The Hateful Eight (2015) Poster

User Reviews

Review this title
1,260 Reviews
Sort by:
Filter by Rating:
A stage play of a "Who-Done-It" murder mystery - with highly political undercurrents
gogoschka-126 December 2015
OK - if you've already seen the movie and hated it, my review won't change your mind, so move along folks, move along, there's nothing to see for you here, thanks.

Now for you, dear film fan, who is about to watch 'The Hateful Eight', but who is now slightly worried because of some very mixed critical reactions - for YOU I'm writing this 100% spoiler-free review.

Judging from many comments here on IMDb and other forums, I gather that many long-time Tarantino fans apparently don't like his newest film. I had feared such a reaction as soon as I had finished watching the movie. It's obviously Tarantino's least accessible effort yet, and there's a number of reasons for that, not the least of which being that this is simply not the film most people expected (or felt they were promised). So if you haven't seen it yet and you're a bit doubtful because of the negative reviews, let me tell you: you'll likely end up loving it - as I did - IF you prepare yourself juuuust a little. And because I really liked the movie, I would like to help you do that via a short list of recommendations. Ready? Here it goes:

1. Don't go watch 'The Hateful Eight' expecting a "classic" Western. It might belong to the Western genre, but if all that talk about Ultra 70mm Panavision had you thinking of lush outdoor scenery, vast landscapes or anything resembling a Sergio Leone movie, you'll end up disappointed. There are a few nice shots showing snowy mountains, but 95% (perhaps more) of the story unfolds indoors (in one single room) - which isn't to say that the cinematography isn't absolutely fantastic. In fact, it's more than fantastic: it's stunning and worthy of an Oscar.

2. Don't expect any exciting "action" scenes (for lack of a better word: I don't mean the 'Fast & Furious' kind of action scenes) every 10 minutes or so; in fact, don't expect anything other to happen between the characters than dialog for a loooooong time. Unlike in Tarantino's previous films where we got almost "spoiled" by unexpected over-the-top moments in nearly every scene (except maybe for 'Jackie Brown' and 'Deathprooof'), this film has a very, very slow build. But: that's not to say it ISN'T exciting (or that nothing does happen) - it's just that the excitement and tension result mainly from the dialog and the excellent performances by the cast (at least for roughly two thirds of the movie).

3. Best approach this film as you would theater; for that's what 'The Hateful Eight' really is: a stage play disguised as a movie. A stage play of a "Who-Done-It" murder mystery with a touch of Agatha Christie. But then again, that's also a disguise, for the murder mystery is just a ploy to cast a look at a torn society rife with racial tension after the civil war. Which, of course, again serves as an allegory for race relations in modern-day America and as the director's angry commentary on how hateful that situation still is today, on all sides. Now that sounds awfully serious, but don't worry; despite some hard-to-stomach ugliness and the highly political undercurrent, there is plenty of Tarantino's trademark humor throughout the whole film.

4. Don't expect to find a likable character you can root for. There's a reason for the film's title, and unlike in all his previous films, there is not a single person in Tarantino's latest movie you'll feel any real sympathy for. All the main characters have committed despicable, hateful acts, and they're all beyond redemption - but that doesn't mean they're not compelling to watch (especially given THIS cast: everyone is fantastic, but Jackson, Russell, Jason Leigh and Goggins are just a joy to watch).

5. Don't expect a complex plot. In my opinion, among Q.T's films this is the one with the most straight forward and most simple plot to date, yet at the same time it's arguably his most complex - and most ambitious - film.

So, dear film fan, that's it: adhere to these here 5 "commandments", and there's a big chance you'll end up loving Mr. Banana Chin's latest oeuvre as much as I did (mind; you might love the film just as much without taking any of the above advice). I admit, it took me a while to get into this dialog-heavy stage play and would-be Western, but once I did, I never looked back (and I can hardly wait to watch it again). 9 stars out of 10.

Favorite films:

Lesser-Known Masterpieces:

Favorite Low-Budget and B-Movies:

Favorite TV-Shows reviewed:
1,180 out of 1,633 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Don't believe the 1's and 2's or the 9's and 10's
realtab31 December 2015
The film is too well crafted to get the really low scores, the cinematography is too good, the acting too high caliber, the direction too solid, the score too nice, and the flick too engaging for such ratings.

This also applies to the other end. The "twists" are unimportant and add no spice, the pacing just slogs along, the joy too nonexistent, the characters evoke too little emotion either way, the story too light on satisfaction, the story telling too inconsistent, the length too needless,the magic (other than on the technical side) too absent, and the rewatchability too minimal for me to see greatness but maybe a second viewing will change my perspective but it will definitely be on video for me, only the lure of a hot date fixated on going could get me into the theater again other than maybe just for the experience a 70mm screening.

I'm a pretty avid Tarrentino fan but I didn't overly enjoy this effort. I more appreciate it and can't say I wasn't engaged but I also can't say that I'm eager to see it again and worse for the first time I have little inclination to do so with a flick by Q.

