Welp, I saw it and it was mildly disappointing…

Off the bat: don’t go to a roadshow screening. It’s not worth it. At least the theater I saw it in. The intermission was only good for the fact that I had been drinking before the show and needed to pee. I spent $20 on this, the most I have ever paid for a movie and will ever pay again. It felt like I was being punished for the choices Quentin and Robert Richardson made. 70mm was not my idea, why did I have to pay more? I’m actually more interested in how this will look in a regular cinema now.

In true Tarantino style I’m going to rip off things I’ve seen from movies to write this review, so:

The Good:
Ennio Morricone’s score was amazing. A little synthy, classic yet wholly different that anything that’s out at the moment. It fit the mood of the film. I can’t get over it. I lived it so much.

Cinematography was phenomenal. Everything looked great. Robert Richardson knows his stuff and its all the more impressive that he’s working with a long dormant technology.

Jennifer Jason Leigh was good. I liked her a bit more than my friend I saw the movie with. I enjoyed her mean spirit and childlike actions and her development in the third act was good.

Samuel L was fantastic! He works so well with Tarantino and knows how to follow the beat of his dialogue to a t!

All the supporting cast was very good. Shout out to Bruce Dern, who I enjoyed a lot.

The Bad:
The first half of the film. Oh god, I was so bored. It had the pace of molasses. While this time was used to get to know out characters there was actually not a lot of development given. You were really expected to like a lot of the characters immediately and take the little things given to you a lot further that they could go. The first half is about 65% throwaway.

The editing is awkward and I’m sure this is because of the loss of Sally Menke whom I miss dearly.

A lot of the dialogue is very self-serving. It feels like Quentin just likes to hear his own words and has no disregard for the audience’s patience which is typical for him but the dialogue is usually interesting and in this case it is not. So much repetition. So much.

Kind of spoiler…

The Ugly:
This may be the most mean, violent move Quentin’s made sine Reservoir Dogs. There is a lot of cruelty in this movie. We’ve moved away from Django’s huge bright blood spurt gore fest and are dealing with really high impact brutality. It was a huge surprise to see this and it had me on edge throughout the second half of the film.

In all; I liked it. First half sucked, last hour was amazing.
7/10

SPOILERS







Logan,

It sounds like you didn't have the same issue with the second half that I did. What bothered me the most was that I thought he picked the absolute worst decision possible by having Roth, Madsen, Bichir and Tatum working together. Instead of that over-long flashback to show how they overtook Minnie's, I (personally) would've used that to show them all as being separate bounty hunters which each one showing how they found out about Domergue and how each of them got to Minnie's and were preparing their own traps and plans for getting her out of there.

Then again, maybe his was the right choice. After all, there's a reason why he's one of the best, most well-known directors in the world and I'm not.

Come to think of it, I thought that was how they were going to do it. I was surprised by the actual reveal of how it all went down.
What I didn’t understand was how John Ruth came to the conclusion that some of them were in cahoots with Daisy. I looked at my friend I was watching it with and we were both confused to the sudden declaration of suspicion. It felt way out of nowhere.
I think I liked that scene a lot because Zoe Bell was in it and I’ve found her really charming since seeing her in Death Proof.

STILL SPOILERS







That was the way it should've been done. I should've known it wouldn't when everyone was saying that the "whodunnit?" aspect disappeared in the second half. For me, it lost most of the fun, intrigue and "The Thing"-ness when they were teamed up together. Just my take. And, Zoe Bell, while awesome, could not save that flashback from being what it was: a cop-out.

END SPOILERS

Personally, I don't think Ruth's suspicions came out of nowhere. From the moment the story starts, he believed that she had set up some kind of trap for him and was distrustful of everyone he encountered. He was just paranoid that something was going to go down.

Mixed feelings about QT's latest. A hot mess, and his most indulgent/least economic. He really doesn't seem to quibble much over what stays on the page these days.

