The MoFo Movie Club Discussion - Death Proof

Hello campers!

I've got a funny feeling that Death Proof might spark some differing opinions (ie, I hope someone liked it) so here we go...

There are no spoilers in these discussion threads as I assume that everyone taking part has seen the film.



Before I get down to the nitty gritty (Dirt Band optional) I'll let you know where I am with QT:

Reservoir Dogs was banned in Ireland on initial release so, like any right-minded young man, I ventured to crawl through broken glass for a pirate copy. I loved it but I was barely 20 at the time - subsequent viewings (and I own the DVD) leave me distinctly underwhelmed. As a feature film it makes a passable stage play, nothing more.

Now Pulp Fiction was an altogether different beastie - I can remember leaving the cinema feeling that I'd just experienced something fresh and vibrant with a director who was finding his feet. Subsequent viewings (yep, I own the DVD) aren't quite so favourable and, while QT's direction is as good as I remember, I frequently cringe at the dialogue.

Nowadays I think Jackie Brown is his masterpiece. More laid back, more mature and it goes without saying that I own the DVD. The writing wasn't quite so embarrassing either, maybe it's because the source material wasn't originally in Tarantino's head.

I hated the Kill Bills but still ended up getting given them as a present. Drat!

--------------------------------------------------------------

Which brings me to Death Proof...

Technically well-constructed scenes? Check.

Awfully smug and self reverential screenplay? Check.

Bad cameo from the director? Check.

Attempt to inject some life into the career of a middle-aged former star? Check.

Quite frankly I thought that Death Proof was a plain bad film and the main feeling I was left with was that it's just so dreadfully dull: A clatter of women talk nonsense for an hour and get killed loudly then a clatter of women talk nonsense for a further hour and kill the original killer. And that, as we say, is that.

The film moves at a snail's pace; Rosario Dawson and Kurt Russell aside, the cast are charisma free to a (wo)man and the dialogue is so damned inconsequential and, I'm repeating myself here, smart-arsed that QT would have been better off recording a couple of cokeheads reading a shopping list. It would have been more interesting...

"Oh, but it's supposed to be trashy, you joyless nerk!" I hear you say.

"But is it supposed to be sh*te as well?" I reply.



Ok, I've not seen the film as part of the full Grindhouse experience (that I don't want to is neither here nor there) and it's obvious that Death Proof on its own has more filler and padding than a 1976 Toyota Corolla from Mad Mick's Deathtraps but it surely wouldn't have been hard to cut this thing down to 80 or so minutes.

Lose some of the pointless yammering and you might have something that is a bit more palatable. I doubt it, though.

Your thoughts, MoFo? If you love or even like the movie please say so - I'm not the sort of person who savages anyone for having a different opinion to me. Just make sure you put a 'because' in your answer.



Hmmmmm, maybe it wasn't so bad after all. Nah, take a cold shower son.

__________________
"Critics are like eunuchs in a harem; they know how the Tatty 100 is done, they've seen it done every day, but they're unable to do it themselves." - Brendan Behan

I love reading you're posts Tacitus, do you write professionally? Sorry I don't want to de-rail the thread before it gets started, so you don't have to answer that.

First off, I haven't seen the film. Am I allowed to post in here? Yes? That's super...

It's funny but I know almost every detail about this movie and still have yet to see it. I've read a ton of stuff on it before they even had it finished and it just sounded like so much fun. Some of the interviews that the two of them did while on set were just priceless. Rodriguez and QT I mean, and I can't wait to see this someday in its entirety. I already have my mind made up and I know I'm going to love it, so me debating with you, someone who let's say, was less than thrilled with it, is probably more than a little pointless.

But I will answer those two quotes and I won't call you a nerk, (simply because I don't know what that is) Yes it was supposed to be trashy and I also full heartedly believe it wasn't supposed to be *good* either. Perhaps QT wasn't going for Sh*t but he probably was trying to achieve *poop*, seriously I think that's why they made both of the films in the first place. Have you ever seen some of those Blaxtiploitation flicks they were paying homage to? Sheesh, not good... I should probably shut up now and leave this to the professionals. You kids play nice.

__________________
We are both the source of the problem and the solution, yet we do not see ourselves in this light...

In it's defence, Death Proof did work better in the context of the Grindhouse double feature, at a short and relatively fast moving 80 minutes. The opening bit about the girls in the bar was moody and atmospheric and kind of sexy, and then after the midway point the film's jarring switch into an action car chase comedy was genuinely surprising and funny. Making it longer was not a smart idea. The stuff edited out and then added back into the first half added some unneccesary comedy, deflated a lot of the suspense, and was generally padding. The second half does suffer from too much Tracy Thoms doing her "sassy black girl" character at the top of her lungs, she's trying to be the female Samuel L Jackson, and it doesn't work after a while.

