up in the actual performance (which is not to say Roth was bad -- Roth was perfect).Krispy Kareem posted:I preferred Roth to Waltz in this role. After winning two Oscars in Tarantino films, there are no small Waltz parts in Tarantino films. I think Waltz would have over shadowed the ensemble too much. I agree, but it also could've been an interesting subversion to have Waltz there playing such a minor role. Unzip and Attack posted:Maybe it's the increased amount of quality TV shows available these days, but I almost wish this film had been done as a miniseries. The gang members especially had such great potential for depth beyond what was shown. I still really enjoyed it and think Tarantino made the right choice in going a different direction after Inglorious and Django. Agreed. Part of me wonders if this is my unfair expectation based on the title. Tarantino says Hateful Eight, but we only get a Hateful Five-ish.
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2016 00:51
|
|
|
Roth was a real highlight of the movie from the moment he came on screen. I can see how the role might have been pictured for Waltz but it would have felt like a Django retread.
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2016 01:48
|
|
|
I don't think there is any evidence it was. People are just making a guess because of the mannerisms of the character. I don't think Roth was trying to be Waltz. He did a fine job making it his own.
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2016 01:52
|
|
|
Krispy Kareem posted:Plus this redeems Roth slightly after that loving FIFA film. Somebody asked him about this in an AMA, and his response was basically, yeah, it's poo poo, but my kids were going to college and it was easy money.
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2016 01:59
|
|
|
Naet posted:I agree, but it also could've been an interesting subversion to have Waltz there playing such a minor role. Maybe, but I'm sure plenty of people would then bitch that there wasn't enough Waltz. I'm not entirely sure Tarantino could resist expanding on Oswaldo's character had Waltz played the role. And that would have come at the expense of other characters and I wouldn't want to take a chance of less Mexican Bob. Krispy Wafer fucked around with this message at 02:26 on Jan 2, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2016 02:23
|
|
|
It feels like people are talking about Tim Roth as if he was some no name benchwarmer and not like, you know, a great actor in his own right that has had huge parts in the prime Tarantino movies. Nothing about the Roth performance felt odd or un-Roth-like to me.
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2016 02:25
|
|
|
After Spectre and Djanjo introduced me to him, I don't think a movie could be worse without Waltz. It's just an inherent positive gain. Would much have been lost in the film had they excised the entire flashback chapter from the film? Saw it this afternoon and was kinda meh about the whole thing, but that flashback part felt entirely superfluous. Nothing happened that we didn't already know.
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2016 02:47
|
|
|
MisterBibs posted:Would much have been lost in the film had they excised the entire flashback chapter from the film? Saw it this afternoon and was kinda meh about the whole thing, but that flashback part felt entirely superfluous. Nothing happened that we didn't already know. Well we wouldn't get that good laugh when we see Channing Tatum show up. I don't know why I find the concept of Channing Tatum in a film funny, maybe it was because I forgot he was in the movie until then, but it gave me a good chuckle. Also I guess it's an interesting transition from the 'good guys' wondering who the bad guy is to just showing you that everyone is just an awful person it turns out.
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2016 02:49
|
|
|
How the hell did they do Daisy's broken teeth, just from like an FX standpoint? Funny enough, Walton Goggins had the same thing done to him in American Ultra. Coffee And Pie fucked around with this message at 03:35 on Jan 2, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2016 03:30
|
|
|
Coffee And Pie posted:How the hell did they do Daisy's broken teeth, just from like an FX standpoint? The makeup artist uses a prosthesis to give the actor more gum. Basically think of it like bringing the gums down half an inch to give the impression that the actor's teeth are much, much shorter. Edit: I should probably say that I'm not a professional and that this is how I think they did it.
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2016 04:13
|
|
|
MisterBibs posted:After Spectre and Djanjo introduced me to him, I don't think a movie could be worse without Waltz. It's just an inherent positive gain. The "bad" cruelty of the Flashback is a great contrast to the "funny" cruelty of the rest of the film, I think. Also, for what it's worth, I thought Tarantino's narration was absolutely hysterical and, while out of place, it was just so great the way Tarantino gives no fucks when he makes a movie. I don't know how I feel about H8 in its entirety yet and I don't know where I rank it, but it was certainly a daring piece of cinema and I always appreciate QTs reckless filming style.