I loved the slow burn and sinister atmosphere, and the meaner, more savage tone in comparison to his other films was refreshing, given I've always been sort of on the fence about his humor. Half the time, it zings, but others, it's corny and at times only gets laughs because the acting is so hammy. There was many a moment of brilliance, which I feel like Tarantino can't help but deliver by the sheer act of putting words on paper.

At the same time, for so much buildup, the payoff, especially the final chapter, was a bust. What we get after 2:30 hours or so is basically a tried-and-true but all-too-familiar Tarantino trope: the Mexican standoff. Only this time, there didn't seem to be anything unique about it in comparison to his other films. Definitely preferred the first three chapters, namely Sam Jackson's story about Smithers' boy (so fucked).

At the same time, much of it is solid. Particularly enjoyed the performances from Jackson, Goggins, Roth, and Jennifer Jason Leigh, who I was convinced would be the breakout star from the start, despite a pretty noteworthy career throughout the '90s. Strangely though, the ultimate star of the film for me was Morricone. His score was the one truly perfect element of the film IMO. Could listen to that shit all day.

Would recommend catching in theaters, although unfortunately, probably has the least replay value of all of Tarantino's films, given the pacing and length. Still, not a bad effort overall, and in many ways, Tarantino doing his thing as usual.

I didn't like it.

There was so much exposition in this movie, especially in the first half. It was like, here's your 6-7 minutes to tell your story, then here's yours 6-7 minutes to tell yours. It was people giving long speeches about their or someone else's history and it got really tiresome, because in reality that's what the first hour of the movie is all about. It's a history lesson in a way. I also thought the dialogue wasn't that great.

The story was rather simple and poorly structured. I expected more, a more elaborate twist to the set up. For a two and a half hour movie it was underwhelming and corny.

After the movie was over I was left with a lingering feel of: "That was it? Meh".

Sans QT abysmal movie Death Proof, this is probably one of his weaker films.

Been phoning it in since Jackie Brown.

Quoted from Scar Tissue Films Been phoning it in since Jackie Brown.

That's a bold statement, Rick. Now, if you were to say that his movies have all felt the same since Jackie Brown, I could more get behind that. But, phoning it in? I don't know.

Full disclosure: Much as I like Robert Richardson's style, I think Tarantino needs to stop working with him. That's part of the reason why everything since Kill Bill's felt exactly the same and why it's felt like way too much style and overshadowing the actual substance.

Tarantino also needs to take a hard look in the mirror and decide whether or not his dialogue and lack of oversight is beginning to hinder him. I can get behind that, as well.

Looks like an indie production, few actors, few locations, low special effects and a simple story. I liked it... but then I didn't go in expecting too much. I never read the screenplay. It's still on my hard drive from back when it was 'accidentally leaked'. I read the first page, felt that it was overwritten and gave up on it. I just wanted to see how he writes and I wasn't impressed in terms of actual screenwriting ability... but in story-telling ability, he clearly knows what he's doing.

His dialogue and the delivery of it is what sells the story for me. Exposition is a necessary part of story telling. As all dialogue must serve the story in some manner then one could say that all dialogue is exposition. What truly matters is how that dialogue is delivered. If it's done poorly, and this could be simply down to an actor not doing their best, then people will notice more.

One thing I didn't like from the film, aside from the length, was the narration... but I forgave it because at the time I thought, well just imagine how long it would be if the narration needed to be shown visually too. However, narration in the middle of a film is abhorrent to me as a screenwriter. It's a cop out. Taking the easy route.

Another thing I didn't like with the story choices was when the brother was hidden in the cellar the whole time. Somebody's earlier suggestion that all of them should be there individually to steal claim to the 10k bounty, is exactly the impression the film gives us not long after it opens. Tarantino obviously didn't want to go in that direction and preferred to keep us guessing. Which is good story-telling, IMO. However the brother (the only actors I know are Kurt Russell and Samuel L Jackson) should have been with the others, pretending to be separate from the start. I think the simplification of the third act is what damages this story the most.

