Hateful Eight (in 70MM): 9/10

Tarantino movies are like oysters...so long as you have a predilection for them, you know you're gonna like the new one. I loved the hell out of this (only Inside Out have I liked more at the movies this year), and seeing it projected large and in charge is one of the best theatrical experiences I've had since seeing Jaws on the big screen for the first time last summer. It's ugly, to be sure (the squeamish need not apply), self-indulgent to a degree like all of his films, and yet I loved pretty much the entire film. And how wonderful to hear a new Morricone score in this day and age (supplemented by unused cues effectively cribbed from The Thing). Jennifer Jason Leigh is particularly great, in one of the most raw, feral, bleakly funny performances of the year. I can't wait to see it again.

The Revenant: 10/10

MAGNIFICENT...maybe the most beautifully-shot movie in the past ten years (and on digital cameras, which proves, no matter what the celluloid holdouts like Quentin Tarantino and Christopher Nolan claim, can look every bit as good as film). I'm a sucker for a good "Man vs. Nature" survivalist movie, and this is one of the best and most gripping examples I've ever seen. Solid score, too, credited to Ryuichi Sakamoto and several other composers (was that an Ondes Martenot I heard...? ). A must on the big screen.

Monterey Jack wrote:The Revenant: 10/10

Will be interested in seeing this for myself, now that the only two opinions I've heard have been positive (yours) and dismissive (my friend in LA).

Monterey Jack wrote:MAGNIFICENT...maybe the most beautifully-shot movie in the past ten years (and on digital cameras, which proves, no matter what the celluloid holdouts like Quentin Tarantino and Christopher Nolan claim, can look every bit as good as film).

I cut my teeth on celluloid, but am with you -- I'm totally sold on digital photography / cinematography at this point.

Paul MacLean wrote: I cut my teeth on celluloid, but am with you -- I'm totally sold on digital photography / cinematography at this point.

There were some rough-looking movies during that early-mid 00s "transition" period when filmmakers were testing out the limits of digital cameras (and I can't for the life of me figure out why Michael Mann thought Public Enemies was even releasable as shot...it seriously looked like a $90 million production captured on someone's cell phone, absolutely hideous), but by this point, I can barely tell the difference between DV and actual film. Only fast camera pans have that "digital" look these days (plus lens flares look a bit odd). Of course, it helps to have the invaluable Emmanuel Lubezki behind the camera...looks like he'll be pulling off the Best Cinematography hat trick next month, and well-deserved.

I saw The Revenant on Thursday night. It was okay. Tom Hardy was pretty good, as was the kid playing Bridger. DiCaprio was okay but nothing that special. The makeup on him looked fairly uncomfortable. I'm forced to agree with the review posted elsewhere by Bill A. Bear - the Bear stole the show. The shooting style was also okay, but the movie was simply too drawn out and incoherent for me to put it in my Top 10 for the year. Ironically, this is a movie that could have been made in 70mm by a different director, and it might have added to its scope. Obviously that's not Inarritu's style, but it could have worked here. And certainly the 70mm would have been far more appropriate for The Revenant than for Hateful 8, where it was wasted for nearly all of the running time.

Both of these movies are sadly overlong and bloated far past the capacity of their stories. Each could have been cut by a solid hour or more, and you'd never miss the deleted footage. The Revenant had more substance to it, but left the viewer guessing way too many times. Hateful 8 simply didn't have much of a story to tell.

So far this year, I'm only up to 4 movies that really generated much interest from me - Brooklyn, Big Short, Spotlight and the remake of Mission to Mars. Bridge of Spies and Steve Jobs were sadly disappointing and there hasn't been much else to recommend. Trumbo really disappointed me. I'm down to Room this evening and then I'll be done with this year's contenders.

Tarantino's speech for Morricone's Golden Globe was disgusting. What a d-bag.

I didn't watch the Golden Globes. I tuned in a couple of times but couldn't take the humour. There was no dignity to the proceedings, as far as I saw. Way too many ads, too.

Instead I read a book.

Displaying himself to be a moron -- not the first time in the last year -- in a bizarre speech that was pretentious (always about him, ain't it?) and also factually WRONG:

http://www.people.com/people/mobile/art ... 25,00.html

Oops. The Hateful Eight writer-director Quentin Tarantino made a major flub when he took to the stage to accept the Golden Globe for Best Original Score on behalf of the film's composer, Ennio Morricone.

The director said Morricone had "never won an award for any one individual movie at a U.S. awards show" – but as many film buffs were quick to point out on Twitter, Tarantino was wrong.

The acclaimed composer has in fact won two Golden Globes, one for The Mission in 1987, and one for The Legend of 1900 in 2000. Although Morricone has never won an Academy Award for a specific movie, he did earn an honorary Oscar in 2007.

Love this comment too:

["But when I say favorite composer. I don't mean movie composer, that's ghetto."]

lol

I think that's why Jamie Foxx had a quizzical expression on his face after Tarantino left the stage and then repeated "Ghetto?" A couple of right wing radio hosts in Los Angeles (Armstrong & Getty) attacked Foxx today for doing that, but I don't think he was claiming some kind of jurisdiction over the word. I think he was genuinely having a "What the heck?" moment, and for once in his life, I tend to agree with him.

And this is the reason why film music continues to decline...idiots continue to think of it as nothing but aural wallpaper (unless it's John Williams).