I have no idea if it wouldve been made if it wasnt QTs script. But whatever, RR came up with the whole Grindhouse Double Feature thing and QT went for it and it turned out to be QTs first career flop. So from now on, I hope QT just does his own projects without any outside influences. Sorry to the RR fans but thats how I feel. QTs way too talented to waste his time and reputation doing little side projects with RR. He shouldnt be doing that type of stuff.
it’s a grindhouse film. It isn’t supposed to be a fucking masterpiece. just a nice violent piece of entertainment for the sake of entertainment. you people are looking way too deep into this.
Yeah!! Way too deep with this.
but to answer the question…I was happy with it.
Yeah Grindhouse kicked ass Pete. nd I mean the whole experience, I’ll never see anything like it for the rest of my life. Unless people turn into zombies and I take over the local cinema, then I’ll make my movies and rule the world! MUH-HAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!!!
I was disappointed as I well documented in the forums after I watched the movie. Even worse, I have a friend who is always telling me QT is a hack and I debate that constantly. I had to eat a lot of shit after leaving the film. I was not happy. I still like the film and to be honest…its grown on me more since my first screening. I like watching it and Planet Terror back to back. I absolutely LOVE PT so I reverse it and watch DP then PT. I think it should have played this way in the theater. Maybe we can debate that in another thread.
[quote]
But whatever, RR came up with the whole Grindhouse Double Feature thing and QT went for it and it turned out to be QTs first career flop. So from now on, I hope QT just does his own projects without any outside influences.[/quote]
Some would say this is QT’s MO. Roger would at any rate. Nothing wrong with that IMO. I still think the movie could have done better with a different marketing campaign.
How someone can be disappointed after watching such an entertaining movie? I agree that it’s Quentin’s worst moment but it’s a fuckin b-movie and still better than many “pieces of art”…
C’mon no use for the blame game. Great movie, people are idiots and could care less about genre cinem. It’s sad but true.
[quote=“Scarface”]
In relative terms, I think it’s QT’s weakest offering to date. It’s 90% laid-back movie with 10% kick-ass action scenes. Unfortunately, the laid-back segments are not up to par as far as QT’s level goes. Unlike Jackie Brown, I found most of the characters annoying and I didn’t enjoy “hanging out with them”.
DP gets a 7/10 from me.
[/quote]
That is exactly how I feel.
I don’t think DP will be anywhere near the ballpark IB will be in. Hopefully.
QT has not ‘lost it’… i mean look at Kill Bill 1 and 2. although i do hate death proof, half the goddamn movie was cunts that wouldnt shut the fuck up, i did find the end funny though, stuntman mike cries like a pussy. i love QTs movies and death proof is the only film i dont like, the rest of them are legandary.
ill admit, i was expecting more of death proof, i really enjoyed the first half of the movie and in the second half fell a bit short with some poor performances. i preffered the grindhouse cut of the movie to the european released death proof. the movie was set at the right pace and not as much dialogue. i also find its a film i love more and more i watch it. anyone else find that? also if you like your exploitation films it helps allot. i think thats why it didnt do so well in the cinema. allot of people just didnt get it, that and we live in a world were mindless mainstream garbage succeeds ie step up 2, sex and the city movie, mamma mia, disaster movie etc.
I’m really tired of the debate, this movie, like all movies, like everything is either good or isn’t. But that isn’t dependant on the film itself but on the person watching it. I love Death Proof, it’s a very enjoyable film for me. I know a lot of people were expecting something else, whatever that is, but it is what it is. It’s about the journey like all QT’s films. It’s not about where you’re going but how you get there and QT is a master at enthralling journeys. Watching the film only a few days ago I’m reminded more of Hitchcock’s Psycho than a B-movie slasher film, which may have been the source of all this discourse. Advertised as a old school throwaway the film is much more than it appears. A lot of my peers have said that they find the girls(the first set) to be unlikeable, annoying and shallow… which is the point. The first girls aren’t good people. They use men as disposable objects and then discard them, they’re bullies, they’re shallow. We sympathize with Pam, who’s abandoned and picked on by Jungle Julia, and then we revel in Stuntman Mike, the hero. he’s cool, he’s funny, he’s got more style and charm in that jagged scar than most do in they’re entire body. The loser boytoys Julia and the rest play with make fun of him. He get’s rejected by JJ and almost Arlene, he charms her. Only after, when he kills the innocent Pam do we decide to pass judgment on him.
And we meet(or re-introduced to) Earl McGraw… he explains, gives us some insight into Mike and his manic ways, very similar to the scene in Psycho which splits the film up after Janet Leigh is killed. Our sympathy is transfered from Marion to her sister and her lover and even Norman. The same happens in DP. We now care about his next victims because we know his method.
Now we’re introduced to the second set of girls. They’re genuine, real, funny, and they lead interesting lives. There’s a tight knit quality between them. In the diner we learn a little about each of them which plays into the rest of the film. Each small conversation, Lee almost falling for Kim’s quip about being a secret service agent shows her as slightly dim and shows up later when she’s the only one left with the trucker. Abby feeling insecure about being weak but having her own talents which she later uses to convince the Trucker to let them take the car, etc etc. This is the power of QT’s writing, he may seem to be writing dialogue with no purpose… but it’s all purpose, it not only creates characters we can relate too but adds and move the plot forward.
Mike scopes out the women, see’s them as victims like the rest, but they are much more than that. They’re scared at first, but seek revenge. They fight back, they don’t run, they don’t hide. They follow him. And they win. It’s the epitome of a great ending. The heroes are victorious, the villain, humiliated.
It’s not for everyone, of course not. He’s never made a film for a universal audience. Pulp Fiction was lightening in a bottle, he’s a niche filmmaker and this is as obscure as one can get.
