|
widunder posted:Had Inglorious, Django and now The Hateful Eight been two hours each with half the budget I'm sure they'd all be instant classics but right now, Tarantino needs to do away with all the yes men and bring in an editor that can seriously trim his work down. It's really too bad that Sally Menke died. I get the feeling that she was letting him have his fun with Kill Bill (and play out his obsession with Uma Thurman's feet), but definitely would have trimmed these last few films of his.
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2016 18:51
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 26, 2024 02:31 |
|
|
A world in which Inglourious or Django are only two hours long is a sad world indeed.
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2016 19:39
|
|
|
Steve2911 posted:A world in which Inglourious or Django are only two hours long is a sad world indeed. 
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2016 19:50
|
|
|
I still enjoy QTs cameo in Django, even with his awful accent.
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2016 20:15
|
|
|
QT's cameo in Django is the best part of the movie.
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2016 20:53
|
|
|
Basterds and Django definitely don't need any significant trimming, what are you guys smoking. And neither does this film, for that matter. I finally got to watch it a couple of days ago and thought it was great. Probably not quite as good as Basterds but still on the same level, basically. While I don't really share Quentin's obsession with film, I do wish I got to see the roadshow - I think I would appreciate the whole experience nevertheless.
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2016 21:07
|
|
|
Not only do they not feel overly long because of excellent pacing, they aren't bloated. They are the perfect kind of movie to be long. It's not like say, Lord of the Rings, where the length is a result of trying to fit all the requisite events in the runtime.
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2016 22:09
|
|
|
socketwrencher posted:I'm not saying he should have gone around shooting people, just that some of his actions seemed careless and didn't seem to fit his character and mindset given the circumstances. And this man of the law stuck a knife in Gage's neck to persuade him to give up his gun, and killed Bob without actual proof that he killed Minnie et al. I can't see his actions as being careless. Until it goes to hell he's very deliberate and careful in what he does. He knows something is wrong, but he can't do anything more than acknowledge it silently and see how it plays out. He helps out only with the approval of Ruth, and it's to diffuse a situation that would've certainly ended in gunfire if he hadn't.
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2016 22:28
|
|
|
I'm not sure why people hate QT's cameo in Django. I thought it was some much-needed hilarity (especially needed after my beloved King Schultz died), especially with his Wile E. Coyote-esque demise.
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2016 01:15
|
|
|
Snak posted:Not only do they not feel overly long because of excellent pacing, they aren't bloated. They are the perfect kind of movie to be long. It's not like say, Lord of the Rings, where the length is a result of trying to fit all the requisite events in the runtime. Right. I clearly remember thinking "ok this fade is the end...ok no wait, this fade!...uh, ok, maybe this one?" with Return of the King. Never felt that here. Hijinks Ensue posted:I'm not sure why people hate QT's cameo in Django. I thought it was some much-needed hilarity (especially needed after my beloved King Schultz died), especially with his Wile E. Coyote-esque demise. Agreed. It's campy, but that's the point. BANG BANG BANG Schultz dies, then we get to take a breath before Django goes back to avenge and rectify. Keeping things super dark and gritty for that entire section of the movie would have left me numb by the time the final climax arrived.
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2016 02:16
|
|
|
It's like people are angry that a non-serious character appeared in a ludicrous tale about death match slave fighting and dentist bounty hunters. I enjoy Tarantino's cameos. Jimmy in Pulp Fiction was similar to Outback Steakhouse guy in Django. A slower paced break in the action with some humor before the next beat.
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2016 03:41
|
|
|
dont loving django me jules
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2016 04:06
|
|
|
There were multiple buildings in Django that wouldn't have looked out of place with the sign, "Dead Nword Storage".
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2016 04:31
|
|
|
DrVenkman posted:I can't see his actions as being careless. Until it goes to hell he's very deliberate and careful in what he does. He knows something is wrong, but he can't do anything more than acknowledge it silently and see how it plays out. He helps out only with the approval of Ruth, and it's to diffuse a situation that would've certainly ended in gunfire if he hadn't. Seems careless 1) not to check Bob for guns 2) turn his back and get stew with Ruth eating at the table with gun down 3) give a long speech to the general with his back turned 4) not investigate the big hatch in the middle of the floor. socketwrencher fucked around with this message at 06:14 on Jan 19, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2016 06:10
|
|
|
Krispy Kareem posted:It's like people are angry that a non-serious character appeared in a ludicrous tale about death match slave fighting and dentist bounty hunters. I like the scenes themselves, but I wouldn't mind if someone else played the parts.