I will say however that Kurt Russell is very funny in his part.

I much preferred Robert Rodriguez' deleriously funny "Planet Terror" to this. That was like a George Romero/Sam Raimi film on speed. I'd be willing to watch Death Proof again as part of the original film, but it suffers on it's own.

I've written many an invoice. Thanks for your kind words.

You'll probably need to be a devotee of the greatest sit-com the world has ever seen (ie, Porridge) to know what a nerk is. Suffice to say if you called my granny one I'd knee-cap yo ... ermmm ... knees!

I don't have a problem with the feeling that QT was trying to achieve with Death Proof (my thoughts on the general paucity of good films as 'homage' is for another thread entirely, however) and part of me wishes that he had the conviction to stick it out to the end - where did the grainy celluloid and deliberate sound glitches go in the second half of the film?

Setting aside my gripes with nuts and blots of the film and addressing this towards the people who think I don't understand the concept, the problem I have (and I've seen many many 70s American B movies) is why did it have to be so flippin' dull?

For me, Death Proof is Tarantino sleepwalking. He's either so bereft of ideas at this point in time that I'd advise him to bite the bullet and just direct other people's screenplays ('cos I think he's a talented film stylist) or his ego is so massive these days that he genuinely thinks (a) this is a good film or (b) his fans will watch any old tripe as long as it has some jump cuts, people looking into a car's boot/bonnet, frequent interminable conversations about 70s TV shows or comic books and a soundtrack that clueless people think consists of 'lost classics'...

....Dave Dee, Dozy, Beaky, Mick & Titch? For the love of God, NO!

Nah buddy, your posts around here are some of the ones I look to first. Watch the film then tell me I'm right/almost right.

I didn't think Death Proof was awful. It wasn't constantly interesting, or entertaining, but it did have some redeeming qualities.

I liked the conversation between the girls. Yeah, it seems like endless, meandering blathering, but it resembled how my friends and I used to talk amongst ourselves on long slow days while we were waiting for something more exciting to come along.

I liked the cut aways and the scratched film Tarantino used. It was different.

Kurt Russell was a blast. He did the best he could with a one dimensional, under-developed character, and he was ridiculous! I especially liked it when he got wounded and started whining like a baby.

Overall, this was not a great movie, but it wasn't horrible either. I'd watch it again sometime.

__________________
If God had wanted me otherwise, He would have created me otherwise.

Johann von Goethe

Death Proof.

I liked it.

Slow at first?Heck yes.Too much talky talk?Mmmmmmhmm.Too long?Yeppers.Did I like it?Affreakinfirmatory.


It was the movie version of a car chase.Slow,then a quick turn(into some broads naturally) and a furious pelt to the finish . . . . .emmm crash. The non-scratchy half was better than the Grindy-flick,which I thought was an intriguing way to set up a film.The last chase was amazing.At the very least give it that.

Maybe you should watch it again with a lotta confectionary goodies and a boatload of buds to whistle at the hot-ladies and gasp at the awesomeness of the Russell.

I'd give it three-thumbs up, but I'm not a Tamaranian so. . . .yeah.I liked it muchly.

__________________

And lo the whispering wanderer weeps
what whit to whom did my life keep?

In my little mini-review of the entire Grindhouse experience, I wrote this of Death Proof:

And I really have to echo that again. In my view, Rodriguez made a film which (a) adhered to the initial "cool" idea of making a throwback 1970's kitsch thriller; and (b) was also a damn solid film. Conversely, Tarantino (much like any overly enthusiastic but inexperienced film student) seemed to get off on only the idea itself, plus some of his other typical interests (rotating cams, overly rehearsed “hip” dialogue); and for me, I don’t think it ever turned into a cohesive, well-reasoned film.

I think this really hits the nail on the proverbial head. Good form. Death Proof might have been well-received in the 90's, but I honestly think it's his most emotionally and characteristically indifferent film to date. There's nothing to hold onto. Watching it reminds me of his directorial segment of Four Rooms: it's nothing but a Tarantino film study.

Bah, Death Proof doesn't come out on DVD in Australia until next month (roughly 12th March). Guess I'll get back to this later.

