• Only masked on 3 sides (top/right/left). Bottom 1/4 of the screen was empty.
• Picture a hair soft, most noticeable on the credits and chapter cards.
• Very brief green emulsion scratch, I suspect from the build up as it was run on platters.
• No other issues with the print or the presentation.

• 4½ stars out of 5.
• Great Ennio Morricone score.
• 8 people are stranded in a snow storm. Violence ensues.
• I'm shocked! Yes, shocked, that there would be violence in a Tarantino film.

While I definitely enjoyed the show, I felt the presentation did not do justice to the work that went into making and presenting it in 70mm. Specifically, going from the razor sharp digital pre-show that filled the entire screen to a less than sharp "letterboxed" image that left the bottom 1/4 of the screen empty, with less than razor sharp focus was not impressive. To be fair, I have seen worse film presentations over the years at some "prestige" New York City venues. My feeling is that for those venues that were not prepared to do it right, they should not have done it at all.
 

---

Posted by Stephan Shelley (Member # 8587) on 12-24-2015, 10:21 PM:
 
Runing ads and preshow is a violation of the contract with TWC.
 

---

Posted by Phil Ranucci (Member # 3820) on 12-24-2015, 11:21 PM:
 
"Runing ads and preshow is a violation of the contract with TWC. "
Interesting.
I knew we weren't running trailers, but didn't know about the preshow. I was wondering why the NCM didn't come on. Not that I missed it!
 

---

Posted by Mitchell Dvoskin (Member # 751) on 12-25-2015, 02:17 PM:
 
They ran their normal "First Look" pre show.
 

---

Posted by Rick Raskin (Member # 1561) on 12-25-2015, 03:13 PM:
 
Running preshow. Hardly what I would call roadshow.
 

---

Posted by Claude S. Ayakawa (Member # 1401) on 12-25-2015, 04:31 PM:
 
I agree. All the Road Shows that I have been to such as BEN-HUR, THE SOUND OF MUSIC, MY FAIR LADY, and so many others were class acts. All our road show theatres had curtains and it remained closed and the no music was played until the picture began with the overture. The curtain remain closed until the picture was projected on to it wile it slowly opened.

-Claude
 

---

Posted by Jim Cassedy (Member # 4115) on 12-25-2015, 05:35 PM:
 
Yes- - no pre-show according to my instructions.
The multiplexpeople had programmed one, but I got rid of it.
 

---

Posted by Victor Liorentas (Member # 5272) on 12-25-2015, 06:21 PM:
 
Anyone know if printed programs are for the first day only or for the full week or two weeks?
 

---

Posted by Mitchell Dvoskin (Member # 751) on 12-26-2015, 07:51 AM:
 
I was at the first public showing on Christmas Eve and their were no programs. Are you saying that I got cheated?
 

---

Posted by Victor Liorentas (Member # 5272) on 12-26-2015, 11:53 AM:
 
I think so!
 

---

Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 12-26-2015, 02:40 PM:
 
While there are MANY factors here (lens focal length, anamorphic attachment and if your anamorhpic is reverse or standard)...focus can be VERY touchy on this one. I set up one theatre with 130mm prime lenses with reverse anamorphics...The sweat spot is minuscule but findable. One also has to factor in the lens(es) heating up, possibly.

My other observation during a run-through is that the focus of the movie varies based on the taking lens a bit. Medium shots looked the softest and close ups were VERY sharp (note, I was judging from the FRONT row and looking for defects).

I also set up the theatre's DCP of the Roadshow version (since it is 2.76:1 and the theatre in question has 3-way masking (sides and top), a separate lens setting was needed so the lens would shift down to keep it centered). If you were to compare the DCP to the 70mm print...you'd be amazed at the contrast difference between the two (both at the proper light level too). You'd take the 70mm picture every time. The cinematography was very well done on this one and I was amazed at how well the close-ups were done...normally on Scope movies, close ups are awkward since there is so much dead screen...I didn't get that sense at all on this one.

If one likes QT movies, they will like this one. If they don't like QT movies, this one isn't likely to bring them into the fold. I'm not really big into westerns.

