Cinecast Episode 422 – Pimp Fur

Well, the Cinecast is back. Matt Gamble contributes to another epic, three hour plus discussion on the state of cinema at the end of 2015. The real magic of cinema is often displayed most notably and vibrantly with period pieces and this week’s show runs the gamut of period pictures. The Hateful Eight is out to mixed reviews and The Cinecast continues the status quo. Carol is lavishly tongue bathed and the largely unseen (or under the radar) pick this week is the VOD trash, The Lady in a Car with Sunglasses and a Gun. Before Gamble hits the proverbial road, he leaves with his initial impressions of both Trumbo and Concussion. Andrew catches up with some home grown pleasure in “Fargo” (season 1) while Kurt and co. indulge in a double helping of stop-motion animated fox films. There might be some eco-preaching shoved in there somewhere as well. No one had the stomach for the Point Break remake. You’ll have to go to a different podcast for that.

As always, please join the conversation by leaving your own thoughts in the comment section below and again, thanks for listening!






See comments for the time track listings – thanks to Ultimolee for the extra elbow grease!



The Hateful Eight
The Lady in the Car with Glasses and a Gun



Fantastic Mr. Fox
The Tale of a Fox (YouTube)

– “Fargo” (s1)
– “Marco Polo: One Hundred Eyes” Netflix (US)




show content


newest oldest most voted
Notify of
Jim Laczkowski

Sounds like I better have my THE HATEFUL 8 defense ready for the best-of episode. Wouldn’t be a normal show if Gamble didn’t scream at me at some point 🙂


As a Spanish speaker (and Mexican), the Mexican guy is amazing. He is so hilarious.

Spoiler Alert:
High chance Samuel L. Jackson made up the son scene. He lies all the time in the film, after all.


Also, the second half turns into giallo.

Nat Almirall

I’ll go to bat for Hateful 8: What I got from the movie was Tarantino coming back to the idea of audience expectations from Inglorious Basterds — you go to a western because you want to see brutality under the guise of justice; it’s nice and cathartic and you let the demon outside of you to play for a bit, and when he comes back, his horns are a little shorter.

But I think that’s what Tarantino is attacking all throughout — Roth and Warren appear to be the good guys, or at least the guys on the right side of the law, but as soon as you learn that, you learn their reasons for it — Roth is a sadist who likes to see his prey hang, and Warren likes to kill white folks. You feel dirty rooting for them, but then you feel even dirtier rooting for Mannix, who, aside from looking physically dirty (and being dressed in bad-guy black), is racist and duplicitous and a provocateur in addition to being a dishonorable renegade. Yet Warren is all those things, too, but he’s legitimized because he wears a fancy Union outfit and has a letter from Abraham Lincoln, which Mannix correctly points out is ***SPOILER*** fabricated. (And in part, I think that’s the point of Mobray’s speech on dry justice versus thirsty justice — in civilized society you shouldn’t be caught doing the “right” thing for the wrong reasons, so you need a bit of pretense to separate your ends from your means [this coming from the most pretentious {in every dimension of the word} character]).

The one person you should, kind of, be rooting for, is Domergue, because you don’t know what she’s done, and when the reason for her bounty is revealed, you still don’t know if she’s actually done anything bad. But since she appears bloody and beaten and menacing, you expect her to be the worst of the lot, after all, one of the biggest tropes in Westerns (I’m thinking movies like Shane and True Grit here) is building a legend around a character and then having them live up to it at the end, and that’s what Tarantino is subverting. And I think that’s why her fate (much less her treatment) is an icky-feeling moment.

Ultimately, I think the larger point is about taking things at face value. When you see a flick, you’re given bits of dialogue and images, and from there you fill in the blanks to move things along. The cleverness of Hateful 8, like it or not, is that here that’s precisely what you’re not supposed to do. Call it pretentious or blunt, but that’s also why I think Tarantino uses his own voice to step in occasionally and remind you that you should be paying more attention to the things you’re not seeing — it’s the guy who made all this explicitly telling you that he’s pulling the wool over your eyes. There’s more to go into, naturally, but that’s my superficial take. I at least loved the flick, even more than the Homestarrunner shoutout.

And the zoom-out from the Jesus thing is clearly taken from Rocky, as in, “Jesus, Andrew, you should know this.”

Jim Laczkowski

Go Nat Go! I’m saving up my verbiage for the podcast recording since reading text these days is no match for listening to people talking/arguing/passionately defending their taste 🙂

Nat Almirall

I got my Jim flag ready to fly!

(And I meant the “Jesus” line to be read tongue-in-cheek, in case it wasn’t clear)


Sorry to hear your mother went through this Andrew. I, along with a couple others, contracted it from a restaurant during a Norovirus (Norwalk?) scare a few years ago. Also didn’t know what I was suffering from until the weekend was over. Bed-ridden with no food and pins and needles in my stomach for 3 days! Blah!


Gamble, Russel’s charcter could do not do shit because there was a sheriff among them. He needed more proof to do anything. Game Theory.


Points for bringing in John von Neumann into the conversation.


I found the first half of The H8ful Eight engaging at times but found the subsequent bloodbath very off-putting.

The callbacks to Pulp Fiction were, I guess, meant to hint at the chopped up time-frame of that film ported over to this film. I think that seemed more of a good idea to Tarantino than it played out to me, along the same lines as the jellybean which, as you pointed out, didn’t really amount to much.

Re the macro subtext, the film seemed to be about why Jewish people were murdered in Paris because the perpetrators held them responsible for the treatment of Palestinian people even though, as French Jewish people, they had absolutely nothing to do with said treatment of the Palestinian people in the recent and not so recent past.

It was also seemingly about why some people in the middle east or of middle eastern origin hold every one of us in the west responsible for the actions of Bush, Blair and a line of previous western imperialist leaders, about the fact that people on both sides think they’re in the right and the fact that everyone is royally fcuked because of these cycles of revenge.

I think the brutal treatment of Domergue was a version of what happens to women when they’re targeted because they’re from the same population / gang as ‘the bad guys’, by people who see themselves as righteous. As Nat said above, there was no actual evidence that she’d done what she was accused of.

The moral posturing at the end seemed very confused and I drew a paralell with current American political podium posturing about the issues above, which seems just as confused, to me.


On reflection, there’s no evidence that Domergue didn’t do what she’s accused of either. That would make what happens to her character more ambiguous.


The Hateful Eight 18:41
What Matt’s Watched 1:22:40
Carol 1:29:50
Watchlist 2:10:24
End: 3:02:11

Happy New Year


Finally watched The Hateful Eight. I agree. It’s enjoyable, overindulgent, exploitation fun, but definitely lesser Tarantino. After listening to couple podcasts, I’m noticing that the people that passionately HATE this movie fall under the “white knight, social justice warrior” category….cough…Gamble.