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2016 07:43
|
|
|
Pirate Jet posted:QT's cameo in Django is the best part of the movie. 
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2016 10:36
|
|
|
widunder posted:Not only is the cameo dreadful, the entire final act kills the pacing of the movie and could be easily trimmed What, end the movie with Tarantino getting blown to loving smithereens? I could actually kinda see that, but it would seem pretty self-indulgent.
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2016 11:05
|
|
|
I really liked this movie. It didn't feel terribly original, but I got pretty much everything I wanted going into a QT movie. I liked the way the characters and plot were set up. Every character was a swerve waiting to happen, but there was no central character to serve as a moral compass because they're all terrible. QT's last two movies hinged on a very minor character making an innocuous observation that ended up ruining the big plans of the main characters (the drunken soldier catching Hiccox's accent and Calvin's sister noticing Hildy was crushing on Django). In Hateful Eight, the supporting characters have an elaborate plan that gets blown up because the two main characters who are total con-artists and also have a knack for sniffing out bullshit are introduced to them unexpectedly. I do want to re-watch the movie paying closer attention to the dialogue with Warren and Mannix, because by the end of the movie, it's obvious you can't assume anything either one says is true. Despite their seemingly diametrically opposed worldviews, their real bond is their con-artistry. Blind Pineapple fucked around with this message at 22:43 on Jan 19, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2016 22:15
|
|
|
Just got back from seeing the 70mm roadshow last night. Enjoyed it a lot. I have realised that I really like Westerns but don't like hokey old black and white stuff. The recent run of modern Westerns is something I really appreciate. A few questions: - Re: The divided room into north/south: For people that have done a rewatch Was there any deeper strategy/plan to that? Knowing who is who and what their plan is, is Tim Roth's character doing that to get better access to the bounty? - What's Tarantino's inspiration, or what is he paying homage to with the terrible vomiting effects? Is he just going for absurd comedy or is it directly aping some previous movie. It looks like something out of Monty Python and I hate it. - Can one of the TFR Goons tell me all the weapons they used or provide a link to the website that has all that stuff? Related, was Ruth using a pistol or a rifle to hold up Marquis at the start? It looked like a pistol with stupidly long barrel but was he just holding his rifle one handed? - I loving love the sound design of Tarantinos gunfire in his last 3 movies. I also love the seemingly over the top gunshot impact/body comedy; but I'm curious, is it possible it's not exaggeration and is in fact realistic? Those things looked like loving hand cannons so it wouldn't surprise me if that's how a body should react to being shot at that range. - Is the regular cinema release going to be cropped or letterboxed? - Has it been confirmed what the missing 16mins actually is? I assume there will be no overture, but that was only about 3mins yeah? What else is going to be cut?
