This is why I typed and wrote this film review at 2:13 in the middle of the night.
I can’t understand that there are people who scored other than five stars for such a film.
I know that you would say, "You like it doesn't mean that everyone likes it", "Some people just don't like this kind of film", "Too much. "It's chattering", "too bloody" "no breakthrough"...
My reason tells me that it is okay for others to say this, and I don't allow others to comment on this movie like this Any rights
but I can't accept it emotionally-totally can't accept it. For those who can say the above "criticism", how do your brain circuits grow? How do you watch your movies? Let me guess, is your favorite movie Shawshank’s salvation?
Pulling away. Back to the topic.
After watching this film, I chatted with a friend of mine who was an editor. Be the editor of the novel.
I'm talking about content, I think Quentin's film, worthy of all those who write fiction - real people who write fiction, non-starting point of the Great God - to take a good look and see a lot of times, repeatedly watching
to see what? Don’t watch the plot, don’t watch the bloody violence, don’t watch the gimmicks that are not big or not, just talk about them. Talking about the boring movie can make the boring movie a little bit boring, while watching Quentin’s The movie is still talking about your old stalkers, it will only look like you are really boring.
Look at characterization.
Quentin’s movie, especially the 8 villains, has an extremely magical ability in character creation, and it is also the ability that every novel creator dreams of: it can create such a character, every word he says, every word A behavior is unpredictable by you, or you cannot be 100% sure, but when he does any such behavior, you find that he is so authentic and credible, and this character should indeed be like this, he Must and can only say these words and make these actions.
And in the events caused by the interaction between characters, this point is pushed to the extreme-when you watch this movie for the first time, you don't know where the plot will go-you are from old age The "viewing experience" gained from movies, bad novels, bad domestic movies, or bad Hollywood movies will only make you a self-righteous obnoxious person who has been guessing (see ACFUN's barrage-there is now), And the real direction of the film will only make you "WTF" constantly, or feel "bad film, because it does not come as I thought, unreasonable" (such people have, and many). What's interesting is that when you watch this movie for the second time, you will be surprised to find that these events are so reasonable and even so inevitable. Starting from a certain point in time, the direction of the event is completely uncontrollable. But you can only go in that direction-and at that time when you first watched the movie, you thought it was just an insignificant episode.
I don't know what this kind of character's ability to shape and set events is called in the language of the movie. All I know is that if you can fully possess this ability in novel creation, you can already be counted as a top writer.
I know that many people mention Quentin, and there are several "stereotypes": chattering; violent aesthetics; chapter structure.
I am very serious and serious. These three stereotypes are for people who understand Quentin. In other words, it is the most important thing at all, or that these three are just the shape of Quentin, not the soul of Quentin! (On the contrary, many people think that this is Quentin's soul, which can only be said to be extremely naive.)
Quentin likes to talk, likes plasma, and likes to disrupt the narrative sequence, so all his movies reflect this characteristic. But pay attention, is his movie really good because of these three points? Do not. It is not too easy to imitate these three points. Just go to the street and find a director to easily imitate these three points: let the actors chat more, use more tomato sauce, edit the story into five paragraphs, and shuffle the sequence. It is difficult. NS?
There is an idiom called "buying caskets and returning beads". Watching Quentin’s movies, seeing the dialogue between the characters, it’s just “talking the movie”, killing the person is “violent aesthetics”, and the narrative structure changes once it’s “circular narrative”, and then I feel that I understand Quentin, that’s the word. Typical portrayal.
What are Quentin's beads? It is something that no one can learn, something that is twenty years ahead of the current film narrative methods. Characterization and narrative skills.
A little spoiler, a convenient example: the black bounty hunter played by Samuel in the film. Starting from the beginning, the image he showed to the audience was a very gradual form, but it was never too much, just like the audience peeping into a leopard. For example, it was learned from the carriage conversation that he had burned 37 people to escape, and he had corresponded with Lincoln. From the details behind, he knew that he was very observant, very careful, and aware of all dangers. But this is the information given. There is not much information you can derive from this information--or, you can guess a lot of information, but you can’t be sure.
In the dialogue with the old military officer, his speech kept refreshing the audience's bottom line, ah, is he so cruel? Ah, can he be so cruel? Ah, he was so ruthless? Ah, he is so cruel I can't stand it anymore! At this time, the character is truly alive. He combines with the information from the previous tube to become a complete picture of the character. At the same time, this picture again confirms the original image to the audience in reverse. This is the real characterization. What’s even more frightening is that such characterization methods are not supported by any events independent of the film’s story: that is to say, the director’s narrative skills make him use such methods to shape the character without even having to do it for him. Specially set up independent events, such as portraying his psychological activities, giving him a non-plot-related close-up, or even things like the favorite used in Shabi TV series, a memory, etc., but directly and seamlessly interspersed Into the whole story. And the whole story is realized by shaping multiple characters in this way-just like the title of the film, 8 villains.
I have never seen this kind of proficient characterization and narrative skills in other movies. Maybe it's because I don't watch a lot of movies--but I only see these things from Quentin. I am not a director. I believe that almost all directors in China don’t have to learn this-if the foundation is not well laid out, just don't fix these moths-but he can really provide a very good service to anyone who wants to create an image and create a story. Example.
-----
By the way, insert an answer to the question of why Quentin’s movies always appear "meaningless dialogue" that I answered in Zhihu.
When it comes to "meaningless dialogue", I just want to laugh. People who think Quentin speaks "meaningless", what should Quentin look at? Is there a Batman Superman Hulk that suits you?
https://www.zhihu.com/question/26031240/answer/67086025
View more about The Hateful Eight reviews