__________________
Iro's Top 100 Movies v3.0

Hmmm, that's a shame. Death Proof was down as released when I initially checked and now when I visit the same website it says 'coming in March'. Aussie quality control must have kicked in.

It's a shame because I thought QT would have got over this 'Whoah, isn't this cool?' nonsense after the Kill Bills were released, but you're spot on.

That I still place him in the 'promising' category approaching 2 decades since his first film is a sad indictment but he seems to have regressed to the video store geek once more.

If, for instance, Shane Meadows or Danny Boyle made an homage to the trashy British Robin Asquith 'Confessions' series of films they'd be laughed out of town. And rightly so.

Hehe, perhaps. I'll come back next month.

Actually, I think the soundtrack was kind of better than the movie. I don't think I'm very clueless, but I do like the obscure choices of songs in all of Tarantino's films.

I actually loved Kill Bill a lot. It was funny, crazy, emotional, and managed to subvert a lot of the cliche's of the films it was a homage to. Death Proof is probably the only film of his that I don't love without reservations.

Heh, well maybe I'm one of those weird people who had a Dick Dale (and a Gerry Rafferty) album before he was considered cool. As to Dave Dee, Dozy, Beaky, Mick (not Mitch, although I guess that was deliberate) and Titch - they're a sub-Gerry & The Pacemakers 60s English beat combo beloved of people who think that The Who are still naughty anti-establishment types. 'Cool' they most certainly are not over here.

I'd love to see the QT of today tackle a film that isn't an homage to something or other although I'm beginning to come to the conclusion that his mind doesn't work in any other way. For all its allusions to 70s B movies, Death Proof seemed to be more of an homage to Quentin Tarantino films...

...and I thought we'd had enough of those from other directors by the mid-90s.

Morning all

Tacitus, As I was reading your post I was nodding my head and saying to myself, yes, yes he's correct he's got that nailed down certainly so.

And then when I got to this:
I outright laughed because that's almost exactly how I feel about it. I know sitting on my arse and watching bad movies AND eating Reeses Cups is bad for me on probably more than one level but the problem is I like some stuff precisely because it is bad.

It's apparent in the first 10 minutes of the film that it's likely to be driven by overblown dialogue, impossible action sequences, and that the director will ask for unusual latitude in one suspending one's own beliefs. I cannot tell you why I'm particularly prone to giving Tarantino a pass on this stuff, but it's likely it's because he's thrown some little tidbit from past film experience into the mix that I greatly appreciated or identified with at the time of viewing. I would liken it to a childhood experience where my mother would smash up my medicine into a teaspoon of grape jelly to ease the bitter taste.

Now, all of that said, I can see where folks who aren't wired like me might have difficulty with this film. For me, I enjoy a creative twist/turn of phrase and I liked the cutesy dialog and talking sequences. In the case of Death Proof it was most definitely over done, particularly in the cafe scene with the second set of girls, but overall I still found it amusing and fun to watch. One thing that really stood out to me in this film, versus some of Tarantino's other films, is the effort to underscore the textures (for current lack of a better word) of the various scenes. For example, I really enjoyed the scene where Arlene and Stuntman Mike are outside talking in the rain with the orange lighting from the bar in background. It really captured that sort of 'hushed' intimate quiet that heavy rain can produce. Also, I've been to many a bar here in Texas that look a lot like that one looked and it just played as accurate to me.

These things, of course are inconsequential to moving the story along, but I really appreciate the effort that Tarantino puts into detail.

I intentionally avoided watching/reading anything that might give away the storyline before seeing the film. As such, I was surprised by the revelation of what Stuntman Mike really was. The chase and subsequent crash shocked me as I was expecting something different (a construct of my own mind based solely on the movie poster and my experience with other Tarantino films). By the time the second half of the film came around I really was glued to the screen in expectation of what was to come. The events leading up to the chase and then the final chase itself were extremely well done. I loved the way Kurt Russell played the sort of jovial psychopath who really didn't have a clue that he was causing undue stress.

I guess I'd have to say that in a nutshell none of the pieces of this film would work particularly well without another. In its entirety it is self serving, reverential and smug and even the story leaves a lot of loose ends to be plucked at. In proper context though, I found it to be highly entertaining, creative, and fun to watch (which I think is what the purpose was).

powderedwater, I'm surprised you haven't seen this one yet given our shared proclivities toward the offbeat.