For me, my ranking of QT movies are:

1) Pulp Fiction
2) Inglorious Basterds
3) Django Unchained
4) Hateful Eight
 

---

Posted by Stephan Shelley (Member # 8587) on 12-26-2015, 02:44 PM:
 
I imagine it is while the supply lasts on the printed programs.

Interestingly the New Mission Alamo Drafthouse which is not showing it in 70mm and opening 12/31 is giving out 70mm frames of the film. An exclusive they claim.
 

---

Posted by Frank Cox (Member # 6258) on 12-26-2015, 04:56 PM:
 
That's like Official Souvenir of 'insert vacation spot' with "made in China" printed on the bottom.
 

---

Posted by Scott Norwood (Member # 30) on 12-27-2015, 12:07 AM:
 
I saw it tonight and, somewhat surprinsgly, I liked it. With a few exceptions, I am not a big fan of westerns, and QT is hit-or-miss for me. That said, H8 worked well as entertainment, and there are some scenes that I would like to watch again. The crowd was into it and that helped the experience as well.

The craftsmanship on this film is pretty amazing--every department (from hair and makeup to art direction to camera to location sound) did an outstanding job. The only area in which it really fell down for me was editing--the first half could have been tightened considerably, and it would have made a better two-hour film.

I really don't think that this film was crying out for UP70, though. Of all the films that I would have liked to have seen in the large/wide format, this really isn't one of them. It would have worked very well in 35mm scope. I am not complaining, nor am I suggesting that 70mm hurt the film in any way. My point is that many other films need the 70mm treatment more than this one. I do love the "roadshow" idea, but this wasn't the best film to pick to re-introduce it. Maybe someone else will try it with a more appropriate picture.

I saw it at the Somerville Theatre (disclaimer: I work there, occasionally) and the print was in mint condition. It looked and sounded great, with proper masking and use of curtains. They are using the Hyperion lenses in reverse-anamorphic configuration and had zero focus issues. The manager introduced the screening, and programs were available in the lobby.
 

---

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 12-27-2015, 12:59 AM:
 
NO SPOILERS IN THIS REVIEW

I've seen this thing a few times now doing setup checks and screenings. I enjoyed it very much, but as with all Tarantino movies, I like it more and more with each viewing. Even just running the prints and watching scenes here and there to keep an eye on the presentations, my appreciation and admiration for Tarantino's style and genius continues to escalate.

While I agree this movie didn't need to be shot in UP70, I am glad it was. Tarantino has now proven that even a super wide aspect ratio of 2.76:1 doesn't have to be all about "dead space" on screen because of it's width, and this was the perfect movie to prove that point since most of it takes place in one room. I found myself very much drawn into the movie with the wider ratio and his excellent use of camera angles and composition.

Audio quality of course varied from site to site as expected, but I can tell the sound mix was well done, even if some of the sound systems along the way were not quite tuned to perfection.

On picture quality, it is simply phenomenal. It's not just the super sharpness of it, but everything related to the image (lighting, colors and super black blacks). This truly is a movie people NEED to run out to the theater and experience at least once on 70mm film. No bluray or digital projection will achieve this level of quality. Sure the general consensus is that "people these days don't care", but I'll tell you something...they do if you SHOW them! Case in point I recently introduced 70mm to a few college age kids and they were blown away. They couldn't explain WHY they liked it so much, but they wanted more.

But as far as the movie goes, I'm not sure which Tarantino movie I like the best, but it's definitely up there at the top.
 

---

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 12-27-2015, 01:18 AM:
 
Cinema: AMC Quail Springs Mall 24
Screen: 12
Format: 1.25x anamorphic 5/70mm, Datasat 5.1 digital sound
Presentation Problems: Modest sized common width screens with no masking really suck for shows like this. Bring back common height screen design! Sheesh!

Rating 3.5 stars out of 4

Death Proof is by far my least favorite Quentin Tarantino movie. Too much of its running time was wasted on long, boring dialog scenes that had little relevance to the plot and only seemed interesting to its participants. Death Proof probably could have gone from beginning to end in less than a half hour without all those talky scenes. I was pretty worried The Hateful Eight would be even worse. A three hour movie where most of it is spent inside a cabin among 8 bad people? I pictured the keys of QT's computer keyboard or typewriter building up smoke from cranking out so much dialog.

