Death Proof Critique

The Films Grindhouse | Death Proof | Planet Terror
21

[quote=“tonyanthony”]
to me the tone of both scenes is different. i tend to think that the scene is dogs is closer to the jack rabbit slim scene in PF, because of the structure and the way both are directed and edited. those scenes are really “cinema-scene”, the dialog is not like real people talking. in RD, the scene has three parts: madonna, K-Billy and tipping and each one is shot in a different ways: for instance, the second the tipping part starts we switch to close-ups… in DP the scene is closer to i don’t know something Robert Altman could have done. Even though the dialog is good, it lays on the actors and, to me at least, the actors are simply not as great as in reservoir dogs (no offense but rosario is no Harvey keitel).
[/quote]

See, I didnt feel that way at all. I thought that for those women, it fit like a glove. They arent Harvey Keitel or Michael Madsen, but theyre young women in an Exploitation film. I never saw any of them act before I saw them in Death Proof and they were excellent to me. Zoe Bell was just as good as any of QTs past actresses and she even did all her own stunts. Thats cuz QT writes so well, he can make anyone can look/sound great.



I really loved the long take too, QT had to step that Dogs idea up (which I always thought was patterned after the opening of DePalmas Scarface) and it worked out great IMO. Whether its Altman or DePalma style whatever. It was cool.

22

oh i agree, i just mean that to me, it didn’t feel as a replay of the reservoir dogs scene

23

Someone called it the Reservoir Cats scene. I thought that was fun. Anyways, as usual Death Proof for me had more positives than negatives. To be honest, I think there was only one scene that bored me a little. That was the fake Arlene/Barry meeting. It felt sort of draggy to me. Other than that, I loved the whole thing.

24

[quote=“tonyanthony”]
the first time i saw it i was bored to death by it, especially because the second part opens with the parking scene (i liked it but it is long and nothing much happens), then the discution in the car (cool but long again) and then this scene (again). at this point, i wanted the film to, literaly “cut to the chase”. I wanted something to happen, a tension smg… In the dvd presentations of Pulp Fiction and Jackie Brown QT always introduces some very cool scenes that have been cut or shorten saying that he cut them because it was important to move forward and to arrive to the important parts. and I think some trimming down could have helped here…
[/quote]

It’s funny, I’ve read quite a few people say this but with me, I didn’t have that problem whatsoever. At no point did I get bored, it seemed to flow so well. I love the kind of movies where covertly, the director is getting to a scene climax. I love the feeling of hanging out with the characters for a while and then BAM, they get into shit. It plays in real time, you don’t get this sense if urgency. You are basically going through it with them. Btw, I haven’t been as impressed with a QT film upon first viewing since Pulp Fiction. That really is quite something.


[quote=“countmalachithrone”]
If you dont like the dialogue, you probably werent a QT fan to begin with. Theres no difference quality wise between the dialogue in Pulp or Death Proof. Its all great. Its just coming from different people/genders. Its classic QT slice of life dialogue.
[/quote]

Oh yeah, absolutely. People have a tendency to approach later pieces of work from a screenwriter (particulary QT) with mild caution. Sort of like they go into the movie thinking the dialogue can’t be as good as in Pulp Fiction or Reservoir Dogs. That is completely the wrong way to look at it. If you go back and analyse the dialogue in his films, you will see that he follows very much the same sentence structure a lot of the time often substituting important words for other important words that are more relevant to that film/context. QT’s writing may have suffered a slight dip, but nowhere near the region people seem to comment on. I very much liked the dialogue in Death Proof, it kept my interest throughout. It’s not always about having “cool” dialogue. With DP, he has gone for the “realism” and he has succeeded BIG TIME, hence why a lot of people have a problem with it. They don’t want to hear what they already hear in their lives, they want to hear dialogue related to the plot. QT doesn’t work like that.



Also, I see Death Proof as classic Quentin. I mean QT has ALWAYS been about dialogue. People have seemed to have lost sight of that. Back when Pulp Fiction was out, people wanted more of that dialogue. Then they got spoilt a bit by Kill Bill. And now it seems they no longer want dialogue, but more action. It’s hard to please everybody. I think I am right in saying the following: If you LOVED RD, PF and JB, you will LOVE DP.