How many chances do you get to go to the theatre and see a unique director making original films on a large budget without massive studio interference?

In 2015 the first that spring to mind are Jupiter Ascending and this. This is better. Go see it for gosh sakes.

Quoted from Scar Tissue Films Been phoning it in since Jackie Brown.

Jackie Brown was a snoozer. Hateful 8 was far from his best.... But to say Basterds and Django was phoning it in...

I could not disagree more.

Pretty shocked how disappointed I am right now after sitting through almost 3 hours of basically nothing.

I've always been a HUGE QT fan, but when I smell shit, I have no problem calling it out.

There's so much wrong here, it's almost as if QT decided to take a shit on a plate and see how much all the fanboys and girls would pay to smell it...and eat it.

To think there's a longer cut is painful to think about.  Seriously...more than half this film is filler, is dull, and is completely unnecessary.

The Flashback of Samuel L Jackson and Bruce Dern's son was redonkulous and felt completely out of place. Obviously intended to shock and disgust, but otherwise...why?

"Hiding" Channing Tatum under the floor for more than half the movie was a complete and utter cheat.

Flashing back to the 4 gang members taking over the haberdashery was also a cheat and a waste, as there was zero tension here, as we already knew how it played out.

Having someone narrate halfway through?  WTF?  I literally cringed and shook my head in disbelief.

The twist/reveal/plot/story?  Really?  Did I miss something here?  There basically wasn't a story at all and the reveal was extremely anti-climatic.

Even the dialogue was mostly weak, IMO.  So much repetition.  So much exposition.  So many completely unrealistic phrasings and exchanges.

Acting?  Well, there were some good performances, but much of this resembled a poorly put together college play.

Great FX and very violent.

Pretty decent cinematography.

Everyone raves about the soundtrack, but for me, it didn't do anything.

Cut an hour off and have no grandiose expectations, and I'd probably give this a C or even C+.  But being QT with the star power on display and a $44 Million budget, I really can't give this any better than a D, and that may be me being nice, since I love everything else QT has done.

One of the very most disappointing movie going experiences I have ever experienced.

Quoted from Dreamscale The Flashback of Samuel L Jackson and Bruce Dern's son was redonkulous and felt completely out of place. Obviously intended to shock and disgust, but otherwise...why?

Would have been better if they just showed Bruce Dern's face and his reactions as Jackson told that story. It would have been much better than actually showing it. It did feel out of place and like it was added just for shock.

That story was pretty stupid too.

Kinda funny and you have to wonder. I've listened to a few QT interviews recently and he has said, he thinks this is his best writing and the best directing job he's ever done. Is he saying that just as a way of promoting the movie (probably) or does he really think it?

Saw it twice. It does not hold up upon second viewing, and I don't think I'll see it again for a few years. It definitely has its moments, but those moments make the final product all the more frustrating. I might've actually liked the film better if the high points were less so. At least you wouldn't be left will the feeling of what could've been.

Jeff, I agree with all of your points except on the score and your use of the word "weak" to describe the dialogue (agreed on all the other points, though). Personally, I thought the dialogue was generally Tarantino doing what he does best, only with absolutely no restraint, which ultimately makes it feel like too much. In the past, I think he's been a little more strategic with what he decides to include or not include in his scripts, like any responsible writer. Here and to a much lesser extent in Django, it's a brain dump; anything on the page goes.

I loved the Sam Jackson/Bruce Dern scene, though. Might've been the best in the film. I mean, it's completely ridiculous and no doubt intended to shock, but also genuinely sinister and disturbing. Reminded me of the chicken wing scene in Killer Joe.

The set-up, the twists, how the whole movie played out and how it was structured seemed very... lazy to me. It was too simple, too easy.

