comment #1

Craig Kennedy says ...

I can't wait to see Death Proof by itself. The two distinct halves play off of each other and blend in a weird way like Psycho. The first segment

***Spoiler Alert***

is kind of a red herring where the heroines are suddenly and unexpectedly killed off. From that point on, you know Tarantino isn't screwing around and that the possibility of anyone getting killed at any time is very real. The sense of danger is ramped up and I was a little tense through the whole thing. And the pay off...well it is what it is and it seems to be the one thing most people agree was truly great about the movie.

***End Spoiler***

Also I think the first segment was Tarantino's true homage to the two genres he was playing with and the second segment was his personal riff on the same thing using the first as a springboard. He was bringing this grittier, nastier, more dangerous seeming style of movie into the present. The scene where the car chase spills out on to the busy road with the modern cars kind of reminded me of the end of Jurassic Park when T-Rex emerges from prehistory to wreak havoc on Burbank standing in for San Diego. This is the Grindhouse shaking up the comfy confines of the cineplex with their stadium seating and Dolby Digital. And it was good.

comment #2

vansmith says ...

the thing about QT is that he's too much into his own shit, it can be good but it seems so.. i dont know. he's stuck in his childhood, i'd like to see him do someone else's material, like another elmore leanord take or a carl haissan.

comment #3

LYTrules says ...

FYI, Vanessa Ferlito's naked in SHADOWBOXER. So are Cuba Gooding Jr., Helen Mirren, and Stephen Dorff.

It is a terrible film, though.

comment #4

GeeseOPlenty says ...

I thought Ferlito was hot.

MINOR SPOILERS

I also disagree that the two halves of the movie don't fit together. Both halves make you invest in the characters--it's just the outcome is different in each case. They actually mesh together perfectly.

comment #5

insidah says ...

I think the Weinstein's should split the two films up, put the mock trailers in FRONT of each film. The Tarantino film is stronger, on the whole. Everyone at work avoided the film because of the run time. I know it's sad, but life is short and our attention spans are ruined by the internet.

comment #6

christian says ...

DP is easily the worst script and dialogue qt has ever written. i defy you to explain why hearing bland cyphers talk about who's bangin' who for 20 minutes is anything you'd see outside of SEX AND THE CITY or every tv soap on today. and it has nothing to do with the GH zeitgeist.

you could feel the energy drain from the theatre and the fact that none are good actors doesn't help...less chicks, more kurt russell and a lap dance. otherwise, non.

comment #7

Walter Sobchak says ...

Running time, running time, running time! People don't mind (as much) over three hours in a theater for something "epic" like "The Last Emperor" or "Ghandi" but something like this? It's a lot to ask.

I haven't seen "Grindhouse" yet, (I plan to soon), but someone tell me, please... Is there SO much going on in each story that they, (Death Proof and Planet Terror), couldn't have possibly been cut down to about 50 min. to one hour each? Something that would have, (along with the fake trailers), run closer to 2 hours, 2:10?

comment #8

christian says ...

in the end, the biggest mistake is the 3 hour length. each movie should have been an hour which would have keyed the audience into everything the genre did and with happier results. i love GH long (except for the DP gabfest), but my attention span has yet to be short circuited by excessive tv and cell phone and internet addiction.

well, leave out the internet...

comment #9

Craig Kennedy says ...

On its own, I look forward to seeing more of Death Proof but together with Planet Terror an argument could be made for shorter films. I still agree though with a comment in a previous thread suggesting putting QTs first. The slow start of Death Proof would've been less jarring and less of a liability.

comment #10

Mark says ...

sorry, but it's all over but the crying. there's no money to be made from rereleasing DP as a stand-alone feature in theaters. Everyone will wait for the extended DVD. maybe it catches on down the line as a midnight movie at the hipster theater, but people will first see it on DVD.

comment #11

jeffmcm says ...

Why the April 20 deadline?

Christian, to answer your question (i defy you to explain why hearing bland cyphers talk about who's bangin' who for 20 minutes is anything you'd see outside of SEX AND THE CITY or every tv soap on today): I don't know but it just is.

comment #12

Walter Sobchak says ...