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2016 04:30
|
|
|
A pair of real nice pieces from the trenches, courtesy of Indiewire: Meet the Brave Projectionists Behind The Hateful Eight Roadshow quote:Noelle Alemán, a roadshow projectionist stationed at the Regal Kendal Village Stadium 16 in Miami, told Indiewire about one of her close calls: "[It was] the last 20 minutes of the [show] and the film very nearly fell off of the platter. I caught it in time, but because of how distorted it got, I had to hand-feed the film through the rollers for the last 20 minutes. Let me tell you, that was the most nerve-wracking and agonizing 20 minutes of my life." quote:The job of a projectionist is to manage and fix problems as they arise without the audience being aware. We are the buffer between the chaos of projection and their experience. Every time a show needs to switch to DCP because of a problem, or a show shuts down for a technical issue, there have been 10 equally large issues that the projectionist covers. Many of these projectors are practically antiques, the platter systems were never intended to support the weight and size of 70mm, and entire new pieces of equipment had to be specially manufactured for this production.
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2016 04:45
|
|
|
Saw it, loved it. Spoilers : I loved how the winter snow dunes in Wisconsin were shot like the sand dunes of the long walk in The Good, the Bad and the Ugly and other westerns where a character is asked to walk at gunpoint in the desert.
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2016 05:06
|
|
|
Did the Major really rape the General's son before killing him, was the story made up to rile him up, or it doesn't matter?
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2016 06:02
|
|
|
gohmak posted:Did the Major really rape the General's son before killing him, was the story made up to rile him up, or it doesn't matter? I tend to think the whole story was made up. As soon as the Major found out why the General was there, he invented the story to goad him.
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2016 06:05
|
|
|
gohmak posted:Did the Major really rape the General's son before killing him, was the story made up to rile him up, or it doesn't matter? Since he gave no personal details other than the guy's name, I'm inclined to believe he made it up. I'd also say it doesn't really matter.
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2016 06:08
|
|
|
gohmak posted:Did the Major really rape the General's son before killing him, was the story made up to rile him up, or it doesn't matter? 1. Mannix, already correct about the letter, sees Warren is lying to goad the General. 2. Warren's greatest asset is manipulation through deceit; of course he's lying. He got on that stagecoach, didn't he?
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2016 06:43
|
|
|
Saw it New Year's Eve, liked it a lot. No 70mm out here in Springfield MA, but something goofy managed to happen with the digital version. The first chapter or two was letterboxed in a 16:9 portion of the full panavision screen [there was like 2-4 feet of unused screen on each side]. 10 seconds into the opening credits I ran out and told the usher. I had noticed it was doing that during the trailers but figured the feature would fill the whole screen. It switched during the chapter 1 or 2 title card, so I thanked the usher after the movie. He told me that he was told that was simply how their copy plays out and the staff didn't watch fix anything 
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2016 08:29
|
|
|
Just got back from watching this in 70 MM and it was pretty loving awesome. I thought this was a good return to form for QT (thought Django was just ok not the best). Also that intermission was godlike.