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2016 02:37
|
|
|
I thought the vomit effects loving ruled, but I too would like to know if this was a specific homage to something, because know QT, it is.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2016 03:01
|
|
|
xcore posted:- Has it been confirmed what the missing 16mins actually is? I assume there will be no overture, but that was only about 3mins yeah? What else is going to be cut? pwn posted:I just got back from seeing the film IN GLORIOUS DCP. Differences that I noticed (film vs digital notwithstanding):
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2016 05:33
|
|
|
pwn posted:Also, the intermission is about 12 minute IIRC, and is part of the listed runtime. Ah, wasn't sure if they were including that. Is the overture cut too and you just didn't list it because I already did? Also, was it part of the "authentic old timey 70mm experience" that the movie started 20mins late or was that just my visit? It kind of poo poo me, because I got out of my 9pm screening at close to 1am on a work night  Still didn't stop fuckers still finding their seats while the opening credits were rolling.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2016 05:38
|
|
|
socketwrencher posted:Seems careless 1) not to check Bob for guns 2) turn his back and get stew with Ruth eating at the table with gun down 3) give a long speech to the general with his back turned 4) not investigate the big hatch in the middle of the floor. So I just wanted to say that just because these things didn't come off as careless to me, I don't think there's anything wrong with your reading. I simply wasn't in that mindset when I saw it, and I have to watch the movie again to really consider it. As someone with a weakness for "tactical realism", I try not like or dislike movies based on their "tactical realism". So when I was trying to figure out if I could say all this without sounding like a pretentious rear end in a top hat, I started thinking: Well if it's not realism, what is the language of the tactical situation in the film. So thought about way the movie portrayed power relationships. I came up with four basic states that characters find themselves in: 1 - Not having a gun 2 - Having a gun pointed at them 3 - Having a gun 4 - Pointing a gun at someone And then of course there are conditions like "being injured" or... "being chained up". And then I realized how funny it is that since John and Daisy are essentially on oposite sides of a 4v4, them being chained together basically hurts both teams equally. Which of course also means that it's possible that she pissed him off with the song on purpose to get re-chained-up to him. Because she, and all her friends, were acting that whole time.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2016 07:35
|
|
|
I saw this tonight at a sold out Astor Theater, man that 70mm picture is amazing. Pretty great movie, had a lot of fun watching it and there were quite a few laughs from the audience at times. My friends and I had quite a discussion during the intermission wondering what was going to happen in the second half, we were quite wrong on some things and correct on others. Also, last weekend Kurt, Samuel L Jackson and QT were in town promoting it and they attended a few sessions at two of the three cinemas here that were showing the roadshow version. A national beer company (now foreign owned) gave him personalised tins at one session and apparently a lifetime supply of beer. Which QT just kept slamming them down throughout the screening, doing the same thing up in Sydney this week, he sat through the movie at least 3 times this week apparently, which is pretty crazy, Kurt and Jackson only turned up for 20 minutes then left.  (Supposed to be Victoria Bitter)
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2016 15:38
|
|
|
xcore posted:- Can one of the TFR Goons tell me all the weapons they used or provide a link to the website that has all that stuff? Related, was Ruth using a pistol or a rifle to hold up Marquis at the start? It looked like a pistol with stupidly long barrel but was he just holding his rifle one handed? Here you go. John Ruth's gun is a revolver carbine, basically a revolver with a longer barrel and a buttstock. I'm not sure what type of smaller gun Tim Roth grabs from under the table, but it kinda resembled a Colt M1877 Lightning, if I'm remembering correctly.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2016 17:32
|
|
|
Snak posted:So I just wanted to say that just because these things didn't come off as careless to me, I don't think there's anything wrong with your reading. I simply wasn't in that mindset when I saw it, and I have to watch the movie again to really consider it. As someone with a weakness for "tactical realism", I try not like or dislike movies based on their "tactical realism". So when I was trying to figure out if I could say all this without sounding like a pretentious rear end in a top hat, I started thinking: Well if it's not realism, what is the language of the tactical situation in the film. So thought about way the movie portrayed power relationships. I came up with four basic states that characters find themselves in: Even though I've been babbling incessantly about the carelessness, it didn't take away from my enjoyment of the movie. It bugged me more upon reflection, and I'm planning to see it again this weekend and will see if two scenes in particular, the stew eating scene and the speech to the general, come off differently. I'm open to the possibility that I read it wrong, because it's one of my pet movie peeves (smart characters acting dumb for the sake of the plot) and maybe I'm looking for such things too much and finding it when it's not really there (or is inconsequential regardless). Marquis is trapped in a cabin where people want to kill him. Despite taking guns off of Mobray and Gage, he would assume that they're all (with the exception of Daisy) still armed (just like he assumed that Jody had two guns). Both of those scenes could have been handled differently to remove the perceived carelessness without affecting the plot. Marquis could have, for example, stood on the other side of the general during the speech which would have allowed him to keep an eye on everyone. It's the equivalent of sitting with one's back to the door in a restaurant rather than facing the door. Sure, people make mistakes. But do the mistakes fit the characters? If Marquis had been killed during either of those scenes, which he certainly could have been, would it still not be careless? Snak posted:And then of course there are conditions like "being injured" or... "being chained up". And then I realized how funny it is that since John and Daisy are essentially on oposite sides of a 4v4, them being chained together basically hurts both teams equally. I"m not following you here- why would it be to Daisy's advantage to want to get re-chained?