I'm not anti-Tarantino, in fact, I'm a fan. I loved Pulp Fiction and Jackie Brown. That being said, I think people tend to go overboard when praising his dialogue. Often they point to the PF "Royale with cheese" scene between Travolta and Jackson. Ever read that scene off the paper? Not quite the same, is it? Travolta and especially Sam Jackson could read the instruction manual to a rototiller and make it sound "totally awesome".
Just saying.

comment #13

christian says ...

that's why russell owns DP: qt's dialogue works best when it's delivered by real actors with a little age and wisdom behind them.

when not, it's a zoe bell falls into a ditch conversation. or one of the most sterotyped black female characters in film history repeating that she's gonna bust a nut in your ass repeatedly.

comment #14

Chris Willman says ...

I know this is the kind of question you're not supposed to bother asking, but... SPOILER... what is Russell supposed to have done with McGowan's body before he runs into the other girls, that the cops can't pin anything on him?

comment #15

christian says ...

here's my theory:

everybody saw that rose went with stuntman mike, so she was killed in the crash too.

comment #16

Colin says ...

True, Christian, but then Stuntman Mike would be put in the slammer for at least maslaughter and possibly for second degree murder. Of course, I don't think we're supposed to take anything in either movie too seriously.

comment #17

Craig Kennedy says ...

...and he would've been charged at most with what...involuntary manslaughter?

comment #18

Teh Awesome says ...

I kinda enjoyed sitting through Grindhouse, but ultimately, all the cool interesting things in the movie (and Kill Bill) are gimmicks. Remove the faded photography, the cool fonts in the credit sequence, the missing reel tease, the retro music, and you're left with one iconic character (Stuntman Mike) in a non-story. The car chase is well-done, but really, meh. Some of the girls characters were OK, but I was cheering for Jungle Julia to get killed as fast as possible. No way that girl could talk in that tone for more than 30 seconds without getting bitchslapped.

Anyways, Grindhouse is dead, let Harvey pray for the europeans suckers to fall for Quentin again and recoup with DVD.

comment #19

Craig Kennedy says ...

They showed a scene of cops talking to him in the hospital and that was that. There's no way to tell how far in the future the 2nd segment takes place.

comment #20

christian says ...

here's my next theory:

stuntman mike dumped her.

comment #21

christian says ...

somebody at AICN actually had a brilliant theory that DP was told in reverse order and mike's scar came from the dropkick at the end of the film.

comment #22

tholl-yung says ...

A do-over, I'm so psyched, a victory for the web, I think, I'm so glad I waited, I may even have a beer with my popcorn and make human effort noises, unless the editors guild or ACE shows this version for Sally Menke, nobody cares about
Ethan Maniquis. I do want to see this, I do, I do want to see how it looks and sounds. QT's doesn't act or do a cameo, right?, just checking for sure.

comment #23

Colin says ...

"here's my next theory:

stuntman mike dumped her."

What about all of her blood in the passenger's seat and all the people who saw her leaving the bar with him? She was definitely in the car.

comment #24

Colin says ...

"somebody at AICN actually had a brilliant theory that DP was told in reverse order and mike's scar came from the dropkick at the end of the film."

I'm pretty sure that he had the scar in the 2nd half as well. But, aside from the fact that it looked like Stuntman Mike was killed at the end of DP, there's not really a reason it couldn't be told out of order.

comment #25

christian says ...

here's my last theory:

stuntman mike called marcellus and the wolf was sent pronto to do his thing.

comment #26

Colin says ...

"...and he would've been charged at most with what...involuntary manslaughter?"

Under any set of facts you can think of, there's basically no way that Stuntman Mike would have avoided a very long jail sentence. Of course, I took the cops' labored rationalizations the same way as Bruce Willis' exposition at the end of Planet Terror.

comment #27

jeffmcm says ...

T Holly, QT was small parts in _both_ films. Sorry to disappoint, please don't make any 'human effort noises' in public.

comment #28

frankbooth says ...

More sex, less dialogue.

I thought that maybe it was just me -- that the uncomfortable seats (hate to admit, but there are advantages to modern stadium-seating) -- and the fact that it was after 1 am made DP seem to drag more than it did. But judging from everybody else's comments, my ears did not deceive.

What happened to QT's touch? Was it really the contributions of Avary (and in Jackie Brown, Dutch Leonard) all along?

