I absolutely loved this film and can’t see why movie-goers hate it so much. This is a thread to discuss anything related to the film - go forth and discuss Tarantino’s newest flick!

grist for the mill: (comments from Todd’s DP DVD post http://twitchfilm.net/site/view/a-look-at-the-death-proof-extended-and-unrated-dvd/)

#
JMaruyama 09/24/2007 @ 9:02pm

Thanks Todd for the great review! It sounds like there is little improvement with the extended “Death Proof” movie over the “Grindhouse” version. That’s disappointing. I agree the movie should have just been Kurt Russell (Stuntman Mike) vs Zoe Bell in a car vs car match up a la “Death Race 2000” (even though I like Rosario Dawson and Tracie Thoms in the film). Unlike Robert Rodriguez’s “Planet Terror”, “Death Proof” didn’t really seem like a grindhouse film…there really wasn’t anything gritty, shocking, exploitative or retro 70s about the film at all except for the slash film elements. I was hoping that Tarantino would have make something wild and crazy like Russ Meyer’s “Faster Pussycat Kill, Kill Kill” (is that considered Grindhouse?). Now that would have been cool!

#
roystalin 09/24/2007 @ 9:47pm

Good point about people not wanting to sit through a film filled with broads yapping non stop, if people wanted that they’d go and see a chick flick.

I thought Zoe Bells terrible acting skills completely ruined the 2nd half of the film though, all because Tarantino wanted the stunts to appear authentic he revolves the film around a novice actor.

#
Kurt Halfyard 09/24/2007 @ 11:15pm

Oi!  Disagree 100% I tend to like Quentin Tarantino in ‘hang-out’ mode with people sitting in bars or public spaces and talking about minutiae.  That is a good part of the reason why I think that Jackie Brown is his best film.

Also, characters spending far too much time doing nothing is also a staple of the Grindhouse feature, simply because these films tended to be shot on no budget and only hand enough money for big action or whatnot to make a good image for the poster (often the poster images isn’t even in the film!).  Furthermore, Vanessa Ferlito’s air-kiss right before viciously meeting her maker was a great exploitive (or intelligent even) meld of sex-violence-and-the-movies; something DEATHPROOF seems to always have on its mind.

Furthermore, how Kurt Russell is almost always lurking in the background of these seemingly innocent shots further enhances things.  I’d love to have seen more Russell in the picture, but I in no way feel that he wasn’t a presence for much of the film - he certainly had enough screen-time to make a serious impression.

Also, in the cut ‘black & white’ sequence with Jordan Ladd and Rosario Dawson…Russell really shines in the creepy/sex-fetish department.

I understand the criticism of the length fo the film (grindhouse films were often and typically in the 75 minute or less range).

I think this film stands on its own, even outside the full theatrical glory that was the GRINDHOUSE (Fake trailers, commercials, and 2 features) experience.  I also think that Death Proof was easily the better of the two features.  Not knocking PLANET TERROR, but it came across like a big-budget wannabe.  Fun yes, but disposable in a way that DEATH PROOF is not.  The full-on girl-energy in Death Proof alone make it one of the great (and unlikely) empowerment movies of the past decade or so.

There are so many great images and little moment in the film that will only improve on repeated viewings (I’ve seen the short version 3 times and the DVD extended version 1 time).  Yea, I’m a fan.

OK, this was a long ramble, hopefully some of my points came out.

#
Garth 09/25/2007 @ 12:20am

I was getting ready to rant on about how most people (most specifically the people who think that PT was closer to “real” grindhouse fair) don’t really know what a grindhouse movie is, and how DP was a phenomenal grindhouse movie, while PT was a fun, big budget parody of grindhouse movies.

Then I read Mr Halfyard’s comments, which pretty much round out my feelings.