Thankfully The Hateful Eight has dialog that at least points in some direction relevant to the story. There were times I did get annoyed by characters needlessly going back and forth reinforcing the same point. Edit! Maybe some of that will be trimmed a bit in the "regular" non-roadshow version. At any rate, the 3 hours went by pretty quick for me at least.

The Hateful Eight is not a pleasant movie. It has some pretty violent scenes and a few that are just disgusting. Throw in a heaping amount of racism, some graphic nudity and sadistic sexual assault and that should be enough to make any parent very sorry for ignoring the R-rating on the poster and bringing their kids to the show anyway. Some R-rated movies just have ordinary violence and some curse words, basic cable TV-MA stuff. The Hateful Eight is not that. But that's part of the fun. The audience was really squirming, laughing and even going "ewww" at a few points in this film.

The movie has some pretty good twists and turns and even some good performances. Kurt Russell sounded a bit too much like John Wayne or "Jack Burton," but he still had some great lines. Samuel Jackson dominated most of his scenes. Jennifer Jason Leigh was a trip. Walton Goggins is great, but he was reminding me of "Boyd Crowder" in Justified.

I really liked Ennio Morricone's score. The opening title theme was awesome. It was almost as good as his March of the Righteous theme that opened The Untouchables.

The intermission was great. I was able to visit the bathroom and make a phone call. There's too many 2 hour plus movies that want to test the capacity and pain thresholds of audience bladders.

I spoke about the film presentation in the Film Handler's Forum thread about The Hateful Eight. Not a perfect 70mm presentation, but I'm thankful it wasn't a disaster either. Pretty good sound sound quality. The image quality could have been better. I think a combination of things made the movie not has sharp as it should have been. On the flip side, the color and contrast quality was superior to any d-cinema stuff.

That kind of gets to QT's choice of Ultra Panavision 70mm. I can appreciate the novelty of using this widest of all film formats. BTW, kudos to QT for sticking the "Filmed in Ultra Panavision 70" thing up front in the opening titles by Robert Richardson's credit. I liked that a lot. The Cinerama thing on the opening might have been a bit much (especially since we were watching it shown smaller on a dinky common width screen).

Anyway, I didn't see a whole lot in this movie where the ultra-wide 2.76:1 ratio was really needed. This movie could have been shot spherical in 2.20:1 ratio and projected much sharper. That's really supposed to be one of the big pay-offs of seeing something in real 70mm.

I did like the color and contrast quality though. It was nice to be watching a movie where the projected image didn't seem like a TV screen image at Buffalo Wild Wings. The color quality looked organic and the black levels were nice and deep. Not gray. Perhaps laser projection can match some of those black levels, but I don't see those things proliferating to very many theaters in the near future due to their absurdly high cost.

I'm hoping other filmmakers or movie-makers will take advantage of 70mm film presentation in the future, but shoot normal spherical 5/65mm principal photography. The Ultra Panavision thing needs some work. Even though I admire QT and the Weinstein Co. for getting 70mm prints of this movie into 98 theaters, 70mm really deserves best house in the complex screens. I'm hoping Boston Light & Sound Inc. will be able to keep these 70mm systems at the ready and future movie releases will take advantage of them.
 

---

Posted by Jim Cassedy (Member # 4115) on 12-27-2015, 06:59 PM:
 

quote: Mitchell Dvoskin

---

I was at the first public showing on Christmas Eve and their were no programs.

---

Would you like me to send you an autographed one?
 

---

Posted by Mitchell Dvoskin (Member # 751) on 12-28-2015, 01:37 PM:
 
> Would you like me to send you an autographed one?

Yes, please!

I pm'd you my address.
 

---

Posted by Jonathan M. Crist (Member # 413) on 12-29-2015, 07:28 AM:
 
I think Peter Yeldham and Harry Alan Towers should have gotten co-screenplay credit for H8. Who are Yeldham and Towers? They were the co-authors of "Ten Little Indians" the 1965 adaption of Agatha Christie's novel "And Then There Were None".