(Please don't answer, D.Z.)

The first time I saw PF, as Walken rambled on and on about Vietnam, I thought, "this had better have one hell of a punchline." It did. What happened to the punchlines?

If Quentin could combine what he's learned in his last two films about shooting action with the level of dialogue and characterization from his first three, he'd be back on top. He'd be Beatrix Kiddo, unstoppable.

comment #29

Craig Kennedy says ...

Maybe he just needs someone/something to temper his natural creative excesses a little bit to truly shine. Be it a co-writer or a loyalty to original material.

But then again, seeing a guy completely unleashed is always entertaining, and in the case of Death Proof I'm happy to take the flaws with parts I liked and call it a good time at the movies.

comment #30

jeffmcm says ...

He doesn't need a co-writer, he needs Harvey Weinstein to start giving him some boundaries and act like a real producer. I loved Kill Bill but it was insane of them to greenlight a 200 page script and assume that it could be made as one movie.

comment #31

christian says ...

like i said, qt needs guy cabellero:

two cameras, two stars, two million.

comment #32

tholl-yung says ...

I don't know what's more disturbing, that jeffmcm is addressing me or that QT was small parts in _both_ films. The fucker can't act, how bad is he in DP? in PT?

No movie or movie going experience would be complete with human effort noises, you moron.

comment #33

tholl-yung says ...

Sorry.

I don't know what's more disturbing, that jeffmcm is addressing me or that QT has small parts in _both_ films. The fucker can't act, how bad is he in DP? in PT?

No movie or movie going experience would be complete WITHOUT human effort noises, you moron.

comment #34

tholl-yung says ...

jeffmcm is so clueless, to wit, "He doesn't need a co-writer, he needs Harvey Weinstein to start giving him some boundaries and act like a real producer."

Can we please ban him.

comment #35

gatsby1040 says ...

"If Quentin could combine what he's learned in his last two films about shooting action with the level of dialogue and characterization from his first three, he'd be back on top."

It seems to me that this is EXACTLY what he did with Death Proof... combined the set-piece choreography and visual experimentation of Kill Bill with the character depth and dialogue of Pulp Fiction. It won't put him back on top simply because its a far more modest film, buried on the back half of a double bill behind a 2 hour horror special effects reel... its more methodical pacing isn't well-served by being preceded by RobRod's nonstop explosion-fest. I say Split 'Em Harvey, and let Death Proof stand on its own.

To get back on Top, all QT needs to do is apply the focus he finally achieved in DP to something more ambitious... the WW2 flick could be it.

I don't understand why Tarantino causes such fury among fanboys and couch-critics. He's like Kubrick-- not necessarily the greatest director ever, but one with a totally unique voice and style, who makes a rich, fascinating movie each time out. Sometimes that will end up in something fantastic, like Pulp Fiction or 2001, sometimes something uneven, like Full Metal Jacket or Kill Bill. But film fans will be finding new things to love about these movies for decades.

I bought each and every character in Death Proof. The chases and crashes were terrific, but my favorite parts were the 10-minute argument over whether to play Ship's Mast, and the 8-minute tracking shot around the table. Great, great dialogue-- it was like Preston Sturges or something, only with sassy chicks. Some people don't dig cause it isn't exploitation enough-- Tarantino had to go and fill his movie with actual CHARACTERS.

And seriously, how ridiculous is DZ? This guy's fucking looney tunes. Opinions are like assholes, everyone's got 'em, but DZ is on a fucking anti-Tarantino crusade!

comment #36

jeffmcm says ...

What is your problem? You're either incoherent or you're a crank. What did I say that you think is ban-worthy?

comment #37

jeffmcm says ...

(that was to T Holly)

comment #38

Colin says ...

"I don't know what's more disturbing, that jeffmcm is addressing me or that QT was small parts in _both_ films. The fucker can't act, how bad is he in DP? in PT?"

He's bad in both, but isn't that kind of the point? Or is it? I don't know...these movies basically seem to be review-proof. How "bad" are they supposed to be? How "authentic" are they supposed to be. How seriously are they supposed to be taken?

I really don't know. All I know is that I had a lot of fun watching them.

comment #39

Craig Kennedy says ...

