Death Proof Reviews
Death Proof
Posted : 16 years, 2 months ago on 4 March 2008 07:48This is the first time I have seen this movie (am saving the other half for tomorrow), and I really enjoyed the stunts and action. Some things, I could have done without, but overall, a really good film. I hope Planet Terror is as good.
0 comments, Reply to this entry
-
Posted : 16 years, 3 months ago on 30 January 2008 02:22Letās cut to the chase. Quentin Tarantino is a man you either admire for his innate ability to write meaningful, quirky, albeit drawn-out dialogue that can either serve the story magnificently (āReservoir Dogsā and āPulp Fictionā) or hate because of his ability to make this dialogue repetitious and too hip for its own good (i.e. this film).
I think most genre buffs are in the know as to how this film came about; two guys with an idea and a love for grindhouse cinema, hence the original theatrical double-bill, āGrindhouseā and, voila, two separate films - Robert Rodriguezās āPlanet Terrorā and, of course, Quentin Tarantinoās āDeath Proofā - playing back-to-back. The idea was a good one. Itās just too bad that the films did little to complement each other. There was, what I call, āsubgenre juxtapositionā going on between the two. Rodriguezās film was a balls-to-the-wall zombie-infested action/gore flick while Tarantinoās feature was an overly talky, pop-culture referencing pseudo horror film that some argue should have had more focus on blood, guts and atmosphere before it ended up being part of the theatrical double-bill.
Thatās not to say there is anything wrong with Tarantinoās film being what it is. Although a bit pretentious, it is, essentially, a true grindhouse film. Itās directed like one, shot like one, and cut like one. That counts for something. My only minor quibble is that Tarantinoās writing is culled straight from his more popular flicks ā such as āPulp Fictionā - and that doesnāt quite gel with the atmosphere he had going at the beginning and middle of the film. Character-wise, strong female leads arenāt a bad thing as many fans have stated. But itās painfully obvious that Tarantino hasnāt written many. Inane dialogue that goes on for far too long about absolutely nothing just isnāt cutting it.
Otherwise, the film is as close as either of the two features come to being a true experience in ā70s-era grindhouse cinema. Strangely enough, though, the faux scratches, specks and dirt marks arenāt as prevalent here as they were in Rodriguezās āPlanet Terror,ā but it gives one the thought that Tarantino isnāt shoving the idea down our throats. Quentin directs the living hell out the movie (especially Kurt Russellās scenes, of which I wish there were more) and its various automotive sequences. Perhaps in a more subdued way, "Death Proof" is over the top, GLEEFULLY over the top, and it knows it. Apart from the misplaced dialogue, "Death Proof" truly feels like part of a late night drive-in double feature.
My only complaint here is that Tarantino should have focused his attention more on concocting a film complementary of Rodriguezās and less on making ājust another Quentin Tarantino film.ā The two "Grindhouse" features, together, donāt work. At all. Separately, thereās a much better chance theyāll find an audience, just as this one did with me. Iām all for Tarantinoās brand of dialogue-driven movie-making, but I don't think this was the time or the place. Is a gorier, more exciting "Death Proof" the answer? Who knows. As it is, though, thereās still something fascinating about this movie, more so in this unrated extended/International cut. Maybe that's because it IS so different. But in this personās very humble opinion, it could have been something so much more groundbreaking.
I think most genre buffs are in the know as to how this film came about; two guys with an idea and a love for grindhouse cinema, hence the original theatrical double-bill, āGrindhouseā and, voila, two separate films - Robert Rodriguezās āPlanet Terrorā and, of course, Quentin Tarantinoās āDeath Proofā - playing back-to-back. The idea was a good one. Itās just too bad that the films did little to complement each other. There was, what I call, āsubgenre juxtapositionā going on between the two. Rodriguezās film was a balls-to-the-wall zombie-infested action/gore flick while Tarantinoās feature was an overly talky, pop-culture referencing pseudo horror film that some argue should have had more focus on blood, guts and atmosphere before it ended up being part of the theatrical double-bill.
Thatās not to say there is anything wrong with Tarantinoās film being what it is. Although a bit pretentious, it is, essentially, a true grindhouse film. Itās directed like one, shot like one, and cut like one. That counts for something. My only minor quibble is that Tarantinoās writing is culled straight from his more popular flicks ā such as āPulp Fictionā - and that doesnāt quite gel with the atmosphere he had going at the beginning and middle of the film. Character-wise, strong female leads arenāt a bad thing as many fans have stated. But itās painfully obvious that Tarantino hasnāt written many. Inane dialogue that goes on for far too long about absolutely nothing just isnāt cutting it.
Otherwise, the film is as close as either of the two features come to being a true experience in ā70s-era grindhouse cinema. Strangely enough, though, the faux scratches, specks and dirt marks arenāt as prevalent here as they were in Rodriguezās āPlanet Terror,ā but it gives one the thought that Tarantino isnāt shoving the idea down our throats. Quentin directs the living hell out the movie (especially Kurt Russellās scenes, of which I wish there were more) and its various automotive sequences. Perhaps in a more subdued way, "Death Proof" is over the top, GLEEFULLY over the top, and it knows it. Apart from the misplaced dialogue, "Death Proof" truly feels like part of a late night drive-in double feature.
My only complaint here is that Tarantino should have focused his attention more on concocting a film complementary of Rodriguezās and less on making ājust another Quentin Tarantino film.ā The two "Grindhouse" features, together, donāt work. At all. Separately, thereās a much better chance theyāll find an audience, just as this one did with me. Iām all for Tarantinoās brand of dialogue-driven movie-making, but I don't think this was the time or the place. Is a gorier, more exciting "Death Proof" the answer? Who knows. As it is, though, thereās still something fascinating about this movie, more so in this unrated extended/International cut. Maybe that's because it IS so different. But in this personās very humble opinion, it could have been something so much more groundbreaking.
0 comments, Reply to this entry