[quote=“Noir_Fiction”]
I’m really tired of the debate, this movie, like all movies, like everything is either good or isn’t. But that isn’t dependant on the film itself but on the person watching it. I love Death Proof, it’s a very enjoyable film for me. I know a lot of people were [color=red]expecting something else, whatever that is, but it is what it is. It’s about the journey like all QT’s films. It’s not about where you’re going but how you get there and [color=red]QT is a master at enthralling journeys. Watching the film only a few days ago I’m reminded more of Hitchcock’s Psycho than a B-movie slasher film, which may have been [color=red]the source of all this discourse. Advertised as a old school throwaway the [color=red]film is much more than it appears. A lot of my peers have said that they find the girls(the first set) to be unlikeable, annoying and shallow… which is the point. The first girls aren’t good people. They use men as disposable objects and then discard them, they’re bullies, they’re shallow. We sympathize with Pam, who’s abandoned and picked on by Jungle Julia, and then we revel in Stuntman Mike, the hero. he’s cool, he’s funny, he’s got more style and charm in that jagged scar than most do in they’re entire body. The loser boytoys Julia and the rest play with make fun of him. He get’s rejected by JJ and almost Arlene, he charms her. Only after, when he kills the innocent Pam do we decide to pass judgment on him.
And we meet(or re-introduced to) Earl McGraw… he explains, gives us some insight into Mike and his manic ways, very similar to the scene in Psycho which splits the film up after Janet Leigh is killed. Our sympathy is transfered from Marion to her sister and her lover and even Norman. The same happens in DP. We now care about his next victims because we know his method.
Now we’re introduced to the second set of girls. They’re genuine, real, funny, and they lead interesting lives. There’s a tight knit quality between them. In the diner we learn a little about each of them which plays into the rest of the film. Each small conversation, Lee almost falling for Kim’s quip about being a secret service agent shows her as slightly dim and shows up later when she’s the only one left with the trucker. Abby feeling insecure about being weak but having her own talents which she later uses to convince the Trucker to let them take the car, etc etc. This is the power of QT’s writing, he may seem to be writing dialogue with no purpose… but it’s all purpose, it not only creates characters we can relate too but adds and move the plot forward.
Mike scopes out the women, see’s them as victims like the rest, but they are much more than that. They’re scared at first, but seek revenge. They fight back, they don’t run, they don’t hide. They follow him. And they win. It’s the epitome of a great ending. The heroes are victorious, the villain, humiliated.
It’s not for everyone, of course not. He’s never made a film for a universal audience. Pulp Fiction was lightening in a bottle, he’s a niche filmmaker and this is as obscure as one can get.
[/quote]
Very well said, sir!!
I am particularly impressed by your melodic writing as highlighted above.
LOL! That’s amazingly perceptive of you Ify. ;D And yeah, well said Noir.
i can’t help but thinking that the Grindhouse financial fiasco is what led to a shorter version of IB… for a couple of yrs, after KB and after Grindhouse (but before its release and before it bombed) i was super excited by the perspective of having two big war films, Ã la KB. and i’m pretty sure that QT had to find a way to do IB as a one shorter film because Grindhouse lost so much money… i’m not sure you will agree, but if that’s the fact, well i’m not sure it was worthing it… oh well…!
[quote=“tonyanthony”]
i can’t help but thinking that the Grindhouse financial fiasco is what led to a shorter version of IB… for a couple of yrs, after KB and after Grindhouse (but before its release and before it bombed) i was super excited by the perspective of having two big war films, Ã la KB. and i’m pretty sure that QT had to find a way to do IB as a one shorter film because Grindhouse lost so much money… i’m not sure you will agree, but if that’s the fact, well i’m not sure it was worthing it… oh well…!
[/quote]
does this mean that because Grindhouse wasn’t as huge a success as QT’s other movies, there are going to be constraints put on him? That would be stupid, expecting someone to come up with something awesome all the time is a bit too much, even for QT. I really hope IB comes out exactly as QT wants it to be…without him having to compromise on anything.
I read somewhere QT had to shorten the fight sequence between the Bride and Bill because of the production ‘going to long’ or something…I am sure QT would have come out with a kickass end to the movie if he had been allowed to…not that the current one is any bad, but it could have been better…like an epic final boss battle or something.
I hope QT doesn’t have to compromise in a similar fashion for IB.
i’m not sure, but i feel that, maybe…
grindhouse lost a lot of money so i can’t really to imagine the weinsteins saying “wouhou! let’s make him direct another risky film so we can lose more money”. even if they are amazing producers, they’re also financeers and they are running a business… i’m not saying they put him on a short leash either, he is still in a unique position in the film industry.
Quentin Tarantino is one of the few male filmmakers in this day and age who is willing to experience female problems and plights through his own creations. His beloved filmography speaks for itself. Death Proof is just another layer of icing on the cake - another pro-female film that, while not his most popular, is certainly fitting amongst the rest of his womanly film history. Part road movie, part feminist propaganda, Death Proof is an unusual mainstream film that all too clearly dictates between the good female wrong and the bad female wrong.
No need to compare the movie to other tarantino movies and say this one is better than that.
Did you enjoy the movie? Personally when i watched the first time i couldnt have been more entertained. It was awesome. Just like the 2nd time, the 3rd, 4th, 5th …and so on. you get the point.
What is not to like. Incredible dialogue that is hilarious, amazing music, thrilling action, incredible visuals, beautiful women.
We should be wishing that more movies could combine all these elements and do it half as well as tarantino did with death proof.
Very diappointed by death proof - was recommended to us but did not think it was one of his best.