[quote=“countmalachithrone”]
The diner scene was beautifully done. I dont even know why people dont like it. It has all the charm of The Dogs diner scene but done in one continous take instead of one with little cuts. I really enjoyed that conversation, it seemed so realistic and thats when you get to feel like youre hangin out with the girls and gettin to know them before the crazy shit happens.
[/quote]

I completely agree. What is one of QT’s favourite films? Rio Bravo. What is Rio Bravo essentially? Well it’s a hang out movie. It isn’t filled with action. Hawks used Wayne different to how Ford used him. In Rio Bravo we are treated to the trials and tribulations of selest characters. We see what they go through, what they do, what they talk about etc. It plays in real time. I think QT has tried to emulate this in Death Proof, and in my opinion has done so successfully. DP doesn’t seem to appeal to those who crave constant excitement. They seem to be impatient. These are the same people that loathe 2001: A Space Odyssey. For me, watching a film isn’t always about the adrenaline (which DP has in spades btw, just not all the time) it’s about going through the motions with the characters. It’s about sitting in your seat and dedicating your time and thoughts on that one particular thing. Watching a film should be an experience. I’ll compare it to the music of Pink Floyd.



You can’t listen to Echoes or Dogs and skip to what you consider the “best parts”. You have to sit there throughout it all as the whole thing is a sonic landscape. Sitting through it all will only serve to heighten the “best bits”, make it more satisfying. By skipping certain parts in a Pink Floyd song, you missing out on the experience. Therefore, skipping the dialogue scenes in Death Proof will only lessen the impact of the action scenes. Being there from the start makes the climax all the more sweeter. There is great reward in being patient.

25

I have a feeling that over time, like Jackie B, even more people will warm up to Death Proof. You have to sort of get that its partly a hangout film. I mean, look at the bar scene/diner scenes etc. What QT made to me was a very poetic slasher/car chase film.

26

welcome back… cool avatar btw

27

Thanks tone. Made it myself.

28

[quote=“Ify”]
I very much liked the dialogue in Death Proof, it kept my interest throughout. It’s not always about having “cool” dialogue. With DP, he has gone for the “realism” and he has succeeded BIG TIME
[/quote]

a bit off topic but my theorie on this is that the first half of the film takes place in the movie-movie universe (hence the appearance of Sheriff Mc Graw, and the reference to Jungle Julia in Planet Terror) whereas in the second part we switch to the real-qt universe… hence it is more realistic, more contemporary etc.

29

[quote=“tonyanthony”]
a bit off topic but my theorie on this is that the first half of the film takes place in the movie-movie universe (hence the appearance of Sheriff Mc Graw, and the reference to Jungle Julia in Planet Terror) whereas in the second part we switch to the real-qt universe… hence it is more realistic, more contemporary etc.
[/quote]

I dont know about that because QT said DP was in his Realer Than real World Universe (Pulp, Dogs, TR), while RRs Planet Terror was in the Movie Movie Universe.

30

[quote=“Pete (The Guy Who Gets Pissed, Leaves and Comes Back)”]
I dont know about that because QT said DP was in his Realer Than real World Universe (Pulp, Dogs, TR), while RRs Planet Terror was in the Movie Movie Universe.
[/quote]

I know but I can’t help feeling that the 1st part takes place in the movie-movie universe. It is like for Kill Bill, when you watch that part you never cease to be conscient that you are watching a movie.

[quote=“Pete (The Guy Who Gets Pissed, Leaves and Comes Back)”]
Thanks tone. Made it myself.
[/quote]

nice. have a nice one.

31

Tony, I know what youre saying but I dont think QT puts both universes into his films. He either stays in one or the other. Death Proof COULD happen in real life, thats why its not in the crazy Kill Bill comic book type universe. Whereas Planet Terror is just too far out to be realistic.

32

Ify: He also said Elmore Leonard was his biggest influence in that area. Thats why QT doesnt write about “the plot”. He just takes you into some people’s world, lets you get to know them and then BAM! the shit happens and they and we are just thrown into it. Its really a great way of telling a story.



How many movies have you seen where the characters are just talking about the plot at hand? Yes, Die Hard is great, but Ive seen it already. Thats boring. QT takes you into his mind and shows you people’s humanity. Noone in real life talks about a plot, they hide the stuff really happening in their lives by talking about BS (TV shows, movies etc). Thats just reality.