A generous 7/10 (rounding up from 6.5) for me but I could see ceiling of 8 and a basement of 4 at the lowest.
857 out of 1,289 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Everyone seems to be missing the point
tcrescenzo-0840931 December 2015
If your willing to jump on the bandwagon and avoid this movie just because a couple of thin skinned reviewers are complaining about all the blood and all the "n-words", then you might as well just shovel your money into Disney's pockets and see star wars because that's the movie for you. This is the first real piece of cinema that has come to the theaters this year; with all the audacity, the balls, and the fearless will to show anything on screen that real filmmakers are brave enough to commit themselves to. If all these negative reviewers would just look past the blood and the guts, they would find a truly masterful piece of cinematic art that reflects both the expertise and effort that went into making it. The storyline is a simple one, but it's told in a complex, interesting, and relatively unique way that is guaranteed to keep your eyes glued to the screen throughout the entire 3 hour run time of the movie. Tarantino's direction is unparalleled as usual, and the performance of the entire cast combined with the wonderful cinematography and deeply engaging dialogue make for a remarkably fun time at the theater, if your willing to sit through a lot of grisly violence and mean spirited subject matter. And although many people are complaining about the heavy political undertones of the film's storyline, to me that is one of the main components of this film that stands out the most. The plot of this film serves not only as a compelling metaphor for the racial tension amongst the American people immediately following the civil war, but actually manages to outline the visceral anger and unpredictability of the racial tension that the American people are facing today within society. In a world hell bent on purporting sensitivity and being politically correct, it's nice to see a movie that's willing to raise a middle finger to that social stigma so as to hold a mirror to the racial confrontations that are still plaguing the American people to this very day. Obviously this film is undoubtedly the most sick, twisted, and violent of Tarantino's filmography, and I'm willing to admit that it's not for everybody, but for those of you willing to toughen up, keep your trigger happy insecurities in check, and enjoy a mean, gritty, and badass film that offers no apologies for what it does best I highly recommend this film. And for those of you who are willing to let Tarantino's comments about the police force get in the way of your enjoyment of this film, like I said; Disney is more than willing to take your hard earned money.
825 out of 1,392 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
AvramSMH5 March 2016
Even tho i was expecting more action, I've found myself at the edge of my seat at times. The characters were nicely developed. The dialogue was as expected from a Tarantino movie. The story is 3 hours long, it takes place mostly in a one single room and it's still not boring. That's something not everyone can do. All of the actors we're perfect for their roles and the acting was great as well as the character design, all of the characters were memorable and well written. The movie is divided into chapters in most of which a small twist takes place that makes you more interested in the movie. I enjoyed the film but my biggest flaws were the length and the spontaneous introduction of a narrator mid- movie, that was a pretty 'out of nowhere' lazy way to develop the back story, but oh well, Tarantino is known for making risks and doing crazy sh*t
114 out of 189 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Go for it. Ignore the haters. Tarantino entertainment to the core!
vaivhav30 December 2015
This is a short review I am forced to write after noticing the critics and the haters. Hateful Eight is another Tarantino masterpiece. It may be similar to his previous movies, but great directors don't come often and in a single life they can make only so many films. Now if Tarantino decides to make another 'Tanrantino' western with all the fine work thrown in as in his other films, I am no one no complain. This guy is a legend and I am privileged to see the handful of movies he will make in his lifetime. Even if he makes similar movies a dozen times, I would still watch it, cause this guy knows filmmaking at its finest. Hateful Eight is a blizzard of fine acting, fine dialogue, humor, darkness, snow and that incredible eye for perfection and storytelling.

Go damn watch it and be prepared to be a told a western story Tarantino style.
602 out of 1,077 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Don't believe the hype, it's okay but Tarantino can do better
Jerghal6 March 2016
So I've finally seen this much talked about film and I have to say I was a bit disappointed. The H8 is a 168 min long movie which is described as a sort of mystery thriller and a lot a noise was made (mainly by Quentin himself) when the script leaked early and therefore would harm the box office chances of this flick. The movie did indeed not make big waves money wise but that was mainly because the overly long movie does actually not amount to much story wise. In other words there is no real clue. The dialogue, normally the strongpoint of Tarantino films, is actually not that great. Conversations are drawn out without the characters actually saying anything. It does help a lot that we do get a great cast (Kurt Russel, Sam L Jackson and Jennifer Jason Leigh) because without them the movie would fall apart rather quickly. The film was shot on 2,76:1 70mm widescreen because retro elitist Tarantino thinks digital isn't good enough and I do have to say the snowy landscape shots look awesome but they make up only 2% of the flick. The rest of it is in a cabin where standard 35mm or even a digital camera could have perfectly captured the images. About the music I can be short: there is almost none. It' might have been composed by Moricone who unrightfully got an Oscar for it, but it does not add much here in this film. I'm glad I didn't see it on the big screen. It works just as well on the small screen, maybe even better coz you can pauze it to get more booze and a snack. So despite my rather harsh comments I would recommend it but know that this is far from Tarantino's best work.
164 out of 280 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Not worth the hype... or hate.
Lolz1325 April 2016
Let me start off by saying. That anyone giving this film a 1 or 2 is embarrassing themselves and anything they say should be taken with a grain of salt. I'm not saying this because I like this movie, I'm saying it because it's true. Hardly any movie in the modern era deserves this rating unless it is shameless schlock without character or plot. The Hateful 8 is not that movie. The acting alone gives this movie a 6.5 because it is so good. If you were bored by this movie, I hope you can at least admit that the people involved with this film are extremely talented.

