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.