T.Holly - QT is pretty bad in the acting department in both films. I think he's at his worst in Planet Terror, but the film is a goof anyway so you can just roll your eyes and move on.

He's not great in Death Proof either, but he didn't get in the way for me. Take that with a grain of salt though because I really liked DP and it looks like not everyone shares that opinion.

comment #40

christian says ...

"Great, great dialogue-- it was like Preston Sturges or something, only with sassy chicks."

wrong.

it was like qt copied converaations with 20smething la actresses who'd done a lot of blow and had nothing interesting to say.

comment #41

christian says ...

what's with tholly wanting to ban everybody? where do you think you are, townhall.com?

comment #42

D.Z. says ...

If they're gonna re-release it, they might as well do it in 3-d.

"Nothing quite this exciting has been seen since Steven Spielberg's 1971 film Duel."

Except I actually cared about the characters in Duel.

"The scene where the car chase spills out on to the busy road with the modern cars kind of reminded me of the end of Jurassic Park when T-Rex emerges from prehistory to wreak havoc on Burbank standing in for San Diego. This is the Grindhouse shaking up the comfy confines of the cineplex with their stadium seating and Dolby Digital."

But Jurassic Park isn't a grindhouse film. I don't get it. Why are people too elitist for 300, but they want Quentin to do a movie similar to the director of War of the Worlds?

insidah: "I know it's sad, but life is short and our attention spans are ruined by the internet."

People sat through Lord of the Rings, Troy and Braveheart. I'm guessing they just didn't want to see a three hour "homage". Quentin's already done that three times, now. Maybe he should do something new.

christian: "i defy you to explain why hearing bland cyphers talk about who's bangin' who for 20 minutes is anything you'd see outside of SEX AND THE CITY or every tv soap on today."

I was thinking of that show, too.

"when not, it's a zoe bell falls into a ditch conversation."

I didn't hate Zoe Bell's performance. I just thought that she wasn't given enough screen time to stand out from the other girls. Really, if the film consisted of 4-6 girls max, it probably would have went by faster. The average slasher film doesn't have that many female performers.

Walter: "Something that would have, (along with the fake trailers), run closer to 2 hours, 2:10?"

More like 1:45.

comment #43

jeffmcm says ...

Let's put this way: QT is a bad actor, but he doesn't give himself blatantly self-aggrandizing roles like M. Night Shyamalan did in Lady in the Water, so it's mitigated. You play 'army rapist who melts' because you want to be part of the party. You play 'writer who will change the world' because you're a raging egomaniac with no sense of irony.

comment #44

jeffmcm says ...

DZ, that was a thoughtful and conversational post that isn't full of your standard talking points, I appreciate it.

comment #45

Craig Kennedy says ...

Ok Jeffmcm, you're banned for tricking me into reading DZ's post!

I feel compelled to respond, but I already promised I wasn't going to do that anymore.

comment #46

jeffmcm says ...

DZ, nobody said they want Tarantino to make a movie like Jurassic Park or WOTW, they said the impact of that sequence was similar to the impact of seeing a dinosaur trying to eat a car.

comment #47

frankbooth says ...

Jeff, I didn't mind watching QT melt, either. He makes a good sleazeball.

But I really didn't need to see him again in the bar, in a patriarch/host sort of role. The second appearance wasn't awful, but it did border on pomposity. I really appreciated that he stayed out of Kill Bill.

comment #48

Craig Kennedy says ...

...and after stewing about it for 12 minutes, I cave in...

DZ I wasn't equating Death Proof with Jurassic Park and you know it or my writing is much worse than I thought. I was simply using the visual of T-Rex laying waste to San Diego for descriptive purposes. T-Rex is to San Diego as 1970 Dodge Challenger is to Ford Escort and Grindhouse is to Comfy Cineplex. The old returning from the past to fuck with the new.

comment #49

tholl-yung says ...

"...when name talent have the clout to hold their financeers for ransom." Mr. Wells, you really should have linked to this, then I might not have had to ban micky m.

http://weblogs.variety.com/thompsononhollywood/2007/04/grindhouse_disa.html

comment #50

tholl-yung says ...

BUT I STILL REALLY WANT TO SEE IT. And I laugh everytime I hear Imus say... those are some nappy headed hos.

comment #51

dre says ...