Now, having said that, I'll get into the meat of the review. I enjoyed this movie. However, I must admit that the main aspect of this film (and biggest cause of disdain), the dialogue, is so prominent that it might as well be the entire first half of the movie. When a movie is this dialogue heavy, it tends to put audiences to sleep. However, the cinematography and musical score is what kept me interested. I'm not usually one to notice music in a movie, but Morricone has done an excellent job of creating atmosphere and tension throughout this film. Without him, it's a real snooze-fest. Not to say that the dialogue wasn't top notch either. The lack of characters allows for more streamlined and focused storytelling. The movie stays away from unnecessary dialogue and story padding and focuses more on character building. It is clear from dialogue alone what every characters motivation is unless it is intentionally hidden.

I respect what this movie tried to do and I think Tarantino succeeded in making the movie he wanted to make. He created an atmospheric and genuinely intriguing mystery movie with a western theme. Now, that movie may not appeal to wide audiences and make tons of $$cash$$, but they tried something ambitious and I believe it payed off.
96 out of 161 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Minnie's Haberdashery, where the elite meet
bkoganbing10 April 2016
You'd have to go back 80 years or so to the film adaptation of Sidney Kingsley's Dead End to find a film where the set qualifies as a living participant of the action. The house in the adaption of the Eugene O'Neill classic Long Day's Journey Into Night also qualifies here.

The action is set up when the stagecoach where bounty hunter Kurt Russell is taking his prisoner Jennifer Jason Leigh to the town of Red Rock to be hung. A couple of prairie hitchhikers also come on board another bounty hunter Samuel L. Jackson and Walton Goggins son of a former Confederate general who says he's the new sheriff in the town of Red Rock. Kurt Russell replete with full flowing beard and mustache is one suspicious man. He has those suspicions justified before the film is ended.

80% of the action takes place on set of the 19th century bed and breakfast during the time of a nasty Wyoming winter and does the dialog crackle. If you think you're going to see a western the kind that John Ford or Howard Hawks or Henry Hathaway did back in the old days, then don't watch The Hateful Eight. Hateful is the operating word with these characters, there's nothing really noble about any of them.

Besides the set of Minnie's Haberdashery to recommend it, Quentin Tarrantino selected a truly fine ensemble cast who play beautifully off each other. As the outlaw queen Jennifer Jason Leigh got a Best Supporting Actress nomination, but in my humble opinion she doesn't stand out any more than any of the rest of them. The Hateful Eight also earned Ennio Morricone an Oscar for the best musical score for 2015.

The Hateful Eight is a great western, but it ain't your grandpa's kind of western.
56 out of 90 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Theatric and Detailed
featheredsun30 January 2016
This is a fine piece of storytelling - a mystery, western, and political drama - all artfully melded together by a seasoned crew and talented actors.

The action is set in antebellum Wyoming, in the heart of a raging blizzard, in a frontier bar. Setting is very important here.

The period is meaningful for the political currents that flow in nearly all the characters. Feelings about the American civil war are very up-front, with complicit atrocity present in nearly all the characters. The war brought out horrible things in these people, and we see how they deal with that shared knowledge, both personally and to each other.

The blizzard provides the necessary isolation to the story. These characters are stuck with each other, and this forced closeness is central to the story - they're all Hateful, and that hate reverberates among them, destroying peace and hope. Hate is what brings them together and hate is what tears them apart. The blizzard also provides some interesting incidental elements that are fascinating to watch, like the hardship of a simple task like preparing guidelines, or going to the outhouse, and the cold hell explodes inward at times (when the door is opened) with punctuating effect, providing some breaks to the narrative, and even some needed laughs.

And the bar... This film's action takes place primarily in one large room. It feels very much like a stage play (as another reviewer mentioned), allowing greater intimacy with the characters and their interactions, while providing us with an opportunity to witness multiple scenarios unfolding at the same time. This density of action is very cool. We are afforded third person omniscience without losing connection with the motives and perspectives of the players.

And the stage setting meshes very integrally with the acting. We see the principal actors doing top-notch with not only their primary motivational actions, but nearly every choice in blocking and busy action. The director and production team make a very wise choice in showing the small little details of what's going on here. Attention is paid to realistic procedural actions, and reactions, for these details. The result is that we see characters behaving in reasonable ways to their environments, pausing to disarm a stranger, or undo a shackle, not simply because the plot calls for it, but because it's a reasonable choice that they would make at the time. Very refreshing to see, actually.

On the negative side, Tarrantino's choice to use narration was weakly executed. I don't know if there would have been a way to do this without narration, but the actual usage detracted from the ongoing story. Also, there were a few points in the action where the characters seemed to be a little too accepting of the events that transpire around them. This is purely a fault of direction/writing.