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2016 09:23
|
|
|
Just got back from watching the boxed-in version and kind of feel a fool for not driving up to Portland for the 70mm (but I was nervous about the idea of dressing up...) Great movie. My initial reactions presented in no order: +My guesses about the movie based on the trailer and the casting turned out to be totally wrong. I figured the initial conflict would mainly be between John Ruth and Marquis Warren, with Warren taking the audience's sympathy only for a third-act twist to reverse the dynamic, with Warren becoming the movie's nemesis. I also guessed Walton Goggins would turn out to be no sheriff at all, but Channing Tatum would turn out to be the real sheriff or some other law agent in a short comedic part where he plays the movie's only real White-Hat style cowboy and gets killed off in short order. I'm glad that I'm so awful at predicting movies because it makes them more enjoyable! +Production/set design really shines in this movie. You have a three hour drama essentially taking place in one room, but the different backdrops---the fireplace, the corner with the coffee pot, the far wall with the bar counter, etc---created very different compositions and different setpieces. +Nice touch with Tim Roth's character that they mention there probably is a real hangman from Redrock buried out back since "Oswaldo" didn't sound like any Englishman's name to me. +Thought it was weird and suspicious how not upset Mannix was over the General's death. Well, the narrator skips over the presumable fit that he had but I thought it was odd we didn't see it. +What the hell was in that notebook Joe Gage had? Was he telling the truth about writing his life story? Seriously glad Michael Madsen had a significant part in this movie. He's so great at being charming with so little said it gives the moment where he just busts out and starts shooting people this real punch. +Seriously kind of can't get over how Walton Goggins, the guy basically made to play "scary hillbilly mook," gets a decisive and kind of redemptive role in this movie. +Guess I should say, I thought it was interesting this movie tries to meditate on the archetypal White-Hat cowboy through the character of John Ruth, a guy who is---clearly---kind of a dick but that Warren feels obliged to honor in his own way at the end of the movie. Also if we're free associating, I'd have to ask Tarantino if Ruth made him think ruthless which would be interesting since the character is ruthless in certain ways, highly principled in others). After the mix of condescension and insults he pours on Warren for the first 25 minutes of the movie you really have to laugh when Ruth says "yes, that does hurt my feelings." Actually I was stuck behind this couple that never laughed at anything through the movie which kind of threw me off, I hate that. You have with Marquis Warren a guy who stretches the idea of anti-hero to its limit, but you find much harder to dislike than John Ruth, the guy who doesn't let the fact that it's really inconvenient stop him from doing the right/principled thing, which is interesting. In his own way Ruth wasn't racist, despite being racist as gently caress, which is why he's the one who's really disappointed Warren's story about the Lincoln Letter is bullshit. +I dunno what to say about all the criticism like "oh no they hit a woman and played it for laughs," "I'm not comfortable the end of the movie is two men hanging a woman and laughing," I don't think that matters a ton. +Quentin Tarantino and I both have a thing for psychopathic blondes and I appreciate that. +Interesting how closely this movie tracks to another project with Kurt Russell, Ennio Morricone, and lots of snow, The Thing. The two final protagonists dying together, the reveal of "the monster" (that everyone is in the gang/that Jody was lurking downstairs). +Final point I really gotta say I love the theme of this movie. Not a western theme at all, it sounds like the theme to some 70's Italian horror movie and it is absolutely on point. +Actually, interesting point of fact now that I think about it----Goggins, aside from John Ruth and O.B, is probably the only dude who goes into that cabin who isn't a sonofabitch that basically deserves to be shot. Which explains why Ruth and O.B. die in short order when the real conflict begins---in a sense you have a bunch of corrupt people trying to sway this stupid guy who grew up idolizing his awful guerilla-warring bushwacker dad. +Also now that I think about it, how interesting is it that Marquis Warren reacts just as if Donergue had in fact desecrated a personal letter to him from Abraham Lincoln, with such speed I really gotta think it was instinctual. Since the letter was, in fact, bullshit, yet I think it had come to occupy a place in his mind as if it was real. Which is part of the whole point, about the myth of Lincoln and all the goodness that it stands for. poo poo even Mannix is kind of like "wow" about Lincoln which says a lot. Harime Nui fucked around with this message at 11:56 on Jan 2, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2016 11:35
|
|
|
Red posted:
I'm not convinced at all it's made up. Marquis establishes early that lots of ex-Confederates have come looking to claim his hide while he's been holed up in Wyoming, at a point where he has no reason to lie. Second, when Mannix suggests the lost son might have survived in the wilds General Sandy says "if my boy had finished his business he'd have come back," e.g, he went to Wyoming with a very specific mission, not just to find gold. I'm inclined to believe that's why Sandy buys the story despite Mannix's insistence it's made up---I mean, he'd want to believe that story was false if he could, but he seemed to know why his son went up there and he actually put off as long as possible learning the identity of the black man in the cavalry officer's uniform as being Marquis Warren.