QT has said that he wants his films to be real life mixed with genre film stories. A great analogy he gave to make it clear is:



“A robber is running down the street, hes being chased by the cops, he hijacks a car, throws the driver out and then he sees its a stick and he doesnt know how to drive a stick”.

33

[quote=“Pete (Back For More Fun)”]
Ify: He also said Elmore Leonard was his biggest influence in that area. Thats why QT doesnt write about “the plot”. He just takes you into some people’s world, lets you get to know them and then BAM! the shit happens and they and we are just thrown into it. Its really a great way of telling a story.
[/quote]

Well I can definitely relate to and agree with that. I mean part of the reason I like QT so much is because he is so different to the manjority of filmmakers out there. I love all aspects of his movies. And with regards to the dialogue, nothing bothers me more than when they are stuck up their own arse spouting shit which is only plot driven. That’s why I don’t like watching things like the Bourne films, films involving the CIA/FBI/DEA etc (where they only talk about their job) or the TV series Shark and House. They use all this mumbo jumbo that the actors themselves don’t even know what the fuck they’re talking about. It’s all there just to make you believe into it, to make you think it’s something high and mighty and that they know exactly what they’re talking about. Of course it isn’t completely wrong to have the dialogue as such that you put believe they know what they’re talking about, but this is over-used.



The fact of the matter is, I couldn’t give two shits about how many gigabyte encription was used on a data file, that isn’t interesting, it’s quite the opposite. Whereas QT’s stuff, it doesn’t follow any of those conventions, QT’s stuff is 100% natural. It all comes from him and what he’s seen. Furthermore, his personality only serves to add that magic to his dialogue. You trust that his characters are knowledgable in whatever it is QT wants you to believe about them.

34

But you also dont want to just shut out other kinds of movies. I mean I say the other movies are boring but thats not always true either. I mean the majority of movies we watch are like that, and we cant just hate them all because they arent like QTs films. You have to be able to enjoy all kinds of films.



What I love is when movies surprise you, you expect them to be shit and then they do have their own personality and charm like a QT movie. Its just that we dont get many of those these days.



Im not sure how QT would do a spy film. It would be pretty funny to do a film thats totally about plot and hear them talking about everything besides it.

35

[quote=“Pete (Back For More Fun)”]
But you also dont want to just shut out other kinds of movies. I mean I say the other movies are boring but thats not always true either. I mean the majority of movies we watch are like that, and we cant just hate them all because they arent like QTs films. You have to be able to enjoy all kinds of films.



What I love is when movies surprise you, you expect them to be shit and then they do have their own personality and charm like a QT movie. Its just that we dont get many of those these days.



Im not sure how QT would do a spy film. It would be pretty funny to do a film thats totally about plot and hear them talking about everything besides it.
[/quote]

Well the thing is, I wouldn’t go so far as to say I’m closed-minded regarding films, however, it’s harder to accept other films when you are so drawn to one (or more) directors. I mean when I watch another film not made by one of my favourite directors, if it’s good I acknowledge it but you can’t expect me to have that same passion towards it like I do with a QT/Leone/Scorsese/Coens flick.



Again, I’ll licken it to The Pink Floyd. I listen to it and I love and I feel this closeness to it. I’m passionate about it. Such is it’s inherent quality that it makes it very difficult for me to appreciate and sometimes even like other pieces of music. Of course, I do listen to other artists out there and I recognise when it’s of a quality standard, however, I won’t have that same passion for it, I wouldn’t die for it.



Going back to the topic at hand, as it’s getting rather off-topic - Death Proof for me would not have been as enjoyable had the dialoge all been about the killer that’s on the loose who’s terrorising folks with his heavily modified car. The fun for me is seeing these chicks going about their usual day-to-day business, chatting about anything they fancy and then BAM, they gone and got killed.

36

sorry for butting in but can anyone post a link to any Tarantino Death proof interviews (especially any where he discusses Mike) the cahiers du cinema has been taken off. cheers.

37

[quote=“Ify”]
Well the thing is, I wouldn’t go so far as to say I’m closed-minded regarding films, however, it’s harder to accept other films when you are so drawn to one (or more) directors. I mean when I watch another film not made by one of my favourite directors, if it’s good I acknowledge it but you can’t expect me to have that same passion towards it like I do with a QT/Leone/Scorsese/Coens flick.



