Quentin Tarantino's "The Hateful Eight"

"Brooklyn" style Manhattan:

Brooklyn Cocktail
makes one drink

2 ounces whiskey (rye or blended)
1 ounce dry vermouth
dash of maraschino liqueur
dash of Amer Picon (A bitter, orange-flavored cordial. Torani Amer may also be substituted.)

Combine all ingredients in a cocktail shaker over ice. Shake and strain into a cocktail glass. Garnish with a lemon twist.

my shits > everything after Jackie Brown :D

even the ones w/out caramel corn in them

70mm shits?

Does twitter count for breaking embargoes?

Oh ok, that letter shows yes

BTW I would recommend avoiding any plot or character summaries, definitely the kind of movie that's better not knowing such things going in.

I can't imagine the colon that would shit caramel corn.

it's in boldface

Hell on earth to some - Tarantino and Bret Easton Ellis in two hours of conversation on BEE's podcast today.

it's a good conversation

@NickPinkerton
The Revenant and The Hateful Eight offer two sharply-contrasted concepts of cinema, both of them dull and reductive.

Who is Nick Pinkerton? Revenant does look pretty dull though.

Nick Pinkerton is a freelance journalist and film programmer. He has written about films for Sight & Sound, ArtForum, the Village Voice, Moving Image Source and Reverseshot.com, among other publications. He is currently a member of the New York Film Critics Circle.

He was born in Cincinnati, Ohio, lives in Brooklyn, NY, and has programmed at a variety of venues throughout the NYC area.

Is it so hard to imagine he's totally right?

Easy to imagine he's right for Nick Pinkerton.

Pinkerton's a good writer - his blog Bombast (now defunct) was smart and funny.

http://www.filmcomment.com/author/nick-pinkerton/

Yup, this one from about this time last year was a worthy sigh of contempt against Oscar-season biopic dross:

http://www.filmcomment.com/blog/bombast-the-black-list/

These sorts of movies are popular for the same reason that fat tomes of historical fiction by the likes of James Clavell, James A. Michener, and Leon Uris used to be the only fiction that you’d find in houses otherwise devoid of books: there is a significant segment of the American public that thinks this business of making characters and stories up out of thin air is a little suspicious and possibly effeminate. Backers gravitate towards True Story film properties because, like superhero movies, franchise reboots, and genre work, they utilize recognizable icons and known quantities—though, unlike all of those examples, true-life stories of famous people triumphing over honest-to-God hardships are widely and erroneously considered to belong to a higher category of morally improving works.

Pinkerton was the other person who voted for Blackhat in the S&S poll, so I guess his idea of dull and reductive cinema differs from mine.

I guess so.

my favorite recent Pinkerton bit (from a column about Revolutionary War flicks and TV):

I watched John Adams some time after its original airing, because I was curious to see any screen depiction of a period in American history that has always seemed to me insanely overlooked by Hollywood, and because a friend told me: “You get to see John and Abigail Adams fuck in it.” It did deliver on this front, as well as offering several instances of framing shots from unlikely and disadvantageous angles, meant to lend the affair some immediacy though it plays as though the movie was shot by paparazzi nervous to get a glimpse of the Second Continental Congress.

lol

Hah Blackhat.

i still get excited about a new QT movie, but i bet this one will just play on over familiar QT-isms, i.e. bravura but hollow cinema (i know QT is allowed to repeat certain tics and tropes as hes an Auteur etc but *most* of his interesting recurring stuff is stylistic rather than thematic). and i bet revenant will feel weighty but dull, as that is basically innaritu in general these days (birdman felt like someone trying to show they have a light touch and humour, without ever convincing). obv i have no clue and nothing to go on but am just lazily trying to figure out why that writer might think these new films are dullsville. also anything that is a big money western these days usually ends up a bit oversized, epic, and the inadvertently bloated (and to ageing academy voters obv).

This was fucking endless, made doubly so by a decision to include a flashback (!) after a fifteen-minute intermission (!!). A couple of SLJ quips aside, the dialogue was flat, the performances nothing you haven't seen. And I hated especially the way it espouses vigilantism while paying lip service to justice.

and, yeah, the movie version of Murder on the Orient Express is a chore too.

i wouldn't be surprised if i wasn't into this, basically inglourious basterds was the only tarantino i've been 100% into post-jackie brown (kill bills are fun, death proof's first half is tight as hell and ends amazingly, second half is a drag till the chase, django was sloppy) and this one looks more akin to what i don't like abt him the more i see of it. i'll definitely give it a go, though.

Yeah, I'm so unenthused by new movies these days that I'm not gonna let any word of mouth kill one of the very few upcoming things I'm actually excited about seeing.

Skipping this one unless JJL somehow ends up nominated.

i tend to like tarantino's technical approach and his high points seem undeniable but the endings of both Django and Basterds were so spectacularly sadistically shitty and packed with self-indulgence that I'm a little shook to put myself in a theater with this. Like I don't wanna have to walk out if I hit a big enough speed bump; it will make me really angry and why put yourself in that position?

maybe if he steps away from race and ethnicity as his core sacred cow to make hamburger from I'll be more inured? dunno.

i basically don't watch violent movies with other humans

i do think the ending where you sit in a movie theater being entertained by the massacre of a bunch of people sitting in a movie theater being entertained by a massacre, and then brad pitt carves a swastika into your face, has something to recommend it, though neither i nor quentin tarantino are probably sure what

i tend to like tarantino's technical approach and his high points seem undeniable but the endings of both Django and Basterds were so spectacularly sadistically shitty and packed with self-indulgence that I'm a little shook to put myself in a theater with this.

Then you'll smack your lips at what he has in store for Jennifer Jason Leigh.

is the new one as infantile as the last (highly overrated) two?

Worse. The advance word gives the impression that it's a Jackie Brown-type gabfest, but so much of it is exposition (the guy still doesn't trust his camera).

ill prob still check it out though the last two made me feel pretty disgusting afterwards.

Can't wait its gonna be awesome obv

Then you'll smack your lips at what he has in store for Jennifer Jason Leigh.

you guys are making me worried

yeah, this one sounds emphatically not for you forks

no idea but surely her feet have to come into it at some point

I think an argument can be made that the only movie that doesn't indulge QT's foot fetish is his worst one, so I hope so

I loved Basterds & Django.

Basterds is his best so ppl disparaging here in comparison to his new one I am happy to write off but idk Django doesn't bode well for QT doin Westerns (and I agree his views on Ford make it seem like he doesn't actually get the genre)

the actors reminded me of the kids in Bugsy Malone

cool I love Bugsy Malone and am pissed it is not available on DVD

apparently Christoph Waltz, the world's smuggest actor, was unavailable so QT directs Tim Roth to twinkle with cuteness as much as possible. He wasn't even the worst offender though.

you don't even like Waltz? wow

only when spooning cream onto strudel.

Waltz is good in IB and that's about it imo