The Hateful Eight: a panel review

Many people regard Quentin Tarantino as a polarizing figure in modern cinema. His chatty and violent movies can simultaneously fascinate and repel even the most discriminating fan.

An avowed film buff himself, he steeps his works in cinematic culture unlike most others, with clever references to classics, thoughtful techniques and frequent inside jokes that only other snobs would get. He pays tribute to his elders but then puts his own trademarks in at the same time. He’s as influenced by the past as he is influential to others.

In short, you can love him, you can hate him, or you can love him and hate him. His newest offering is The Hateful Eight, a tense Western drama described in six chapters. It’s set far from a typical dusty desert town but rather a distant mountain outpost called Red Rock in the middle of a fierce blizzard. While it starts off with the trek to find shelter before the storm hits, it ends in a prolonged one-room interior scene where trust and psychology are necessary survival tools, among others.

It features an ensemble of unsavoury but memorable characters, sparkling dialogue, memorable scenes, an original score by celebrated composer Ennio Morricone, and was filmed in Ultra Panavision 70 (although local theatres can accommodate only standard screenings) to top it all off. It’s a pretty dense offering at the theatre and it’s certainly not for all viewers.

In the spirit of offering a more complete review of such a complex moviemaker, this movie critic sat down with two local cinephiles, Justin Kueber and Sam Reid. The two are not just avowed film fans but are also involved in moviemaking variously through their own business, Guerrilla Motion Pictures, as well as projects throughout the local and larger communities.

Together, we took in the nearly three-hour film and then met at a local eatery to talk about it over a piece of pie. We discussed what was good and what was bad, starting with the dialogue. The following is a condensed version of our discussion.

SR: Sometimes I find with his movies, especially the long ones, I get dialogue fatigue. I liked (The Hateful Eight). I really liked how everything was not what it seemed. There were a lot of things that caught me by surprise.

JK: The story was really good and complex. It wasn’t as simple as all these guys in one room. I liked how it took its time getting to know all the characters and how it was shot. He somehow made an entire movie in a room interesting.

SH: I enjoyed it too. I have a complicated relationship with Tarantino. I love all of his movies but not usually on the first time. They bear up to repeat viewings, even demanding them. This one is the same: I already want to see it again.

JK: What kept it interesting was that there were a lot of twists.

SR: Especially stuff like Pulp Fiction where he plays with structure.

SH: And the dialogue where they talk about hamburgers. That’s fascinating! You want to watch that again. It develops the plot somehow. You understand the rapport these characters have. And it’s just fun.

SR: He’s old school in that sense. I think that this was his most ‘Old Hollywood’ style of film. It just had that feel.

SH: The Morricone score … the archetypes. The Sam Peckinpah people … you want to hear these guys in conversation. Where would you rank this on a scale of one to five?

JK: I’d probably give it maybe 4, maybe 3.5. I’m a fan of story and I thought the story was perfect. How everything connected was really well done. I found myself drifting off in some points though. It was an issue. And for the 70mm version apparently there were 12 more minutes added.

SR: I want to go with 4 … and for similar reasons. I really liked it but I don’t think it’s a perfect movie by any means. Sometimes I did feel a bit drifting off where I felt it was taking a while to get to a point for some parts. Overall, I really liked it. Even the stuff that takes a long time is nice because you’re getting to know these characters. It almost feels like real life.

SH: He’s throwing in every detail and reference from his encyclopedia. I like this one a lot and I already want to see it again, which I don’t often say. I wouldn’t give it a 5 because I struggle with the authenticity. We’re watching these people in a room … it looks like a stage production.

JK: I felt that the whole thing was a play, that you could see it in (live) theatre.

SH: I was definitely getting an Agatha Christie vibe, like And Then There Were None but with Kurt Russell and Samuel L. Jackson. I was wondering if he would make a movie where there’s no violence and people just talk their way out of the mess. That would be fascinating. He could do that but he never will.

SR: He just loves violence and revenge.

SH: And Mexican standoffs.

JK: It was really well acted. Jennifer Jason Leigh was fantastic. Tim Roth was really watchable.

SR: I really liked Kurt Russell. This was one of his best performances.

SH: And Samuel L. Jackson is always great. All of the characters were great, even the ones you want to despise.

SR: That’s really why I think his movies are so great. There’s just great dialogue, great characters, great stories. Some people don’t like his movies because of him, the way he writes maybe. I always have fun with his movies.