But overall, a very watchable film, that is notably unafraid to portray some very dirty and uncomfortable bits of the human psyche. Some folks seem to have an issue with this last part. My advice to them is to loosen up a bit and accept art that hurts a little. That's one of the things good art can do.
49 out of 87 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Half this film should've been left on the cutting room floor
ViktorDrake25 January 2016
Warning: Spoilers
This movie just goes to show what happens when a director is given totally free reign in terms of script and running time, purely on account of his name. Tarantino has always been a fan of long conversational sections in his movies, but where they were engaging, entertaining and scalpel-sharp in the likes of Reservoir Dogs, Pulp Fiction and Jackie Brown, here they are just interminably long, boring and dull.

For the first time EVER, my girlfriend actually fell asleep in the cinema watching this bore-fest of a film, and that was way before the interval arrived. Talking of which, there was an audible groan that went up from the audience when the interval sign turned up on the screen, and not because everyone was soooo enthralled ; more that everyone was just willing it to end. While we were kicking our heels during the interval, I overheard the guy behind me say, "this is clearly Tarantino's Phantom Menace", while another guy was heard to say, "hmmm, after an hour and half at least SOMETHING usually happens in a movie". After an intriguing first 15 mins, nothing (and I mean NOTHING) of any note happens for the remainder of the first half of the film. The dialog is also painfully predictable in places. More than once, a conversation would start and I knew how it would end within the first couple of seconds...and yet the characters on screen would take several minutes to get there. Truly painful stuff.

The swearing, the liberal use of the "N" word, and the violence (when it eventually arrives after hours of plodding and highly unrealistic chit-chat), are not the problem with this film in my opinion. After all, this is a Tarantino movie which (while coming across as all rather juvenile), is designed for adults, so adult language and themes should surprise absolutely no-one. The problem is purely the fact that it's just too bloody long for such a threadbare plot! If this movie came in at somewhere between 1.5 and 2 hours, then it would've been just about OK (still not great, but OK at best), but at over 3 hours it's just a director's masturbation piece. It desperately needs a NON-Director's Cut to trim at least an hour out of the first half. There's a line in the movie where Samuel L Jackson's character says, "Let's slow this down. Let's slow it way down"... and at that point I physically curled my toes in my shoes, thinking please god, don't make this any slower! Watching this movie is an ordeal, almost as punishing as what the old General's son has to go through at the "business end" of Jackson's "Johnson"!

Granted, the second half is a little more engaging, but unfortunately by that point the damage has already been done by forcing the audience to sit through the turgid load of garbage that comprises the first half. But just when things are potentially looking up, Tarantino decides to feature an appearance by Zoe Bell who must have a fantastic chance of being crowned 'The Least Convincing Actress Ever To Grace The Silver Screen'! She is a truly atrocious performer, who's apparently picked up no additional acting skills since her abysmal showing in the marginally better Death Proof. If grinning inanely and reading a few lines like a child in a school play is "acting" then sign me up for an Oscar please.

By the way, how the hell did this thing cost $62m to make? Apart from a few outdoor scenes, the whole thing takes place in one room in a log cabin! So much for making the most out of the much vaunted 70mm format which is perfect for grand landscape vistas...and entirely wasted on indoor scenes.

In many ways this film comes across as all rather childish. Here Tarantino seems like a first-year film school student who's been given a camera (and a 70mm one at that), free reign to use some "fruity" language, and the keys to the fake-blood cupboard. I'm almost surprised he didn't try to shoehorn a couple of naked women into the movie as well...

In short, this is by far and away the worst movie Tarantino has ever made, and if it hadn't been made by him it would have a rating far lower than 8/10 on here. (In fact, after seeing page after page of 1 and 2 star ratings, I'm completely at a loss as to where the (current) 8/10 rating comes from!?). All I can say is if you INSIST on seeing this plodding mess, wait until it comes out on Blu-Ray and watch it in the comfort of your own home over the course of, say, three or four evenings with several espressos. If you're really lucky you may be able to stay awake through the whole lot if you watch it like that. Otherwise....sweet dreams.
288 out of 599 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
three hours of your life you will never get back
A_Different_Drummer21 December 2015
If you are among those once-discerning viewers who believe that everything QT does is wonderful because he is smart and clever and the rest of us so hobbled we can just barely appreciate his genius, then just hit the NOT USEFUL key and go on about your business. Don't bother with the rest of this review.

For those viewers who still have an ounce of common sense, my comments are:

1. Once again, QT makes an attempt to pay homage to the Italian westerns, using the camera angles and plot lines most associated with this unique genre of film that appeared in the 60s and disappeared in the 70s. Jackson plays the Lee Van Cleef character (and does a very poor job of it) and the rest of the cast, all major talents in their own right, do their best to keep up with the director's "vision" - but ultimately fail.