Splitting the movie is fine for a different look but people that refuse to see the originally-intended experience "because its too long" are a bunch of lame-ass, joyless soft pieces of cotton.

comment #52

Craig Kennedy says ...

That's a little harsh, Dre (I'm not saying it's not true, I'm just saying...) but I agree you're missing out on part of the fun if you parcel the films out separately. Sadly, the box office seems to show most audiences weren't interested in that 'fun'.

comment #53

Ju-osh says ...

I already posted this over at CHUD, but I'm too lazy to try and re-word it in hopes of making it look different:
What percentage of the ticket price will theatres get from the split rerelease? Normally a box office's take increases every week after a film's release. It seems unfair to rerelease the Grindhouse films as solo entities and start this cycle all over again. Will theatre owners find this split idea financially worthwhile? Is it even worth the risk? It's not like there aren't plenty of other new films coming out each week and they need Grindhouse to be a success for their cinemas to survive.

comment #54

D.Z. says ...

dre: "Splitting the movie is fine for a different look but people that refuse to see the originally-intended experience "because its too long" are a bunch of lame-ass, joyless soft pieces of cotton."

Yeah, well, Quentin fans weren't complaining when he and Harvey were cutting 2 hour films to 90 minutes for the multiplex.

comment #55

DeweyY says ...

Here is the problem, Jeff.

THERE ARE NO SEX SCENES TO PUT BACK INTO "DEATH PROOF."

What QT cut was the lapdance, which might be sexy, but there would not be any skin, and it does not qualify as a "sex scene." We were all disappointed that the movie cut the lapdance, but it was actually "Planet Terror" that cut out the actual sex scene (McGowan and Freddy Rodriquez.)

I have read the "Death Proof" screenplay, and I see where he cut, but he did write the lapdance scene (unlike RR who did not write the missing reel for "Planet Terror.")

I LOVED "Grindhouse", saw it twice, am thinking of seeing it again. Complain all you want about the 3+ hours, but it was an EXPERIENCE. Everything that surrounds it (the logos, the fake trailers and food ads) and the "easter eggs" in the movies themselves. "DP" is the greater movie, because QT just made a QT movie--inspired by, but not an imitation of older movies. "PT" is a great bad movie. Rodriguez did not even try to make a good movie, which makes "PT" kind of an odd duck (bad on purpose.)

The audience I saw it with Saturday night seemed to love it,and found a lot to enjoy, but I worry that the whole thing just isn't connecting with today's audiences. Most of the core audience (17 - 25 year olds) have no idea of "grindhouse" movies or theaters. And damaging the film? We have digital projection now.

Still, this damn thing was one of the coolest theatrical experiences I have ever had, and since I am old enough, really appreciated what RR and QT were referencing.

And finally, I would go see a longer cut of "DP" but I read the "PT" screenplay as well, and don't see that there is much more to add to make seeing "PT" as its own film that appealing.

comment #56

dre says ...

cjKennedy ... I was half-kidding. Just talking a little smack. My thing is this is a fun project Rod-Tino took up and splitting them up - while interesting - dilutes the concept for me.

DZ -Actually, there was plenty of complaints about that. People calling the Weinsteins greedy, people calling QT a sell-out. Now it turned out to be the right decision (I still would like to see one big cut though) because the two volumes just plain work. But this is a different bag of tricks. They went into this movie wanting to make a double-feature experience.

comment #57

jeffmcm says ...

DZ, the cutting you're talking about was done by the Weinsteins themselves, not by Tarantino.

comment #58

D.Z. says ...

jeff: Tarantino helped spot the films to be picked up, buried and hacked for the Weinsteins.

comment #59

Craig Kennedy says ...

Dre, you know normally I read every post assuming the writer has a smirk on their face (as I expect mine to be read)...I don't know how I let yours slip past that filter. Feel free to call me a Nappy Headed Ho anytime free of charge.

The important thing is we agree that to split them up would be to be losing out on something.

comment #60

jeffmcm says ...