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2016 19:04
|
|
|
socketwrencher posted:Marquis is trapped in a cabin where people want to kill him. Despite taking guns off of Mobray and Gage, he would assume that they're all (with the exception of Daisy) still armed (just like he assumed that Jody had two guns). Both of those scenes could have been handled differently to remove the perceived carelessness without affecting the plot. Marquis could have, for example, stood on the other side of the general during the speech which would have allowed him to keep an eye on everyone. It's the equivalent of sitting with one's back to the door in a restaurant rather than facing the door. Sure, people make mistakes. But do the mistakes fit the characters? If Marquis had been killed during either of those scenes, which he certainly could have been, would it still not be careless? Wasn't taking the guns off Mobray and Gage John Ruth's idea? Warren helped him with Gage, but I don't think he was as concerned with him or Mobray. Warren was fixated on Bob who he knew was full of poo poo. It seemed like his initial assumption was that Bob offed Minnie and Sweet Dave and was posing as the innkeeper and was the main threat to Ruth bringing Daisy into town. He didn't suspect either of the others was involved until the coffee got poisoned. During his speech to the general, Bob was in his peripheral vision playing the piano.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2016 19:35
|
|
|
Blind Pineapple posted:Wasn't taking the guns off Mobray and Gage John Ruth's idea? Warren helped him with Gage, but I don't think he was as concerned with him or Mobray. Warren was fixated on Bob who he knew was full of poo poo. It seemed like his initial assumption was that Bob offed Minnie and Sweet Dave and was posing as the innkeeper and was the main threat to Ruth bringing Daisy into town. He didn't suspect either of the others was involved until the coffee got poisoned. During his speech to the general, Bob was in his peripheral vision playing the piano. Yes I think it was Ruth's idea to take the guns; I don't remember Bob being in sight during the speech. But even if Bob was his primary focus, I think he'd still be on high alert against everybody. And if Bob was the focus, a little "Hey John, maybe we should check ol' Senor Bob over here for guns too" might have made sense.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2016 20:06
|
|
|
I think the fact that he lines them all up against the wall for his "interrogation" showed that he strongly entertained the idea of them being innocent travelers. The only reason they didn't all meet the same end as Bob was because, even after the coffee was poisoned, he still thought it was only one of the two that was in on it. Despite Warren being psychopath underneath, he maintains a facade that all his victims "deserve it." Additionally, Warren is quite arrogant, and already having worked Ruth like the mark he saw him as, he probably thought he could get Bob to crack and reap any potential rewards by himself.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2016 20:21
|
|
|
Blind Pineapple posted:I think the fact that he lines them all up against the wall for his "interrogation" showed that he strongly entertained the idea of them being innocent travelers. The only reason they didn't all meet the same end as Bob was because, even after the coffee was poisoned, he still thought it was only one of the two that was in on it. Despite Warren being psychopath underneath, he maintains a facade that all his victims "deserve it." Additionally, Warren is quite arrogant, and already having worked Ruth like the mark he saw him as, he probably thought he could get Bob to crack and reap any potential rewards by himself. Good points all. Interesting angle about his trying to reap the rewards for himself, I didn't think of that. His confidence about his ability to handle whatever they threw at him might have played into it as well.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2016 20:39
|
|
|
Snak posted:I thought the vomit effects loving ruled, but I too would like to know if this was a specific homage to something, because know QT, it is.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2016 21:51
|
|
|
socketwrencher posted:I"m not following you here- why would it be to Daisy's advantage to want to get re-chained? Daisy does not have a gun, while John Ruth does. They are each hampered by being chained to the other one. When they are chained to each-other, Daisy's "team" has one of their unarmed people disadvantaged, while John's team has one of the of their armed people disadvantaged. Them being chained together hurts John's team more. I mean this isn't necisarrily what she was thinking, but it's still true.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2016 22:06
|
|
|
Snak posted:Daisy does not have a gun, while John Ruth does. They are each hampered by being chained to the other one. When they are chained to each-other, Daisy's "team" has one of their unarmed people disadvantaged, while John's team has one of the of their armed people disadvantaged. Them being chained together hurts John's team more. I mean this isn't necisarrily what she was thinking, but it's still true. Daisy nearly panics at being rechained because she knows John is poisoned and does not want dead weight. I think her loud protests were honest.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2016 22:32