If you're going to make a two and a half hour "who done it" movie about a people locked in a room, it should be more elaborate than this. This felt, disappointing. Simple.

I also thought the dialogue wasn't that good. Especially the dialogue in the first half of the movie.

You're a hard guy to please, D.

Quoted from DustinBowcot You're a hard guy to please, D.

You have to have standards

The more I think about this flick, the more pissed off I am.

QT always has a certain type of humor in his scripts and films that works for most, but here, it was very odd to me.  Jennifer Jason Leigh's character was a prime example.  The way she acted throughout the flick was downright strange...most likely supposed to be funny, but to me, it came off so unrealistically.  Same with Roth's character to a lesser degree.

The dialogue exchanges were mostly so stilted, they didn't seem real.  Peeps do not talk like this.  Peeps did not talk like this.  Everything was so artificially setup.  The banter was so long winded and just downright fake.

Finally, the mood and tone were off here throughout the entire flick.  Yeah, yeah, trust me, I know...pretty much all of QT's stuff is like this, but here, it just didn't work.  Maybe because the characters didn't really have the life most QT characters do.  Maybe it was the fact that we basically had only 2 settings - the stagecoach and the haberdashery.

I don't really know, but I do know this - I will not be watching this again...as in ever again, as I just don't see any reason why I would want to waste another 3 hours waiting for a payoff that never arrives.

Don't feel bad Jeff... during the movie, my husband wanted to leave more than once....but I made him sit through it..The dialogue felt like I'd heard it before and he is good at dialogue but it just seemed to go on and on and go nowhere.

I think part of the problem was asking an audience to sit in a theater watching a contained movie that was way too long IMO.

It did get my interest towards the end but not until the flashback started and even then I felt like I'd been there before ...the whole under the floor thing felt like Inglorious Bastards. I just wanted something FRESH from him ya know? I like QT...just wanted more. I won't be watching it again either.

I've literally never walked out of a theater before, but I was very close on Killing Me Softly a couple years back and shockingly, I was thinking about it with this one.

I decided there was no way i could, though, as i thought something awesome was going to happen in the end, but sadly, it never did.

I've been a long time fan, so I was rather looking forward to this.

Lordy, it took a long time to get going. There was talking, the odd thump, more talking, then hey, more babble. That would have been fine, but most of this dialogue wasn't half as good as his usual stuff.

I think you could easily lose anywhere from a half hour to a full one from the start. I get why he did it, but he did it too much. I was very bored by the time it did finally get going. But it took a hell of a long time to get there.

Once it did get going it got good quick, and stayed that way. I've no qualms with it after that. I thoroughly enjoyed myself.

Pity it took so long to finally get into gear. Somewhat like me when I'm squeezing into my spandex bodysuit. Reminds me, must remember to buy some talcum powder.

R

An hour and a half into the movie I walked out to take a shit. Ussually I would hold on to it, but I knew I wouldnt miss anlnything. And I didn't. All I missed was great actors talking about shit I don't give a fuck about. I wanted to scream out to the cinema "somebody fucking shoot someone!"

Does anybody agree with me that it was a terriblely boring movie? Although the dialogue was witty and somewhat clever in parts, it doesn't make talking for 3 hours fun. If I wanted to go listen to people talk for 3 hours I would sit in on a lecture at the local university.

Opinions people?

Quoted from BSaunders Does anybody agree with me that it was a terriblely boring movie? Although the dialogue was witty and somewhat clever in parts, it doesn't make talking for 3 hours fun. If I wanted to go listen to people talk for 3 hours I would sit in on a lecture at the local university. Opinions people?

Yes, it was terribly boring, poorly structured, poorly plotted, and overall very weak.

I haven't seen this yet, so it's not really fair for me to comment, but Tarantino's films have been self-indulgently long - too long - for years now. Django Unchained is 165 minutes. Inglourious Basterds is 153 minutes. Kill Bill is 247 minutes (albeit cut in two). This is just the first time people have really noticed.

