Its a good film, but it has many, many problems...

Rating: 7/10 (9 January 2016)

On the plus side the second half of the film is funny and engaging. Once the story gets going it is a good story, with a decent amount of violence. I liked the music, it enhanced the paranoia in the room (although i wouldn't call in 'classic' Ennio Morricone)
Now the problems...
It is far, far too long. Nothing happens for the first 90 minutes. I know Tarantino loves his dialogue but unlike previous films where it is funny or pop-cultured, this dialogue is just plain boring. A 10 minute scene about Samuel L Jackson discussing whether he can get onto a stage coach for example. I don't even remember what happened for the first half hour of them being in the cabin. The first half of the film was an hour too long...half an hour would have been plenty to set up for the second half.
Although I am a fan of the violence and swearing, again it was taken too far. This film almost seemed like a Tarantino parody film. The violence seemed done for the sake of it in places. It felt like Tarantino was just going through the motions of making a film, like he had a list of cliché things to put in, ticking them off as he included them
The writing was weak, and there were plot holes everywhere. It seemed like Tarantino knew how he wanted the film to end but didn't know how to get there so just shoe-horned in plot. For example wouldn't it have been simpler if the 4 men just shot and killed Kurt Russell and SLJ as they came through the door? What exactly was their plan? Poison the coffee and hope all would drink it at the same time? Why did Channing Tatum shoot SLJ, then wait underground while he got himself onto the bed (very injured) so he could point a gun at him? None of it made sense if you probe even a little deeper.
Why shoot the film with panoramic cameras in the setting with beautiful western vistas, only to set the whole thing in one room?
Then there were the little annoying Tarantino 'quirks'...The yellow titles worked well in Pulp Fiction and Kill Bill, they were OK in Inglourious Basterds and Django, but it felt completely out of place in a western. If you want to pay homage to your favourite genre of films (which he clearly did as he persuaded Ennio Morricone out of western-retirement, and used panoramic cameras) don't slap large yellow titles all over it. Why was there a New Zealander in the film? Completely out of place. Why the ridiculous Tarantino voice-over halfway through the film explaining things which really didn't need explaining (a 2-second shot of Daisy seeing someone poison the coffee would have sufficed) Of course he did all these things because he always has, and is so stubborn about how he makes films he couldn't ever change.
The best way to describe the film is that he went 'too Tarantino'. He lost sight of making a good film in order to make a 'Tarantino film'
I rated the film a 7 despite the numerous problems because I am a sucker for his style of filmmaking, but my rating is going down the more I think about the film