|
|
|
Moxie posted:Daisy nearly panics at being rechained because she knows John is poisoned and does not want dead weight. I think her loud protests were honest. I forgot that he was already poisoned at that point. Whoops.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2016 23:25
|
|
|
socketwrencher posted:Good points all. Interesting angle about his trying to reap the rewards for himself, I didn't think of that. His confidence about his ability to handle whatever they threw at him might have played into it as well. I think the biggest revelation that made the movie click for me was realizing that Warren is not a "good person." It's easy to instinctively cast him as the protagonist in your head because it's largely told from his perspective and he's got the sympathetic thing going for him about being the only black man trapped with 6 white people who are varying degrees of openly racist. Eventually you realize that he's a con-artist and a psychopath just like Mannix and the Domergue gang, and his fatal flaw is his overconfidence. He probably was the smartest guy in the room, but not by enough to overcome the numbers disadvantage. Since he pretty much nailed that Bob killed Minnie and Dave right away, it wouldn't be too farfetched to assume Bob was wanted somewhere and he could add to his $8000 if he could work him into what looks like a justifiable homicide. That looked to be his game based on how much he was prodding him with the proprietors' whereabouts, and eventually escalating his con with race-baiting just like he did with the general. Unrelated, but since I've finally read through the whole thread now, I thought I'd address the flashback scene which some thought was unnecessary. I thought it served at least 2 important purposes, though. 1. While anyone could've figured out by the end that everyone that didn't show up at the same time as Ruth was a "bad guy" and they killed Minnie, what you wouldn't have known is that their plan to free Daisy would've gone off without a hitch had Warren and Mannix not showed up. If all the Domergue gang had to worry about was Ruth and maybe a driver, they could've easily outlasted Ruth by sleeping in shifts or had ample opportunity to poison his food/drink unnoticed. This emphasizes the importance of Warren and Mannix to the story as their presence creates the entire atmosphere of tension the movie is built around. The "oh poo poo" looks on the gang's faces when they hear the unexpected voices loops right back around the immediate tension when we saw the events from Warren's perspective. 2. On a lesser note, it reveals that Warren's sign story is total bullshit. Minnie has absolutely zero aversion to Bob in the flashback, and I'll need to make a note to look for this in a re-watch, but I feel like someone was wearing a hat too. Even if that part wasn't true, it was definitely clear Minnie didn't hate Mexicans like Warren insisted. While it's easy to make excuses for the other lies he had been called on to that point, that one kind of hammered home that maybe he was an opportunistic sleazebag. Blind Pineapple fucked around with this message at 23:58 on Jan 20, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2016 23:56
|
|
|
Blind Pineapple posted:2. On a lesser note, it reveals that Warren's sign story is total bullshit. Minnie has absolutely zero aversion to Bob in the flashback, and I'll need to make a note to look for this in a re-watch, but I feel like someone was wearing a hat too. Even if that part wasn't true, it was definitely clear Minnie didn't hate Mexicans like Warren insisted. While it's easy to make excuses for the other lies he had been called on to that point, that one kind of hammered home that maybe he was an opportunistic sleazebag. Did she know he was Mexican? He didn't really say anything other than saying his name was "Bob". Either way, she probably had a different outlook on "one of four paying customers coming through" and "hiring a Mexican employee and leaving him to run her beloved business for a week while she visits her parents" There may have been a hat at some stage, but she definitely made a point of and got prickly about making them take their hats off before serving them coffee.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2016 02:07
|
|
|
Order of Death Innocents General Smithers OB John Roth The Gang: {Bob the Mexican Jody Domergue John Gage Oswaldo Daisy Domergue} Warren and Mannix Maybe misguided, but I started with the theory that the movie killed off characters in order of ascending dishonesty. General Smithers' identity is public knowledge and dooms him. John Roth's identity is well known and he constantly reveals his intentions. OB is such a nobody he doesn't even have a name. The Domergue gang all have cover stories for the situation but are honest among themselves; Daisy is last because despite all people still think of her as a woman first and threat second. Leaving Warren and Mannix. Warren's identity is built upon a lie that is so personally important it becomes a part of his identity. He reflexively strikes Daisy at the beginning of the movie when the lie is threatened. Mannix appears to be an open rebel going straight; however, if this order of ascending falseness of identity is a real pattern, then leaving him as the only potential survivor throws this