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2016 11:39
|
|
|
While I have absolutely no doubt that Sandy's son found his end in Marquis, I also have no doubt that the rest of the story is STDH.txt. Warren was playing off the General's Fear of a Black Knob racism to goad him. And as anyone from the great white north will tell you, you aren't gonna be marching naked in the snow for two hours, and even if you're bundled up you're not taking your johnson out to play. This is illustrated numerous times in the first half, most notably when O.B. comes back from dumping the guns. pwn fucked around with this message at 12:21 on Jan 2, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2016 12:18
|
|
|
Yes, taken in that light, the story is very implausible---I've been in real below-10 degree Farenheit cold like once for five minutes and it hurt like my hands and face were like oh poo poo, I couldn't comprehend getting your knob polished in that kind of temperature
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2016 12:28
|
|
|
Hey does anybody else remember the awesome symbolism at the start of the movie of the white and the black horses rushing side by side? Now are they running with each other as a team or are they racing against each other, is certainly a question. Actually I sort of take issue with this movie's idea of age..... Walton Goggins is not a young man and Michael Madsen is grandpa age but they are both treated as "kids" by Sam Jackson and Kurt Russell, who of course are ancients themselves.... feels weird the script seems to consider some people young when nobody in this movie really is
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2016 12:31
|
|
|
Nimec posted:This is a dumb observation but in the flashback I saw Minnie had a cat and I never saw it again. I can't figure out why it was included at all. Yeah, from the moment I saw the cat I was wondering how they were going to handle it. Turns out they didn't at all! MisterBibs posted:After Spectre and Djanjo introduced me to him, I don't think a movie could be worse without Waltz. It's just an inherent positive gain. After Spectre (never saw Django) I'm fully convinced a movie could be worse with Waltz. Clunky character in a too-long movie. MisterBibs posted:Would much have been lost in the film had they excised the entire flashback chapter from the film? Saw it this afternoon and was kinda meh about the whole thing, but that flashback part felt entirely superfluous. Nothing happened that we didn't already know. This movie, on the other hand, I wouldn't cut a scene from. What the flashback establishes is, as has been said, the distinction between violence against innocents and violence against hardened criminals. It also shows us how the gang went to to set up the situation, solidifies the General's character (people butchered in front of me? I'm not even going to dignify that by standing up), and is a pay off for details from earlier in the movie. We find out the nature of Minnie's character which reveals another Marquis lie, we see why the door is really broken in addition to straightening other oddities out, and we get to see the extent of what happened to normal people who got caught up in the machinery of the plot. The most important things for me were Minnie and the General. The former for reinforcing Marquis' character and the latter for, well, also reinforcing Marquis' character (in addition to the General's). For all Marquis lies about he's not wrong about the General and the old man seems to not have developed a sense of compassion or humanity in his old age.
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2016 12:48
|
|
|
Calico Heart posted:I saw this movie waaaaaaay back in October I think. Advanced screening in LA where they didn't announce what the movie was but everyone sort of picked up on it. Tarantino came out and introduced the film, everyone went nuts, it was great. I just want to quote this for context with regards to my major response to and question about the film---because the comparison to 12 Angry Men is obvious and occurred to me as soon as I saw the previews and knew what kind of movie I was in for. Now 12 Angry Men is about the deliberation of a criminal sentence, and personally I felt this movie was too. And here's where I go possibly out into space from normal human responses but I felt like Daisy's "guilt" is very deliberately left up in the air---does this woman deserve to die---until the moment Chris Maddix makes his choice, which certainly explains why we never got the flashback I expected to show any of Daisy's crimes or her capture. Honestly up until the end you're made to feel very sympathetic with Daisy, I think it's fair to say the movie pushes you in that way, so you don't want to see her die---hence Oswaldo's whole monologue about justice, both the condemnation of frontier justice and the praise for impartiality. The movie leaves it open to ask if what you're watching in the final scene is "impartiality"---bear in mind we are seeing the Sheriff and a bounty hunter conduct their duty, but certainly in a "frontier justice" sort of way; the way they reach the decision to hang Daisy is in a sense impartial: it's to honor the fallen John Ruth. On the other hand, obviously, for a lot of reasons it's not exactly a judicial execution. And again Daisy being played so charismatically you end up kind of rooting for her to make it out, which goes back to Tim Roth's whole speech about why feelings shouldn't conduct justice. Great stuff.
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2016 12:48
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 9, 2024 03:31 |
|
|
Saw it last night. Pretty good, though, at times a little long-winded. Could have stood too lose a few minutes-- not much, just shaving a few scenes down here and there. Personally I think Jackson and Goggins had standout performances, with Goggins in particular. I'm glad to see him in more stuff. I remember seeing him back on FX's Justified years ago and thinking he was a good actor.
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2016 12:50
|
|