I mean hell, look at some of the movies that Tarantino namechecks.  Vanishing Point is a cool movie, but there’s a lot of talk and slow moving stuff in that.  Slasher movies have LOTS of inane dialogue (I’m referring mostly to the first half of movie) and annoying characters drinking and talking about sex (AND having sex) before they all get killed.  Sure, there aren’t kills at regular intervals, but the kill at the end of the first half is SPECTACULAR.

Hell, look at Tarantino’s movies… I bet many people would say that Reservoir Dogs would be at home in a grindhouse theatre, but is that movie THAT much different?  There’s little violence, the vast majority of it is characters talking, the only difference is that RD has criminals trying to out badass eachother, while DP has more real, normal characters talking to eachother.

I also saw GH 3 times in the theatre and I’ve watched the extended cut twice, and I STILL love it.  I will grant that there are a few additions that weaken the movie in my eyes, but still, this is the one movie from Grindhouse that completely stands on its own.  I’ll definitely pick up the PT DVD (as well as the multi-disc SE showcasing the original theatrical cuts once they come down the pike) but I don’t see myself rewatching it as often as I’ll definitely be rewatching DP.

Also, one small correction to Kurt’s comment: the b&w;scene is Rosario Dawson and Mary Elizabeth Winstead, not Jordan Ladd.

And it completely blows my mind to read statements about Zoe Bell being a bad actress.  Some of her dialogue is weirdly bad (“That’s a horse of a different colour”??!??!), but she was terrific, as far as I’m concerned!

Oh look, this turned into a long rant afterall…

#
Garth 09/25/2007 @ 12:30am

Shit, here I go again…

I also hate it when people say that this is pointless chick talk.  The first half is like the beginning of tons of slasher movies.  People talking about heading out to camp, to a party, to a cottage, whatever, only for them to be picked off one by one when they get there.  Except in this, it’s a Tarantino movie, so they talk longer, and then they’re all killed off in one amazing setpiece.

And, diner scene in particular, the second half’s dialogue is anything but pointless.  The diner sets up all four characters, sets up why Kim and Zoe would do what they do on the test drive, sets up the dynamics between the 4 characters, that Lee is an outside, that Abby, Kim and Zoe don’t really respect her as a person.  It sets up the WHOLE rest of the movie.  Some of this dialogue is amazing.

And the extended version of Earl & Son Macgraw is flat out hilarious…the stuff that was added.

#
Swarez 09/25/2007 @ 4:40am

The problem with the dialog in DP was that it was terribly written. I know people talk none stop in Tarantino films but the difference is that that dialog is sharp, witty or bad ass. You can quote all of QT films, all of them have gems of various sizes that have made it in to the film lexicon. DP sadly did not. I don’t remember a single line from the movie or any particular scene. Oh no wait. Yes, the Italian Vogue…*sigh*.

I know of the two DP is more true to the Grindhouse form since most of them are pretty damn boring, but the most of them also have the decency to be short and not go on and on until you are ready to scream, like I was.

It was bound to happen that Tarantino made a dud, this was it.

#
Tuan Jim 09/25/2007 @ 4:50am

I’m just irritated that there’s no word on a full “Grindhouse” dvd release of both films—particularly for those of us who live in a place where they either haven’t released either movie or are putting them out separately.  I don’t think it’s played here in Seoul at all (unless it came out and then vanished while I was at a month-long class).

#
Todd Brown 09/25/2007 @ 8:10am

The problem isn’t so much that the film is dialog driven - I expect that from a Tarantino film - it’s that he spends FIFTY SOLID MINUTES doing nothing with characters that have no bearing whatsoever on the rest of the film.  If even one of them had survived to carry through the rest of the film it would have been worthwhile but the basic structure of this thing is just horrible, it completely breaks the film into chunks with no continuity whatsoever.