2. For the record, for the six or seven readers who are still with me, I watched all the original Italian westerns in that era. In theatres. Even the ones where the distribution companies could not afford to redub, and used subtitles. All of them. I loved them. I loved the way the tight camera angles and overdone sound effects would set you up for the scenes of explosive violence that followed. There was a unique "beat" or cadence to these films -- dialog, character development, slow stretches, explosive action, conflict development, more action, less dialog, less development, much more action, more action, ... and a final culmination.

3. QT, as with everything he does, believes he not only understands the inner workings of these films but can (heavy sigh) improve on them. He should google the term "hubris." And his many fans (too many) should re-read the story of the Emperors New Clothes.

4. This film turns the original formula -- which worked -- into an overlong stage play full of hackneyed dialog that doesn't work at all. Some of the best talents in this business are wasted because they are compelled by the script and the director to deliver performances which they instinctively realize are atonal. There is no viewer engagement. There is no audience connection. I feel especially sorry for viewers who never saw the originals and came to the theatre believing, based on the sycophantic reviewers, that they are watching something wonderful and amazing. Like the opera-goers who fall asleep during the performance, and afterwards pretend it was a treat.

I wonder if viewers of the future will look back at the QT phenomenon and wonder what the heck we were smoking?
209 out of 429 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Tarantino Fires Blanks for Hours!
TheFilmTruth23 December 2015
Warning: Spoilers
To begin, if you want to make it through the whole film in one sitting it's best if you are locked and loaded with caffeine or some form of amphetamine because it is very slow, very long, and very boring. Don't get me wrong, I'm a big QT fan and usually enjoy the great slow, long and creative dialog in his films, but sadly the "great and creative" doesn't exist here. Normally I can't wait for his next film to come out, but even after seeing the trailer a couple months back I said "uh oh, this doesn't look anywhere near up to par." Little did I know what an understatement of epic proportions that would be.

As other reviewers have pointed out, the single positive aspect was the beautiful wide landscape and horse drawn carriage scenes. Unfortunately they only lasted a few minutes in total.

Here are just a few of the things that really stuck out:

  • Not a single character (of the main eight) was likable in the least bit so it never mattered who got killed. Kurt Russell is one of my favorite actors and I wanted to like or root for him but even he couldn't save this stinker. After a short amount of time I was wishing everyone would start killing one another so this travesty would come to an end.

  • At an early point I got the feeling QT made a bet with someone to see if he could outdo himself by using the "N" word more times than in Django. Or, more likely he has a sick fetish and loves to hear the word as often as possible. Needless to say it is overwhelmingly painful having to unnecessarily hear it hundreds of times. "But wait!" the blind loyal Tarantino Kool-aid drinking followers will say, "it was extremely racist back then and he's just being authentic to the times!" Well in that case riddle me this: how is it that Sam Jackson along with everyone else had perfect straight white Hollywood teeth which we got multiple close- ups on??? If he was trying to be authentic all those pearly whites would have been closer to gruesome than the straight, white perfection we saw. Ever see Barry Pepper's character in the last "True Grit"? Now that was realistic! There are plenty of other similar things even slightly perceptive viewers will pick up on which were simply wrong and out of place for the times. You'll see for yourself if you decide to mosey on down this steaming poop trail.

  • Speaking of which and it doesn't last long, but as much as I love Zoë Bell her Kiwi accent and NZ background here were also completely out of place and just plain wrong. Not nearly as bad as the pathetic attempt Tarantino made in Django at an Aussie accent but still completely unreal for the setting. (At least he didn't include Jonah Hill in this one.)

  • I don't even know where to begin with the full blown gay BJ scene out in the snow. Many will most likely chalk it up to a typical Tarantino shock value type of situation and he probably believes it's wild and crazy and original, but it ends up as just another sad attempt at trying to be any of those things. Either that or maybe he has more personal fetishes he wants to portray to us (yet again) on screen?

  • Last but not least, there's a whole narration scene which was so completely unnecessary it was insulting and offensive to the viewers' intelligence. This, along with the regurgitated "chapter" style setup appears to be him struggling to get back to the success and originality of Pulp Fiction or Kill Bill, but simply ends up firing blanks. There were no surprises in the least bit, everything was completely predictable, and the casual viewers and hardcore fans alike who are honest with themselves will be offended and want their money and 3 hours of wasted life back. That is, unless you passed out like a few others I saw do halfway during my screening.

With this spectacular regurgitated catastrophe watching the snow melt for the three hours wasted would have been more pleasurable and exciting than this debacle. Go and see "The Revenant" if you want a real masterpiece. Only those who are blind cult followers should gorge for hours on this yellow snow.
381 out of 803 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
A whole lot of nothing happens - minutes two likable characters
steveroderick-863-4771121 December 2015
Warning: Spoilers
It was really boring. Probably one of the worst movies he's ever made.

It took one hour and 38 minutes for a gun shot to go off. Samuel L. Jackson is just playing the generic old grumpy guy he always plays,

The only likable character was John Ruth. I guess Walton Goggins was pretty good too. He was somewhat likable, he had some morals compared to the rest of the boring characters. And the only other character that I actually enjoyed was Zoe Bell.