Quoted from JonnyBoy I haven't seen this yet, so it's not really fair for me to comment, but Tarantino's films have been self-indulgently long - too long - for years now. Django Unchained is 165 minutes. Inglourious Basterds is 153 minutes. Kill Bill is 247 minutes (albeit cut in two). This is just the first time people have really noticed.

I don't think the length has anything to do with it. The problem is that a big chunk of this film is a historical debate. North vs South. I saw a few interviews Tarantino did and he made a point to say in a few of them how proud he was of Walton Goggins speech in the beginning of the film how he presented a good point about the South.

I do think this film is self-indulgent. Like you said a lot of his other one are too, but they were also better than this one.

The directing was amazing. The movie sucked.

Quoted from Scar Tissue Films Been phoning it in since Jackie Brown.

Missed out on Hate8 in theatres, just saw it on video. I will always give Quentin Tarintino a chance, because i loved Res Dogs, adored Pulp Fiction and yes, Jackie Brown, in my view was his best work ever. I liked KB p2 better than KB part 1, and when it was spliced together I didn't care for it as a whole, although I always liked the dialog. Hated Death Proof. Did not care one iota for Ingloruis. I had mixed reaction to Django.

But for the most part, there's always something for me to hang my hat on. Except maybe for Death Proof. Anyway...

My God was this long in the tooth. Plus I started to get uneasy about John Ruth smacking around his prisoner Daisy. At first I suspected it was to get the audience to dislike John Ruth, and have some sympathy for Daisy, but then she was rude, crass and as the film progresses, will have more bruises, more cuts and have her brother's brains all over her face. And I was in shock that I lasted that long with the film.

John Ruth not trusting anyone and engaging in conversation with each took way too long for me. The entire story between Sanford Smithers son and Warren .

I liked the coffee poison scene though, and I thought Jackson and Groggins, while the early banter was grating, thet turned out to be the highlights of the film for me overall. But yes, I think Hateful Eight was too long and annoying overall.

That said, I'd still be interested (as always) what Tarintino would do next.

Quoted from DarrenJamesSeeley Missed out on Hate8 in theatres, just saw it on video. I will always give Quentin Tarintino a chance... That said, I'd still be interested (as always) what Tarintino would do next.

Have to agree with most of what you said above. Although I was under the impression his name is Tarantino. I may be wrong. Nope, I just checked. Sorry about that.

I too will always watch whatever he puts out next, usually at the cinema too. That is unless he starts doing Hostel stuff. I'm not watching that cack for love nor money. Or even both.

There was talk, from him I mean, of him only doing ten movies. I think he conveniently forgets the Grindhouse stuff and his section of Four Rooms, as they'd put him a lot closer to ten than he'd like. He probably counts Kill Bill as one and misses Jackie Brown out as it wasn't a big enough hit, sorry, he didn't write it I mean.

Like many directors, his later films aren't as good as his early stuff. Nevertheless, the guy has made some truly amazing movies already. For that alone I will always be interested in what he is doing next.

R

Finally saw this.

Not his best. But I didn't hate it.

I agree with others that the flashback scene with the General's son was a major hiccup. I d on't think they needed the plot point at all.

I agree with others that hiding Channing Tatum under the floor for a half a day was unbelievable. I rather that he crawled out of the well.

I thought Chapter 1 and Chapter 2 were pretty much the same story. It was boring the second time around.

I loved Jackson in this.

I hated Kurt Russel. Sure - he looked the part but every line struck me as someone playing a cowboy. I thought he was dreadful.

I give it a B-

Funnily enough...the post I made above was before I saw the film.

I thought it was an all time classic...easily his best since Jackie Brown. It had a nastily sagging middle, and I would have preferred a cleverer story than that they were all in on it....but other than that it was great.

