Skip to main content

The Hateful Eight: Is it Pretty Great?


Forgive that title.
If you ever see an interview with Quentin Tarantino you’d see that he’s one of the most egotistical people in Hollywood. It just seems unfair that he’s happened to earn that ego through his brilliance as a screenwriter and to a lesser extent, director. He’s only made eight films and his eighth is appropriately called The Hateful Eight, a western-mystery that’s full of excellent plotting, suspense and characters.
In Wyoming, a bounty hunter John “The Hangman” Ruth (Kurt Russell wearing his mustache from Tombstone) is transporting a fugitive Daisy Domergue (Jennifer Jason Leigh) to the town of Red Rock ahead of a blizzard. He always brings his bounties in alive to watch them hang, thus earning his nickname. Along the way their coach picks up another bounty hunter Major Marquis Warren (Samuel L. Jackson) and new Red Rock sheriff Chris Mannix (Walton Goggins). Eventually they’re forced to stop at Minnie’s Haberdashery a lodge some miles from Red Rock where they take up for the duration of the blizzard with a quartet of mysterious strangers: Oswaldo Mobray (Tim Roth), Joe Gage (Michael Madsen), Bob (Demián Bichir) and General Sandy Smithers (Bruce Dern). But it’s not long before they become suspicious as they talk to each other and Ruth begins to suspect one of them is plotting to free Domergue.
As is the case with most of Tarantino’s films The Hateful Eight is very well-written, particularly in the dialogue. Once again, these are very strange characters and their interactions off each other make for both a lot of great humour and tension. And he also brings a classical influence. Not only in his shooting the movie on film (with the very lens that shot Ben-Hur no less!), but also the style. Like how the film is divided into chapters. The whodunnit premise isn’t all that original but the way it’s executed is unconventional and keeps you on your toes. The small collection of characters trapped in an isolated place while there’s a mystery unfolding set-up reminds me a lot of one of my favourite novels, And Then There Were None by Agatha Christie, but not enough so as to become predictable. And like that novel, this is a movie I’d love to see or perform on stage given its limited setting and focus on characters.
The Hateful Eight does have the right title as none of the characters are very likable and if you think they are, you’ll be proven wrong. Casting was a big part of why this film works and most of the performances are superb. There are three of particular note though. Leigh is fantastic as this eccentric captive being at some times sympathetic while at other times disturbing. It’s probably one of the best performances of the year. Then there’s Goggins who brings a lot of humour as this fast-talking sheriff, but winds up stealing the show a number of times. And Roth is glorious, adding nice little touches like the way he carries himself around and his constant teeth-gritted grin. And with him and Madsen present, it’s like a mini Reservoir Dogs reunion. Though of the actors, Madsen might be the weak link. He hasn’t been in a major film in a while and it shows. But it’s not poor enough to bring the film down.
The soundtrack for this film was composed by the legendary Ennio Morricone whose iconic score for Sergio Leone’s Dollars trilogy is a western classic. It fittingly sets the mood for both the suspense and the action. And there is action, this being a Tarantino film after all, meaning you can expect a fair degree of gruesome violence. But it doesn’t distract from how meticulously plotted this script is, how fascinating the characters are, and how little clues are scattered throughout that keep you guessing. And I love films that can challenge me that way. 
Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

The Strange History of the American Spoof Movie

Parody movies have been around for a lot longer than we tend to think of them. Even from the earliest days of Hollywood there were movies meant to satirize a particular subject or genre. In the silent era, Buster Keaton was responsible for a few. And in the early sound era, almost as soon as the monster pictures took off did you see comic versions of them -Abbott and Costello hosting a few. But parody movies tended to be subtle for most of cinema history, or parody came in conjunction with another goal of the comedy. It really wasn’t until the 1980s and 90s that it took off and became popularly understood. And there is perhaps a line to be drawn to the counterculture comedy explosion that began in the 1970s through avenues like  Saturday Night Live , which frequently parodied from even its earliest years popular movies and cultural properties of the time. But that is still a way’s back. To my generation though, ‘parody movie’ is perhaps a less known term than the more blunt ‘s...
Post a Comment
Read more

A Stylish and Charmingly Reinvented David Copperfield

The Personal History, Adventures, Experience and Observation of David Copperfield the Younger of Blunderstone Rookery (Which He Never Meant to Publish on Any Account)  is the most important book Charles Dickens ever wrote. It is not the most famous or influential by any means (that would of course be A Christmas Carol ), but it is the book that is the purest expression of the authors’ style, identity, and worldview. It is his most personal work, semi-autobiographical in its story of the chronology from infancy to adulthood of a character who overcomes great loss and hardships to find a fulfilling life as a writer. To read David Copperfield  is to understand Dickens himself. Armando Iannucci knew this when he decided to make a new adaptation of the novel for a twenty-first century audience. He also knew that Dickens adaptations are ubiquitous at this point. Films are a bit rarer, but every few years a new television adaptation rears its head to keep the authors’ unique world an...
Post a Comment
Read more

Notes on the Title Cards of The Lord of the Rings

It might be sacrilege for one who both considers The Lord of the Rings  trilogy to be one of the greatest triumphs of cinema and has been an avid lover of the films since adolescence, to declare that the original theatrical cuts of the films are better than the much beloved extended editions. Easily it’s my most controversial opinion regarding these movies. Don’t get me wrong, I do like the extended editions quite a lot, especially as someone who just enjoys spending time in that universe. They flesh it out more, add extra flavour, and in increasing the length by about an hour really emphasize the epic quality of these films. But I find that the original cuts are generally more cleanly paced, more seamlessly edited, and much more accessible to audiences. All the stuff there is to love about The Lord of the Rings  is there in the original versions, the plethora of new and extended scenes merely add to that for fans. And of those, they fall into three camps for me: 1....
1 comment
Read more