One notable thing was Joe Cage poisoning the coffee they were drinking and, I guess, Bob "The Mexican" was a pretty good character he was the only character I actually liked the most, besides Zoe Bell's character.

All they did was talk and talk and talk and Quentin Tarantino, for some reason, had a guy pleasing Samuel L. Jackson's character orally in it while he is naked. Great story development there!

And we also get a narration from Quentin twice in this movie. I personally feel like it was so he could hear his own voice. Because there is really no reason for their to be a narration in this movie. It didn't do anything for the movie and it didn't advance anything.

And the fact that one of the main selling points of this movie is that it's filmed in a high- resolution of 70mm... They are in the cabin for two hours of the movie and you get, like, a total of 10 minutes of screen time to the actual depth of the scenery.

This movie was a disappointment. I honestly don't recommend it. I found it really boring. If you've got time to kill, then watch it. Otherwise I wouldn't waste my time. Its not good and it's not fun, and it's not even enjoyable to watch.
245 out of 508 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
The Hateful Eight, is trite, stale and banal
jthoma-5118312 January 2016
Warning: Spoilers
The Hateful Eight is awful. It is another long and angry film portraying white people as evil racists. Samuel L. Jackson plays the character of the noble Negro and in the end he vanquishes the evil white people.

The first half of the film is entirely devoted to character development. It is extremely slow, dull and tedious. Major Marquis Warren, played by Samuel L. Jackson, is the noble Negro character. Some viewers may sympathize with Major Warren because he is a former slave and heroic Union Calvary officer during the Civil War. Major Warren gleefully brags about all the white people that he killed during the war. The other characters play the role of the evil white person, as evidenced by their constant use of the N-word toward Major Warren. The repeated use of the N-word in this film is a failed literary device. Rather than manifest that the white characters are evil racists, the constant use of the N-word becomes a dreadful assault upon one's sensibilities.

In the second half of the film, the plot lumbers along. Major Warren holds the evil white characters at gun point and threatens them with imminent death. He torments an old Confederate General, played by Bruce Dern, who is looking for his lost son. Major Warren boastfully recounts (and the film explicitly shows) how he captured the General's lost son, stripped him naked, marched him through the snow for hours and then forced his captive to perform fellatio upon his "big black dick," before shooting him to death.

Quentin Tarantino has lost the golden touch. Some of his earlier films were worth watching, but The Hateful Eight, is trite, stale and banal.
259 out of 540 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
If Tarantino was not the director, would all of these fanboys be going so crazy over it?
m-guszak-129 December 2015
Anybody that uses the words brilliant or masterpiece in regards to this film, does not know what those words mean. I mean, let's be honest, the clowns praising this film are nothing more than wannabe hipsters and Tarantino fanboys. I was underwhelmed by this film. I didn't think the story was clever at all and the dialog really lacked cleverness. To be blunt, it was an uninspired film. The story involves a bounty hunter (Russell) trying to transport a wanted person (Leigh) to Red Rock Wyoming where she is to be hung. However, this culprit is the sister of an infamous gang leader who is suspected to be trying to free her. A rather harsh blizzard forces Russell and his bounty to stop in a haberdashery, where strangers have already amassed. Which ones might be gang members? Who is who? My problem with the film was that I was waiting for some memorable scenes, some great dialog, some neat twist. None of those things ever happened. The film was lacking in, well, everything. The historical "knowledge" pertaining to this story was based on nothing more than other films. I don't think QT has ever read a history book. Had this film been made by someone other than QT, I don't think there would be any buzz surrounding it at all.
164 out of 336 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
This film is delusional and pointless
mkopa-2403023 December 2015
Warning: Spoilers
Until I saw this movie, I thought Quentin was a genius director and writer. After I saw this movie, I think he has never been a genius and recently he went mad trying to be one. He wants me or anyone else, disregarding the skin color that seems to be of so much importance in US, to feel sympathy for Major and see good in his actions when he is just a murderous son of a bitch with no moral code? And what is even more ridiculous that he is a friend with Lincoln and President Lincoln is more than OK with his murderous friend's feats, what's more, he supports him, praises him, says that he is a prideful son of "black race" and he is ought to make a change. WTH??? What kind of message is Quentin Tarantino trying to send us? In the beginning it was going smoothly, storm was building up, but then, suddenly Samuel L Jackson is talking about his huge Johnson and how he made general's son to suck it. Now, I don't even care if Jackson's character really did it or not. Even if he lied and even if the general was the worst person to ever live, Major becomes more of a piece of fecal mass than general could have ever been when he provokes father of a deceased son how he made his son suck a dick before shooting him. After this, I lost all the respect towards Samuel L Jackson as well. I know I know, it's in the script and you are an actor, but don't you have any self respect not to take a major part in such a messed up movie that isn't messed up because of its substance, but because it doesn't really have any good message to send and ends up being Weirdo Quentin's fetishes on a big screen? LIKE WTH? I could understand if this movie had a valuable point to deliver, but it doesn't have any. And Quentin, it's not like every white man has a 3 inch long dick and if they have, it doesn't necessarily mean that you should fantasize about having a bigger one in your mouth. That's just messed up my friend. This movie only promotes violence and racism. You might think I am a racist, but I am not the one who thinks blacks and whites or any other color people are of a different races. It's just ridiculous statement that has no scientific back up. Neanderthals where the different race for example. Not black or brown skinned people. For me there is no race. And what is more important, I don't care about enslaving of "black people" back in days. My people were enslaved as well but you don't see us crying or demanding a better life because of our ancestors who had it rough. It's just spineless and self-disrespectful thing to do. And get over with the "n word"(Can't write an actual word because site doesn't allow it). One group of people using a word that another group of people "aren't allowed to say"? Can you imagine any bigger obstacle in a day to day relationship than that? Anyways, Quentin, the subject of black slavery has dried out even before Django. Now it has become way more noticeable and cringe-worthy. I liked Django, even though it had some flaws of this sort, but this movie? This movie is a total garbage. I can't believe it is the same person who directed Pulp Fiction. I just can't believe it.
220 out of 458 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Possibly The Worst Movie Ever Made
xeroqube22 December 2015
Warning: Spoilers
This movie is a perfect example of modern movie making. It was totally pointless and boring. I don't think I have watched a movie as stupid as this. Even by Tarantino's standards this really sucked. It does not have the charm of Django Unchained. Even the use of the N word seemed awkward and pointless in this movie unlike other Tarantino movies. The acting was poor and the movie was too long.