Quoted from Scar Tissue Films Funnily enough...the post I made above was before I saw the film. I thought it was an all time classic...easily his best since Jackie Brown. It had a nastily sagging middle, and I would have preferred a cleverer story than that they were all in on it....but other than that it was great.

STF,

You have interesting opinions. I often agree with them. Erm, most of the time.

Here's what I'm wondering... Where is my other shoe? Sorry, I'll start again.

Why do so many, myself included, think the first hour or so of Hateful Eight gets a bit bleedin' dull, until it kicks in and does its stuff?

I've posted about this before on this thread, I think. I've watched it on DVD too, much to my better half stating several times that QT's films are bollocks since Pulp.

I don't agree with her, about  that I mean, but that's another story.  

I realise you may be writing, so no rush.

I will say this - I can't think of another high profile independent film maker who came from not much to world wide fame and has stayed there for over twenty five years. Not only that, he still gets to do what he wants and when he wants to.

Bugger also knows Morricone. Pity he didn't check up on his past awards. Doh.

R

Quoted from Scar Tissue Films I thought it was an all time classic...easily his best since Jackie Brown. It had a nastily sagging middle, and I would have preferred a cleverer story than that they were all in on it....but other than that it was great.

Care to elaborate? On the above and this too...

Quoted from Scar Tissue Films Been phoning it in since Jackie Brown.

I disagree on both counts, though I understand why one might come to hold the latter sentiments. Kill Bill was a massive sea change for multiple reasons, and many more changes came after it. At the same time, it's entirely possible you hold said sentiments for entirely different reasons than I'm thinking of.

Not a challenge, honestly; I'm curious. Doesn't seem to add up. Hateful Eight has late-career Tarantino written all over it (the script, not as much... except for the written part). Why come around now?

Quoted from rendevous STF, You have interesting opinions. I often agree with them. Erm, most of the time. Here's what I'm wondering... Where is my other shoe? Sorry, I'll start again. Why do so many, myself included, think the first hour or so of Hateful Eight gets a bit bleedin' dull, until it kicks in and does its stuff? I've posted about this before on this thread, I think. I've watched it on DVD too, much to my better half stating several times that QT's films are bollocks since Pulp. I don't agree with her, about  that I mean, but that's another story.   I realise you may be writing, so no rush. I will say this - I can't think of another high profile independent film maker who came from not much to world wide fame and has stayed there for over twenty five years. Not only that, he still gets to do what he wants and when he wants to. Bugger also knows Morricone. Pity he didn't check up on his past awards. Doh. R

I can't really speak for anyone else.

For me it only got dull right before the big climax kicked in. More than an hour into it.

His films tend to be overly long and in dire need of an edit, I find.

Structurally it's probably because the front end was so expositional...introducing so many characters in a very verbal way. But it worked for me...the natural tension of the premise kept me awake...evaluating all the suspects.

The cut of Inglorious Basterds I saw at Cannes was criminally boring. They cut 40 minutes or more for the theatrical cut and it still needed another 40 minutes to an hour slicing out of it.

Tarantino, for me, makes really, really shit films that are so well directed they are, or at least seem, brilliant.

They are like gold plated, diamond encrusted turds.

This was the first I've seen since Jackie Brown that felt that it was actually about something...who we really are under the surface and what really makes a man. It was nice to see  some hint of an intelligent theme in a Tarantino movie. They've been so forgettable, for so long...apart from moments of superficial genius.

I was really surprised by it.

Well, I broke my oath of never seeing this again and tried to with my girlfriend.

She was asleep within the first 15 minutes.  I carried on and have to say on second viewing, it's much worse than I expected...MUCH WORSE!

Dialogue is just plain old poor.  So fake, so stilted, so dull.

I hate to say this, but I have to - this movie never should have been made, as there's so little going on.

New grade - D-

I'm a fan of QT. But not all his films. This one missed the mark for me too.

I have never really understood the obsession with Kill Bill either, though his blend of comic books with 70s Westerns and ninja films is fun in its way.

