« Vilmos Zsigmond, 1930-2016 | Main | My Friend Brett Smiley »

January 09, 2016


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

other mike

nice review. i liked the movie a lot.


One of your best!


Will see this in 70mm on Monday -- my first ever visit to London's Odeon Leicester Square and the first Tarantino I've let near my retinas in over a decade.


"A few years ago, in a “State of the Cinema” address at the San Francisco Film International Festival, Steven Soderbergh, with mordant facetiousness, advised young filmmakers, when seeking financing, to “in the process of telling [your] story, stop yourself in the middle of a sentence and act like you’re having an epiphany, and say: “You know what, at the end of this day, this is a movie about hope.’” One ought give credit where it’s due, finally: Tarantino, cinema sensationalist nonpareil, has made a movie entirely not about hope, for what it’s worth."

Glenn, this is a piece that really ... you know what, at the end of this day, this is a review about hope.


A small correction: the group of confederates was not referred to as "Mannix's Raiders" but rather "Mannix's Marauders", which I took as a nod to the Samuel Fuller film Merrill's Marauders.


I saw Tarantino and a group of the filmmakers speak after an advance screening of the film a few weeks ago. Tarantino said his original inspiration for the script was watching old TV Westerns like The Virginian, where the episode plot would center on a guest star like Vic Morrow or William Shatner, and we often didn't know until the end whether they were "on Doug McClure's side," that is ultimately whether they were a good guy or a bad guy. He liked the idea of gathering a bunch of these Western guest star characters together with no Doug McClure to automatically side with.

I'd read somewhere that he'd considered making this a Django sequel, and Jackson's character's backstory certainly has elements of Django. Of course, making the protagonist Django would automatically make him a hero for the audience in a way that Major Warren isn't.

I saw another review/article that suggested that the film was more "about misogyny" than actually misogynistic, that the subtext was that in this post-Civil War era where North and South, black and white essentially find themselves on the same side, the one enemy they can agree on is women. (Not that this is accurate -- it's certainly an interesting interpretation).


This is fantastic! And a hell of a kicker at the close. Bravo.


"Giggly viciousness" is just a cooler way of saying "arrested development."

Incidentally, I'm not the first to point this out, but the real source for TH8 is "Fair Game," an episode of "The Rebel" that tells pretty much the same story in 1/7 the time, right down to the dame in handcuffs and the poisoned beverage. It's viewable on YouTube.

Misha Goberman

Hey Glenn, it's Misha. I hear QT's next film (his 10th? Wow he can count!) is going to be a 12-hour remake of Salo. Any truth to these dastardly rumors?


My son and I saw it in 70mm, then watched it in digital about five days later. He preferred the digital. I preferred the 70mm, but it's hard to be dogmatic w/o seeing them back-to-back for comparison. We agreed that the intermission was necessary for the timing of the movie.

The theater we saw it in 70mm was over two hours away, so we had lots to discuss on the way home. We batted the idea around that everyone was noble. The gang was because they were risking life and limb to rescue their comrade. The bounty hunters because they were upholding the legal system.

On the other side of the equation, they were all despicable, and ultimately their hate consumed each other and themselves, while a few miles away life in Red Rock went on, business as usual. Life goes on. Same with drug wars, protests, international wars, and internet fights. We may destroy each other and ourselves in the process, but somewhere else, people move forward, untouched by our private wars.


don't "get" Hateful Eight.

As with your American Sniper review last year, you're willing to analyze movies AS MOVIES, not as political tracts. Hateful Eight and Tarantino have been subjected to nonstop attacks by right-wingers on the Internet. They're gloating over the film's "total box-office failure" and failure to get a Best Picture nomination. (Well, neither did The Force Awakens.)

Tarantino has been branded an evil "liberal," apparently because he doesn't like cops shooting unarmed black teenagers. That makes him a mortal enemy of the far right. As they see it, Hateful Eight's disappointing box office means America has rejected Tarantino and all he "stands for."

And now they're sending letters to local newspapers making this claim: Hateful Eight box-office flop means Trump or Cruz victory in November.


The first part of my post got cut off. The first sentence was:

Great analysis, Glenn. I've passed it on to the many people I know who don't "get" Hateful Eight.


If BoxOfficeMojo.com is any guide, Michael Bay's '13 Hours' will probably end up making as much as 'The Hateful Eight', and both had similar production budgets. What then does the right have to say about the former film's "total box-office failure"?


Oliver C said: "What then does the right have to say about the former film's "total box-office failure"?"

Most of these guys probably didn't know who Tarantino was until the police union blasted him. Right-wing attacks on Hollywood typically come from cranky old white guys who haven't been to a movie theater since John Wayne died.

I assume they're getting their talking points from Fox News and various right-wing radio hosts, because their comments are remarkably similar. They inevitably use the word "depraved" to describe Tarantino and his films. One letter printed in a daily newspaper called for everyone to vote Republican, so Tarantino can be silenced and his "depraved" movies banned!


"Right-wing attacks on Hollywood typically come from cranky old white guys who haven't been to a movie theater since John Wayne died."

Maybe not even that 'recently'. Evidently the Supreme Court's unanimous ruling in 1952 that directors were protected by the First Amendment passed them by as well. (Also Griswold v. Connecticut, and Lawrence v. Texas, and... but I digress.)


I give Tarantino kudos for making a movie that has pissed off so many people. When people say the movie upset them, made them angry and disgusted them, I say, "Then the movie worked. That's exactly how you were supposed to feel."

People who loved Django Unchained and Inglorious Basterds are trashing Hateful Eight. They don't mind blodbaths, as long as they're in the service of feel-good retribution. A movie with no heroes, nobody to cheer for, is apparently something they can't handle.


I read your terrific essay after seeing The Hateful Eight in 70 mm - a double-bill paired with The Revenant. After The Revevant's dour, humourless, wordless grind, it was quite a relief to sit through a dialogue-driven ensemble piece. It's actually the first Tarantino film I've enjoyed in its entirety since Jackie Brown. I noticed quite a few visual similarities between the two films but was surprised at how much better the picture quality was on The Revenant, filmed digitally with the Alexa Arri 65. No scenes in The Hateful Eight were anywhere near as sharp on a huge screen, Ultra Panavision 70 mm notwithstanding. The dynamic range on the digital projection was also superior. I wonder if Tarantino will continue to film on celluloid in the future.

T. Maria

I would really like to know more about why wings appear in Daisy's back.. Does anyone know if that means something ?

The comments to this entry are closed.

Tip Jar

Tip Jar
Blog powered by Typepad