You could have edited this movie into 30 minutes instead of 3 hours! Utter garbage and a huge let down and is no comparison to the awesome Reservoir Dogs or even the silly-but-hugely-enjoyable Pulp Fiction.

The only good thing about this movie is that if anyone you know who tells you this movie was good will save you money on future films. Just ask them before you go to your next movie, if they say it was good then avoid it. Just like some of the reviews on here that seem to be planted by those who were involved with the film, they all says it was a 'masterpiece' but don't give any details to back it up.

It was a master piece of s***
209 out of 435 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Annoying tedious boring policor piece of crap!
bazooka-jo-152-4246208 January 2016
Warning: Spoilers
Reservoir dogs, pulp fiction & jackie brown are timeless classics. Since then every movie QT made got worse and worse. He reached a new low though with this annoying boring policor (politically correct) piece of crap! It became clear to me though that not Uma Thurman, but S.L. Jackson is his muse. And clearly QT has the hots for him which became very clear in this film.

+++spoiler+++ There's this scene where Mr. Jackson tortures a white (hence racist) person to death by letting him walk nude through cold snow for 2 hours. As the dying victim begs for a blanket Jackson gets his big black **** out and forces him to suck it while he laughs sadistically. +++spoiler stop+++

It's very obvious to me that what we're experiencing here is an example of 'mirroring'. QT clearly would love to suck the big black **** of Jackson himself and expresses that by creating this 'shocking' scene which is clearly a depiction of his own sexual fantasy. One really doesn't need a psychology degree to figure that out. Wel Quentin... go ahead and suck big black **** all day long. I couldn't care less. What I do care about though is that you should stop making these annoying boring policor movies.

Explaining the policor accusation: The movie apparently takes place shortly after the civil war in America. Protagonist Jackson kills a lot of people but they're all bad cause they are from the south... hence they are racist and deserve to die. The fact that Jackson himself is a mega racist is not supposed to make us stop cheering for this protagonist though because... well let's face it... he's black so he can't be racist.... and he's black.. so he is cool. To clarify: protagonist Jackson is an a**hole, he annoyed me and I definitely wasn't cheering for him for friggin' 2 hours and 45 minutes!

I could go on for another hour but I made my point and wasted enough time by watching this hyped poor excuse of a movie. This movie was even worse that the stupid nazi movie and the dumb slavery movie he made. I didn't think that would be possible but Quentin... you pulled it off!
223 out of 466 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
70mm Bah Humbug
crafo-12 January 2016
Warning: Spoilers
I will come straight to the point. I hated this movie with a passion.

I was lured into the cinema by the 70mm lenses that also shot the great epic BEN HUR. I was expecting wide panoramas and beautiful vistas but Tarantino is done with them within a few minutes at the very beginning and then he sticks a bunch of wisecracking sadists in a one room cabin for the remaining 95% of the film.

What, then, is the damn point of using 70mm?

After listening to endless reels of nonstop clever "dialogue", the blood bath finally ensues. It is so drenched in sadistic blood as to become a parody of itself, a farce, a meaningless masturbatory pile of sick nonsense.

Although it takes place in 19th century Wyoming, all the actors have the whitest most perfect teeth on earth.

I won't bother criticizing the actors who do their best under the circumstances, I will say Samuel L. Jackson has become tiresome repeating his same pose from PULP FICTION as he does in those Capital One commercials. Yawn.

Bruce Dern appears in it and he always has been one of my favorite actors since I was a college boy. I wish he had won the academy award for NEBRASKA that he deserved.