I also didn't understand the love of Django. I watched it in the theater, and I've tried to watch it online, but it's just so stupid and corny when it's trying to be serious. The parts where it's purposely humorous are the only ones the work...and those are few. Most overrated film in a while.

Pulp, Jackie, Inglorious, True Romance, even From Dusk Til Dawn...lot of good stuff in those. The man knows how to milk the tension out of a scene.

There were times that worked in Hateful. He knows how to hold your attention. But then it becomes self indulgent and goes no where.

Hey, no one can hit it out every time. I hope he keeps making films.

I love the work of Mr. Tarantino,  that said, Django dragged toward the end. To much time between the dentist dying and Django killing everyone.
I have  the same problem with Hateful 8, except it dragged in the beginning.  I always thought QT put the bit with the stagecoach in to avoid comparisons to Reservoir Dogs: who set us up vs who poisoned the coffee. Who's the sour apple of the bunch?

The Domergue (spelling ?) gang sucked, none of them were interesting, and Madsen looked completely out of place. Dern should have been the leader becuse when it comes to acting, Channing Tatum is the Sofia Coppola of his generation.

This film felt like Tarantino was trying to imitate Tarantino.

The whole movie and dialogue felt very forced to me.

Guess I am viewing things in relative terms these days. I've seen soooooooo many dreadful films lately that I am now less critical of this one. It needed to be cut by 40% for sure.

Quoted from eldave1 Guess I am viewing things in relative terms these days. I've seen soooooooo many dreadful films lately that I am now less critical of this one. It needed to be cut by 40% for sure.

Ah yes, but saying it needed to be cut by 40% is the key here.  In NO WAY should this film be anywhere near 3 hours, because as is, it's a tedious bore, and even at 2 hours or less, there is very little going on that warrants a feature film from a genius like QT.

Quoted from Dreamscale Ah yes, but saying it needed to be cut by 40% is the key here.  In NO WAY should this film be anywhere near 3 hours, because as is, it's a tedious bore, and even at 2 hours or less, there is very little going on that warrants a feature film from a genius like QT.

Agree - I think QT might have reached the point where he needs someone willing to tell him that something sucks. That being said. I recently watched moonlight and Jackie and gun to my head I ain't re-watching either of those before I re-watch Hateful Eight. By QT standards it was a D- as you said. By what I have seen lately from others - more of a C+. Overall though. we agree.

I am a huge QT fan, but I did not watch Hateful Eight. I tried to watch Django, but bailed. Other than those though, I pretty much LOVE all his films. I even loved Natural Born Killers, which he only wrote the story, but still. As far as Kill Bill goes, it's an excellent revenge movie and it has a female lead who kicks ass, which really appeals to me. (I even like GI Jane.) It's also cool and fun. KB is in my top ten. I watch it every time I come across it on TV, and that's quite often.

Two major problems for me, when it comes to this one.

As said before, the runtime. I swear to God, every Tarantino movie has become longer than the one prior, or at least, it feels that way and that's probably worse.

Second is that, when it came to the twist of who was going to be involved in breaking Domergue out (because we knew someone would at some point), Tarantino had about a million different directions to go... and he picked the worst one. Having previously unseen (and uninteresting) characters and semi-retconning stuff we'd already seen, that was the worst thing possible.

Instead, I'll tell you what I think would've been the best one (or, most interesting, in my opinion). You don't delete that flashback, but instead, use it to show that everyone there is a bounty hunter and how they all found out about Domergue. For Christ's sake, when you have a title like that, have everyone be a bad guy (to varying degrees). There should not have been a single good guy in the entire script. If you have everyone as a bad guy and they're all bounty hunters looking to collect on Domergue, then the third act could almost become a slasher where they're all sort of taking each other out (kind of like the old Simply games. Those were good times).

Anyway, I think this eventually came down as my least favorite Tarantino movie.