Again, I’ll licken it to The Pink Floyd. I listen to it and I love and I feel this closeness to it. I’m passionate about it. Such is it’s inherent quality that it makes it very difficult for me to appreciate and sometimes even like other pieces of music. Of course, I do listen to other artists out there and I recognise when it’s of a quality standard, however, I won’t have that same passion for it, I wouldn’t die for it.



Going back to the topic at hand, as it’s getting rather off-topic - Death Proof for me would not have been as enjoyable had the dialoge all been about the killer that’s on the loose who’s terrorising folks with his heavily modified car. The fun for me is seeing these chicks going about their usual day-to-day business, chatting about anything they fancy and then BAM, they gone and got killed.
[/quote]

Yeah I know what you mean. As Ive said before we all have certain directors and movie styles we like more than others. Ya just gotta try to keep an open mind about stuff.



Im definitely glad QT decided to do his own twist on the slasher film. Ive seen most of those kinds of films and I love them, but it wouldve sucked to just see the same thing.



The whole mixing of genres was one of the things I loved most about DP. It gives it this undescribable feeling. It really does seem like a weird Grindhouse movie you mightve seen back in the 70s. Theres so many styles and themes floating around in it. It gives it a very unique flavor.

38

I finally saw DP and I actually liked it a lot. It wasn’t the best work that I’ve seen from QT, but it was entertaining nonetheless. I think that the hardcore fans tend to look too deeply into a film and try to make it something that it’s not. Whatever. I’ll make this observation - making a film look like it was made in the 70’s seems to be the big thing lately…some guys pull it off quite nicely (DP being one) and some don’t (Devils Rejects being one). The thing that got me into QT’s films in the first place is that they were revolutionary…I don’t see DP as being revolutionary so much as being a “throw-back” tribute to his favorite films. I just want to see something like I’ve never seen before, and DP didn’t have it. Its an epidemic in the arts these days…everyone’s exploiting something that was cool in the 70’s and…well…sure it’s cool - but Ive been there and done that. I know it’s a cliche, but I will always remember how Pulp Fiction and Natural Born Killers impacted me the first time that I saw them - I was blown away by the “newness” of it all - I couldn’t believe that somebody made them at the time…I kept saying “they didn’t just do that, did they?”

39

Thats funny cuz Ive never really seen a film like DP before and I know Ive seen more movies than you have. I certainly havent seen a slasher film like DP or a car chase film like DP.



You really cant contrast and compare everything QT does to Pulp Fiction cuz he’ll never recreate that again and we know that. Being an artist isnt about making a phenomenon with each film, you just tell an entertaining story, put your heart and soul into it and hope people like it.



For me, Death Proof def has its own personality and is special in its own way.

40

Dont shoot me Pete! Im glad you have returned as I like to read what you have to say since you have seen so many movies. I only want to give my opinion on my likes and dislikes. I hope you can respect that and not feel I am trying to start shit. So here goes…





I never had understood what was supossed to be so cool about the car chase in DP. While it was a wee but funny at times it felt like I had seen it before (except for the hottie on the hood). Its just a car chase and there was nothing ground breaking or specail about it. This film seems to be made out to be something it is not. Its a good film, not great by any means. Its a fun time and a great movie to watch with other fans.



IMO its not on par with the rest of his work but I think he never wanted it to be held up to Pulp or Dogs but simply as a nice period piece that he enjoyed making. Its sorta like QT made this film mainly for himself. Its what he wanted to do and he didnt really care if the critics liked it or not. He knew the hard core fans would love it no matter what. They would get what he was going for, although I think its lost on many a fan. Im talking about the ones who talk like its the best film he has ever made. How insulting!!! Its not a masterpiece but it is a nice experiment in film making. It didnt quite work for me as the two parts didnt gel and were an odd contrast with each other. I loved the first half (am I the only one?) but the second half seemed so lame (except for miss Bell) I dont want to watch it again. Im hoping the full cut will add enough depth for me to enjoy the entire film. I actually cant wait to see it as I have high hopes. Im almost certain the full cut will be nothing less than awesome!