I, for one, am utterly fed up and sick of the gun culture and the relentless display of violence in all aspects of American life. Tarantino strikes me as an angry nerd who never matured. This movie has nothing to say. It is all sensation, shock and shameless self- indulgence.
228 out of 477 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
jamesearp-121 December 2015
By all means, I should love this film. The premise is right up my street, I love Tarantino and love the actors involved.

BUT, I only made it to 30 minutes in. The characters are so dislikable, the script is unbelievably dull and it's insanely boring. I just didn't care what happened next, not that anything was happening. My wife felt the same.

I just can't quite imagine what's gone on here?! How can all these great people come together to make something so terrible?

The overuse of the N word was done well in other Tarantino films, but in this one it's just gratuitous without any humour at all.

Please don't waste your time.
182 out of 377 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Pointless overcooked movie
drsaicat14 January 2016
Warning: Spoilers

Because at around 38th minute, when KURT RUSSEL and Jennifer first enters the café, KURT RUSSEL was trying to NAIL THE DOOR for around 1 MINUTE 30 SECONDS, JENNIFER'S brother hiding and his Friend sitting there, EASILY could have shot KURT and rescued Jennifer!!! SIMPLE!!! WHAT WERE THEY WAITING FOR?


OVERCOOKED: Too much violence against woman. Too much racist remarks. Too much use of the 'N' word. Too much blood. Too much violence. Too much Sexual Perversion.

Tarantino'S WORST
171 out of 353 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Dreadful movie. But because it's Tarantino the critics fawn all over it
mark_hensley23 December 2015
My god this is a dreadful movie. If it had been cut in half, it would have been mildly entertaining. Instead it's a good alternative for Valium

I've seen better "Alias Smith and a Jones " episodes. But because it's Tarantino, it's dawned over by the critics and his fans,who will never admit what a pile of tripe this movie is. Full of pretentious beauty shits and over written dialog that goes on forever. Why is it that some Directors get a pass on every thing they do, and their movies are judged on a different scale. If anyone else had made this boring pile of dreck, they would have been skewered.

No wonder theaters didn't want to free up any screens for this.

And the ending is lame as well.
181 out of 375 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Blah-blah-blah without an end...
Dr_Sagan24 December 2015
Warning: Spoilers
  • Howdy! - Who in the name of freezing $hit are you? - I am blah-blah-blah and going to red blah-blah for blah-blah and blah. - And how do I know that you are blah-blah? - Well i have these papers which saying blah-blah and blah. - Well, let me see these blah-blah. - Here, blah blah blah.

Well, this is it, for about 3 hours you keep hearing people asking and talking the most basic things about who they are and where they are going and what they are supposed to do when they get there. And all these in a snowed road and a wooden hut. Oh! Near the end you could also watch Jennifer Jason Leigh sprayed with strawberry sauce (which supposed to be brains).

Is this supposed to be a western?

John Wayne is spinning in his grave. This movie is a disappointment.

I honestly can't recommend it.

I understand Tarantino has a strong fanbase that will drink his spit from his mouth but this crap may make them to change their mind.
202 out of 421 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Almost walked out, but my girlfriend was asleep...
plutofossanova23 January 2016
Warning: Spoilers
Well, that alone could be enough, but i must add something to the summary. first of all, i love (almost) every Tarantino movies. all but "death proof" and obviously this one. i didn't need to get as far and into the homestead, i was already bored while still riding into the forest. that's when i had "death proof" bad memories coming up. but i thought: "hey, there's still two and a half hours to go, give the man a chance..." and i did. and i regret every minute of it. and for every wasted minute (there are at least 120 of them), the angrier i did get. it was terrible. if i didn't have to wake my girlfriend up i would have been out of the cinema after 90 minutes. have you ever heard of many people falling asleep the first time they watched a Tarantino movie? but it did get worse, and then worserer, and then more, and more, and more. i don't know what the master was thinking, or doing. i won't use offensive language, although i think i am entitled to it, since i drove almost two hours to watch this, whatever it was, on the first night it was released, as i usually do with all of his movies. all i can say is: "even the master had a bad night at the office". we all had one of those and it can happen to anyone. only difference is that a few millions were watching... it. Mr.Tarantino will have to make amends on the next one('s), or it will loose us, the fans that made him (very rich) who he is. if by any chance anybody will read this and still go and watch this movie, let me know. i do have a dungeon that cater for you, the true masochist... cheers...
153 out of 314 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Oooff...This was a train wreck...
schaffers1328 December 2015
Warning: Spoilers
Well, I won't say this is the worst movie I have ever watched, but it comes awfully close...Close enough, in fact, to garner a single star. Pulp Fiction and the two Kill Bills were highly entertaining with ingenious dialogue. Contrast those films with this one, and one is left to wonder if QT just mailed this one in.

The pace of the story telling was like watching paint dry on a hot humid day...Only worse. This would be a forgivable sin only if the characters were properly fleshed out and the dialogue was taught. Regrettably, this was not the case. Instead we are treated to misogynistic outbursts, illogical plot twists, and gratuitous violence.

SPOILER: The only way this film could have been worse is if ALL the characters had been killed off...Wait!?
147 out of 301 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
An error has occured. Please try again.

See also

Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews

Recently Viewed