It's not that I don't want to. I do, desperately in fact, I can't tell you how many times I've kicked myself in the *ss for not going to see it in the theater. Silly me, I thought when it came out on DVD it would be the same movie that was in the theater. I tend to think that may be the biggest reason why some people aren't going to like it by itself, it simply wasn't meant to be packaged that way. Here's a pretty interesting interview with both of them before they even started the films and it really gives a perfect look into what they were going for. One of the parts that best sums it up for me is this...
To me, that's the biggest reason right there why I can't see this until its released in the double feature platform that it was intended to be in the first place, neither of the films were intended to be stand alone features. QT later on has said more than once that he could make his film into a stand alone movie and perhaps you're dead on Tacitus, maybe that was just a bad idea. You probably shouldn't take a movie that's an ode to bad films and isn't that great to begin with and try to make it even more bad by making it longer, I get that. I see now they have a 6 disc set coming out over in Japan, so I'm hoping that someday I may in fact get to see this whole feature with the trailers in its entirety, but until then I will continue to wait.

"and if a little gang violence breaks out, all the better" ...man, Tarnation is such a tool. I admit it's weak of me to feel this way, but I think I might like his movies more if I'd never seen him talk.

Tacitus, I thought that was a spot-on summation of his career, by the way. If I felt I could give this an unbiased viewing I'd go ahead just to take part in this discussion, but I'm not so sure I can. Maybe I will try anyway. For what it's worth, I liked Kill Bill 2, was bored by Kill Bill 1 except for that opening fight scene.

I've got nothing against homage. The Untouchables and The Incredibles are on my top 100, for goodness' sake! I think to be really interesting though, it has to improve on or adapt what it's quoting, or the sources have to be worth quoting.

I've seen a lot of mention of Kill Bill being in a club with all these cool cult flicks and stuff (something Tarantino himself obviously thinks), but nobody ever seems to acknowledge its other major influence (its darker associations): the episodic, color-coded, race-coded (Power Rangers, anyone?), sexy, all-purpose demolition-team show. Strictly mainstream, and probably not all that "cool" in the original incarnation (I'll leave it to those who were alive at the time to say). KB is cut from the same cloth as Charlie's Angels + Charlie's Angels Full Throttle. At least those movies were irreverent about their excesses and quotes, though that didn't quite save them from the dread presence of Lucy Liu.

EDIT: I just shouldn't get started on Tarantino, he's too much fun to make fun of, with that dicky exuberance of his but it's kind of jerky of me to give into temptation. Apologies to anyone who enjoys Kill Bill or Power Rangers or the original Charlie's Angels. I personally love Fist of the North Star and The Guyver, if that means anything to anyone, and those are no doubt just as dumb. If Tarantino or Rodriguez or someone were to do an homage to those I'd probably be first in line to sing their praises.

Oops, hope that doesn't derail the thread.

PAY NO ATTENTION TO THE MAN BEHIND THE CURTAIN!

I'll not quote the whole thing but that's not because I don't dig what you're saying 100%, I'm just a neat freak.

Now, you might be able to glean from my constant mangling of the English language that I enjoy writers who take risks with the form more than most. I've just got a massive problem with constant stream of pseudo-hip babble which QT forces his characters to, well, chunder.

I know that this is entirely a matter of taste - there are bound to be as many who hate, say, David Mamet's writing style (which I love) or Woody Allen's (likewise). That these three people have an instantly recognisable voice is, love them or hate them, to their credit.

That I've become tired of Tarantino the screenwriter is at least partly down to the fact that I think he could extend himself a lot more. From interviews, I find him to be an immensely likeable guy with an enthusiasm for cinema bordering on the Ebolavirus in it's infectiousness.

Yep, and something like this makes QT all the more frustrating for me - I think he's a great visual stylist.



I think I've found the real problem, and it's one that I've half-admitted before on MoFo: I'm becoming increasingly bored with 'loud' films. Not necessarily aurally loud but flashy for what I consider flashiness's sake.

Again, this is probably the whole point to Death Proof but I'll return to my original contention - Does it have to be sh*te as well as flashy? This movie ended up doing precisely what I reckoned it would do least - it bored me.

Christmas is cancelled too! Don't even think about the bloody tooth fairy either!

PS - At least Tony Scott didn't direct Death Proof. If he had I'd probably be typing this from a prison library.

Poetic licence, ok?

Have you seen Death Proof yet, lines?

I agree with you on your thoughts on homage, by the way. When it's done well it can be hugely enjoyable (but you've gotta bring something more to the party, see John Dahl's modern Noirs for example) but it sometimes feels like an easy way out for the under-motivated/less than talented.