Proving once again .... that there is no such thing as originality in Hollywood.
 

---

Posted by Martin McCaffery (Member # 37) on 12-29-2015, 07:55 AM:
 
Proving, once again, Quentin Tarantino is the cinematic equivalent of a cover band
 

---

Posted by Daniel Schulz (Member # 1881) on 12-29-2015, 11:53 PM:
 

quote: Jonathan M. Crist

---

I think Peter Yeldham and Harry Alan Towers should have gotten co-screenplay credit for H8. Who are Yeldham and Towers? They were the co-authors of "Ten Little Indians" the 1965 adaption of Agatha Christie's novel "And Then There Were None".

Proving once again .... that there is no such thing as originality in Hollywood.

---

quote:

---

The bottom right corner of theater 9 has a garish green glow from the Exit sign, which is very distracting.

Please do something to shield this light from the screen. I could do it with $5 of matte black paper (without obscuring the sign).

---

quote:

---

(Scott Norward on 12/30/15) : AMC Boston Common is handing out little
pieces of 70mm film (real film, but obviously made just for this promotion)
as souvenirs; they are about 6" long and contain several different frames
(probably production stills, actually) from the movie

---

Possibly one of these? .

I just got several from a private source.
 

---

Posted by Buck Wilson (Member # 5885) on 02-07-2016, 08:49 PM:
 
WHAAAAAAAAAAAT!? I want one!
 

---

Posted by Scott Norwood (Member # 30) on 02-08-2016, 12:52 PM:
 
Jim--that is it. I never got one, but most or all of the customers did.
 

---

Posted by Ari Leedsw (Member # 9336) on 02-22-2016, 11:46 AM:
 
@Mitchell Dvoskin: Re: Paramus NJ, no that wasn't from a bad buildup. Some bad failsafes when the projector shut down and the film did not stop on a dime.

Source: One of that print's projectionists.

LOL, I've seen the film that was in the incident you describe. It was kept as a souvenir.
 

---

Posted by Rob J. Buskop (Member # 3338) on 03-17-2016, 11:40 AM:
 
Very interesting to hear a few commentators rave about the picture quality. I suspect they've fallen for "The emperor's new cloths.." I've seen the premier in Amsterdam, in the EYE film museum where every detail in the technical set-up had been meticulously attended to. Proper masking, new Schneider optics etc. etc. For an old and rather experienced viewer as myself, the picture quality was nowhere near what it used to be like in the 1960-ties. It looked good, but... not really like what it could have been. Really far from it! These prints were made via intermediates and dupe negs, and so you were watching the 4th generation of the original elements. When 70mm was really 70mm, the prints were struck from the edited camera neg!
Oddly enough they showed a digital trailer of "Hail Caesar" ahead of the roadshow. It was 100x sharper with greater detail and depth than the feature. Even the titles that spelled out "Overture" were somewhat soft.
I liked the whole set-up but as an example what 70mil used to look like it completely failed for obvious reasons.
 

---

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 03-17-2016, 11:52 AM:
 
I would suspect the anamorphic was not precisely adjusted. If the astigmatism is off by just a tiny bit, the entire sharpness of the image is killed, even though it may not look like it is out of alignment.
 

---

Posted by Jim Cassedy (Member # 4115) on 03-17-2016, 12:24 PM:
 
Rob- I agree with what Brad said in his post.

Im fact, I found the overture card to be a great focusing aid.

If I could get the little stagecoach silhouette at the bottom
of the screen in focus, I knew the rest of the image would be
sharp. In fact, I found the first several minutes of the film,
with it's bright snow-scene images to be a great indicator of
'quality control'. Any hair/dirt in the aperture or on the film,
or any scratches that might have somehow occurred were
immediately apparent, as would any lamphouse issues too.

I would watch those first few minutes intently every show,
looking for signs of 'trouble' .
 

---

Posted by John Wilson (Member # 269) on 04-15-2016, 01:22 AM:
 
Our screenings...
 

---