DZ: Tarantino picked them, the Weinsteins did the rest. Blame them, not him.

comment #61

D.Z. says ...

jeff: He knew what they were doing, and continued to be an accomplice, so he's just as responsible as they were. It's simply a matter of karma that the one film they left "uncut" is the one which bit them in the ass after they screwed so many honest people over the years.

comment #62

dre says ...

lol good to know cj

comment #63

jeffmcm says ...

DZ, as usual I've managed to back you into a corner. No matter how much QT 'knew' about recutting, he didn't actually do any of it himself.

You're a bot, a machine designed to spit out anti-Tarantino/Weinstein invective without interest in dialogue or even in persuading others - you'd use different tactics than this constant sledgehammering if you actually cared about Tarantino's 'victims', which you don't. You're a liar.

comment #64

D.Z. says ...

jeff: "No matter how much QT 'knew' about recutting, he didn't actually do any of it himself."

He just endorsed the cuts.

"You're a bot, a machine designed to spit out anti-Tarantino/Weinstein invective without interest in dialogue or even in persuading others -"

They don't want to be persuaded, because they're deluded into believing that Quentin knows what he's doing, when Grindhouse proved otherwise.

"you'd use different tactics than this constant sledgehammering if you actually cared about Tarantino's 'victims',"

Did Harvey and Quentin ever care about the people they stabbed in the back and ripped off? No. Why should I care for them? I'm fucking elated, and I
actually hope TWC will be gone in a year, which is likely, given their current line-up.

"which you don't. You're a liar."

No, you're the liar for making me out to be something I'm not, when I've done my damndest all these years for free to promote these guys and gals, not just steal and bury their work from under them, and call it an "homage".

comment #65

corey3rd says ...

When I pull out $10 for a lap dance - it will be from a real stripper for my lap.

Tarantino's bad acting sticks out in a film that's populated with dozens of actors who have zero Oscar hopes. Tom Savini worked his character better than QT. He is a rare kind of bad that used to only exist on Don Adams' Screen Test.

And there might be a sex scene - Rose could have gone down on Kurt in the bathroom.

Either way, neither of these films deserve to be solo features. Stuntman Mike becomes a cipher in the second half of the film. He's just a person to stick behind the wheel for the chase.

comment #66

jeffmcm says ...

DZ, you do jackshit to 'promote' anyone. I don't even know who you think you're promoting, because you never talk about them! ALL you do is talk about how much you hate Tarantino. Saying one thing (I'm just trying to set the record straight) and doing another thing (trolling on blogs to use every shred of evidence to attack the same three or four people routinely) is dishonest.

You're a bad person.

Corey, where do you get $10 lap dances?

comment #67

D.Z. says ...

jeff: "DZ, you do jackshit to 'promote' anyone. I don't even know who you think you're promoting, because you never talk about them! ALL you do is talk about how much you hate Tarantino."

I don't promote here, because Jeff doesn't like spam.

"Saying one thing (I'm just trying to set the record straight) and doing another thing (trolling on blogs to use every shred of evidence to attack the same three or four people routinely) is dishonest."

How so?

comment #68

jeffmcm says ...

In a patently obvious way.

You obviously do not care about promoting any filmmakers whose work you enjoy, if any exist.

And you do spam here. Your spam is your unceasing spew against the same three or four targets every day.

You're a liar.

comment #69

D.Z. says ...

"You obviously do not care about promoting any filmmakers whose work you enjoy, if any exist."

I've dropped names, just not as often as anyone else, because I like dicussing what's current.

"Your spam is your unceasing spew against the same three or four targets every day."

The only people I've trashed are Harvey and Quentin, because they've been in the news for the last few days, and I have a right to state my opinion regarding them.

comment #70

Ray says ...

"Death Proof" is garbage ... the car chase at the end is thrilling, and virtually the only virute of the film. What a waste.

http://therecshow.com/2007/04/10/grindhouse-a-review/

comment #71

Krazy Eyes says ...

One major problem with the whole "Stuntman Mike could not have avoided a very long jail sentence" after the first part of the film is that the girls had all been drinking heavily. Stuntman Mike had been sipping club soda. In reality the blame *always* goes to party who has been drinking. Mike would have been seen as the victim by the courts.

comment #72

christian says ...

that's it, krazy eyes.

speaking of, i thought the black woman in the second part of DP was channeling krazy eyes killa from larry david...in a bad way...