#
sarkoffagus 09/25/2007 @ 8:46am

I agree about the two separate films and how it affects the movie as a whole.  QT seems much time establishing these characters in the first 50-minute movie.  Then, when he moves into the subsequent short film, he has a whole new set of chicks and more exposition.  Yeah, the majority of slasher films had a LOT of exposition before the killer would attack, but only once.  QT has to do it twice in DP, and personally, it made me resent the second batch of females, since 50 minutes had been wasted taking the movie absolutely nowhere.  I didn’t think Zoe Bell was terrible, but she definitely needed work.  And I’d also like to add that Rosario Dawson is so viciously hot that I could watch her in anything.

#
Collin A 09/25/2007 @ 8:57am

I think the time spent with the characters serves a mighty purpose in DP.  In the film’s first half, it sets them up as typical slaughter fodder in a ‘70s / ‘80s grindhouse offering - profane, sexually promiscuous (or at least pretending to be such), carefree.  Save for one of course - the genuinely “good” girl who should live to tell the tale (Butterfly).  What the film then does is subvert this - what the better grindhouse offerings were all about - by killing off every single character, not leaving any despite genre expectations.

The film again pitches a curveball in the second act - another set up with another unexpected payoff - the people the audience was meant to take as victims end up kicking ass all over the place.  Another subversion.

While I agree it might have been possible to shorten both conversation segments - at the bar and the diner - I took no issue with either.  I thought the dialog was fantastic.  The film will stand up as one of the year’s best IMO.

#
Kurt Halfyard 09/25/2007 @ 9:50am

Collin, Garth.  We are definitely on the same page.

Collin, another subversion/surprise was the abrupt change in Kurt Russell which I think is brilliant, as it sums up so mightily how people feel in their cars.  Invincible.  When the 2nd batch of girls bust the bubble/shelter of Stuntman Mike’s immortality (his car), his true needy/cowardly/despicable self comes out and is put down harsh by the more competent girl possee.  Really, really love the ending.

And that last 2 second shot.  If that ain’t a nasty grindhouse style shot (exploitive, gross and intense) than I just don’t know what is.

And count me onto that same page aswell Kurt. Although I am not as literate in all things exploitation, or at least don’t have a BIT of knowledge like you I still can see what you guys mean.

I had heard somewhere a review of it where they said “Tarantino has succeeded TOO well in creating a bad movie”. Hmmmmmm….

It’s more along the lines of laying the Tarantino stamp on the source of many of his influences (like all of his films really).  Few grindhouse/exploitation flicks had the technical competence to pull off something like the “Reservoir Broads” scene in the diner.  But it is the budget of the film, combined with the nature of the original aesthetic of that type of film which makes it so interesting. 

I apply the same logic when watching Guy maddin flick.  same ideal in many ways.  Auteur filmmaking with influences on the sleeve while unabashedly personal.

yes that’s it. using a template, grindhouse in this case, to make another ‘Tarantino movie’

And after he went completely overboard with genre’s and styles in Kill Bill (the major flaw for me of that, or those two, movie(s)) I was glad he restrained himself perfectly here. And he made the movie totally his own (the most ‘Tarantino’ of ‘Tarantino movies’) by allowing most space for people hanging out and talking instead of sex and violence, what most were expecting. I really think it’s his best work in years.

I loved the Kill Bill movies, the second film was the best, I think. The pacing, story and humour was perfect put together. I wasn’t that fond of Thunderbolt, eh Death Proof. The dialog is well written and at times also well performed, but it’s simply to much. It doesn’t go anywhere at all. The action sequences are great and the Stuntman Mike character is simply b-movie history. More of that and the film would have rocked.

I think the beauty about this film is that it draws you in to the world of no less than 6 beautiful women. Not just in looks but in their friendships and interaction. It sucks you into their world while the movie is not even about them, it’s about Stuntman Mike. This is all about him even before his character is introduced…

I just love the way Tarantino draws you one way and builds your expectation while the whole underlyling tone of the film takes an opposite direction.

There is a simple message here, woven into an intricate web of dialogue…no matter how conniving, underhanded and sneaky bad guys can be…in the end they will get the Shyt kicked out of them…that’s just the way of things…:)