into question. He is even better and more instinctive than Warren at outing duplicity. "Nice touch." "Thanks." Mannix is admiring the work of a fellow con man, not a fellow law man. The other clue is his quick acceptance of Smithers's death. He never cared about Smithers; that was just a part of his game. I don't think Mannix's identity as a con man is explicit enough to be accepted as fact, and his survival is very much in doubt. But I think the movie is most satisfying if Mannix is read as the ultimate con man and the ultimate survivor. His wound would not normally be mortal, I think, but the weather conditions make it very dangerous. His identity is never proven or subject to question. He may actually be playing more hurt than he is at the end, and playing dumber than he is throughout the film. vv probably a fake name anyway vv Moxie fucked around with this message at 04:51 on Jan 21, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2016 03:50
|
|
|
It's Mannix. Chris Mannix.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2016 04:17
|
|
|
xcore posted:Did she know he was Mexican? He didn't really say anything other than saying his name was "Bob". Either way, she probably had a different outlook on "one of four paying customers coming through" and "hiring a Mexican employee and leaving him to run her beloved business for a week while she visits her parents" Well, he does speak with an unmistakenable accent that would make you say "Yeah, this guy is a Mexican." Blind Pineapple posted:I think the biggest revelation that made the movie click for me was realizing that Warren is not a "good person." It's easy to instinctively cast him as the protagonist in your head because it's largely told from his perspective and he's got the sympathetic thing going for him about being the only black man trapped with 6 white people who are varying degrees of openly racist. Eventually you realize that he's a con-artist and a psychopath just like Mannix and the Domergue gang, and his fatal flaw is his overconfidence. He probably was the smartest guy in the room, but not by enough to overcome the numbers disadvantage. Since he pretty much nailed that Bob killed Minnie and Dave right away, it wouldn't be too farfetched to assume Bob was wanted somewhere and he could add to his $8000 if he could work him into what looks like a justifiable homicide. That looked to be his game based on how much he was prodding him with the proprietors' whereabouts, and eventually escalating his con with race-baiting just like he did with the general. Warren is the protagonist. Remember, protagonist does not mean "good guy," it just simply is the person who drives the story forward and the events are centered around. It's a common mistake for us to assume that protagonist and antagonist mean 'good guy' and 'bad guy' respectively, because most movies are about good people. I think the movie plays on our expectations, since usually, these films have a clear hero and villain. It's the opposite of Pulp Fiction, in which we see Jules go from being a harden killer to someone who acts with compassion and calmness. Here, we see a character progress in the opposite direction. He goes from being calm, cool, and collected to being a cold killer. Obviously, there's no was no reason for him to tell that story to the General except to get him riled up so he would grab for the gun, and Warren could kill him justifiably. But he's not without a sense of propriety and justice. For example, he insists they hang Daisy because Ruth would have had her hanged. Now, we can argue whether that plays into his baser desires or not, but it's an important element. It tells us that he's not just a vicious killer going around murdering people willy-nilly. There is some sort of reasoning and logic behind it.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2016 06:10
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 26, 2024 02:31 |
|
|
Blind Pineapple posted:I think the biggest revelation that made the movie click for me was realizing that Warren is not a "good person." It's easy to instinctively cast him as the protagonist in your head because it's largely told from his perspective and he's got the sympathetic thing going for him about being the only black man trapped with 6 white people who are varying degrees of openly racist. Eventually you realize that he's a con-artist and a psychopath just like Mannix and the Domergue gang, and his fatal flaw is his overconfidence. He probably was the smartest guy in the room, but not by enough to overcome the numbers disadvantage. Since he pretty much nailed that Bob killed Minnie and Dave right away, it wouldn't be too farfetched to assume Bob was wanted somewhere and he could add to his $8000 if he could work him into what looks like a justifiable homicide. That looked to be his game based on how much he was prodding him with the proprietors' whereabouts, and eventually escalating his con with race-baiting just like he did with the general. While I never thought that Warren was a good person, I did think he was smarter and a couple steps ahead of everyone else. But maybe you're right about his overconfidence being his undoing. Makes sense that he'd prod Bob in order to provoke a reaction, not just from him but also from his associates (if any), in an effort to narrow the field.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2016 06:31
|
|