Fun fun fun. I can’t remember when I’ve had more fun at the movies. I love old American International exploitation flicks, and love the trailers for those movies even more, since the movies themselves could frequently be a bore, waiting for the killings or flash of breasts or car crashes. There’s a big helping of both trailers and waiting-for-action going on here. This has been written about to death everywhere of course, which is maybe why no one is bothering here. (If only Bakunin had written about it, then at least maybe John would have deemed it worthy of a mention.) A little too much reliance on Rose McGowan throughout, but the Josh Brolin / Marley Shelton bits made up for it.
Tarantino should not put himself in movies. His admittedly very good turn in Pulp Fiction is way in the past, and there’s been little since then to justify his scenes. I don’t have the time and energy to go though all 3 hours of likes and dislikes this, but a couple short takes –
Death Proof has everything I originally dug about Tarantino’s films: great soundtrack, page after page of plot-ignoring dialogue, humor, good casting (minus Eli Roth’s dip-shit cameo), and finally, violence you laugh at right up to the point where there’s a scene that makes your stomach drop, and it suddenly – horribly – feels way too real.
The fact that it’s an homage to 70’s schlock means that the camera can sit there on the nexus of some cute girl’s legs meeting her cut-off jeans shorts standing at a juke-box that much longer without feeling a twinge of guilt about it.
There’s a lot going on in Death Proof, and I look forward to watching the full version on its own, supposedly a full 40 minutes more. But brother, if you like movies, get thee to a single-screen theater with a kick-ass sound system, and feel the floors shake during those car chases. This is one that will lose a lot of steam and noise and camaraderie on DVD.
Oh yeah – Aqua Teen Hunger Force was disappointing. Oh well.
Bakunin?
Wrong guy? Insert theorist from your reading list here.
i so want to see this, but three hours? that’s a long time.
I want to give this film some love, too, because I was overjoyed with the whole experience (and the three hours flew by).
I have a feeling that Death Proof will be more to most of this group’s taste, and it is a helluva film. The only things I’ll add to Mark’s rave are:
a) a ridiculously effective plot structure, that truly surprised me. It wasn’t just that the violence caught me off-guard, although boy I agree with Mark that I had grown such sympathy with certain characters that certain deaths and/or attacks struck a real emotional blow; the film also did some amazing reframing, shifting gears (to rev the vehicle metaphor) at least three times in ways that reinvented my sense of what the film was.
b) Kurt fucking Russell. I cannot imagine anyone else playing this part. I’m a longtime fan. The guy easily holds his own in Silkwood, yet can push the hard-nosed edge to great effect in Escape from New York, and just as effortlessly play broad comedy in the ridiculous Big Trouble in Little China. I don’t think any other actor could have so perfectly embodied the role’s demands, shifting between seductive charisma, homicidal rage, and comic buffoonishness. There’s a scene where Stuntman Mike lays out a case for a woman to take him seriously, eyes locked with hers as he discusses why she ought to give him a lapdance, that follows immediately on a moment where he seemed like a has-been cartoon (“Stuntman Mike” fer chrissakes!?)…. and Russell is captivating. I wanted to give him a lapdance.
But it’s easy to give Tarantino love. I had a very different kind of fun–but definitely fun nonethelesss–with the lived-in re-creation of sleazy horror in Rodriguez’ Planet Terror. The actors don’t get dialogue that transcends genre–they get dialogue that fully captures genre. And the actors themselves signify a kind of B-picture sleazy fun; Jeff Fahey rips it up as the owner of a secret bbq recipe. Heads blow up, people talk tough in ways that are patently silly. And Rodriguez has his John-Carpenter shots (creepy-lousy synth score as three guys walk into the hospital, then close-up of each one to the emphatic chord-shift of the synthesizer….). I ate it up, but I fear/suspect that only those who loved AIP films and the experience of sleaze will recognize the sheer exuberant pleasures of Rodriguez. I have seen some critics challenge it as too ironic, too campy–bah. Wrong. It is wholly sincere in its play, reaffirming the pleasures whereas Tarantino seems to rejuvenate and re-imagine sleaze. Gio, I think you’d really dig the trailers and Death Proof, so …. if push came to shove, skip the film’s first 80 minutes? But then again I think that’s kind of the fun of double-feature cinema experiences: the bad film, the boredom, the distaste complement the good, the excitement, the joy.
ah, this puts me in mind of the drive-in days, which I’m old enough to still remember. I saw Chained Heat , a women in prison movie, and Mausoleum a bad horror film, on my last trip to the drive many years ago. I have not yet seen Grindhouse , though I’m eager to (another great drive in experience was the double bill of Crazy Larry and Dirty Mary and Vanishing Point (Kowalski!)). But I wonder if it’s a legitimate question to ask what exactly Tarantino and Rodriguez are doing to change current distribution and exhibition practices–that is, they may be so in love with B-cinema, but do their big budget enterprises do anything to push open the door for an alternative film? That is, is there more than nostalgia behind their projects?
On the contrary Micheal. Their big budget exercise has effectively torpedoed the chance that they’ll ever get to try this again (Or that anyone else will get the chance). It’s been a rather singular failure in financial terms, though expectations were ludicrously high. Harry Knowles (one of the links above) has some smart things to say about why this kind of thing should / could never be a big (financial) success.
But more importantly, by bringing up Crazy Larry and Dirty Mary and Vanishing Point, you’re saying the magic words. Tarantino made this film for you. You owe it to him to shell out the $10 and 3 hours.
And Reynolds, yes, despite my having a hard time writing anything coherent about this movie, I should have singled out Kurt Russell’s performance. For me, the crowning point was him talking to three young women about his career. He’s trying to prove that he earned his name. I can’t recall the names of the shows and people he drops, (I think Lee Majors was in there) but it’s quickly apparent that these girls have no idea who or what he’s talking about. He might as well be making up names of 60s and 70s TV shows that never existed. The fact that Russell really has been around the business that long, and may now be best known as the step-father of whatshername, made the scene all the better.
Death Proof by the way was chosen for competition at this year’s Cannes, an odd choice, but I think justified. After what I felt was a really disappointing film in Kill Bill Vol. II, this one totally rebuilds my respect for the man.
Hang on Tom Sizemore! Quentin’s coming for you!!
Thanks, Mark. I’m going to see it as soon as possible. Tell us more about ATHF–why disappointing? If it features Carl and the cable-stealing aliens, I’m still going to see it.
my apologies, B-movie fans but the film title is Dirty Mary Crazy Larry forgive me, susan george.
Ahh geez. Why isn’t Aqua Teen funnier? My first guess is that in the 15 minute segments of the TV show, the characters that are designed to be annoying (Dr. Weird & Steve, the Mooninites, Carl, hell – everyone, really) never wear out their welcome because the show is over so quickly.
I thought they were off to the right start here, because the first segment of the film has nothing to do with the movie’s plot, characters or anything. It’s a spoof of the old “Let’s All Go To The Lobby” song, and it’s pretty funny. The fact that it’s treading ground rather close to that of Grindhouse’s between film ads makes it even better.
But that’s as far as they go. From there on, they stick close to the usual cast, and they can grow old quickly. Space Ghost makes a cameo; there’s a time travelling Abraham Lincoln (Fred Armisen) who I liked a lot – I don’t recall ever seeing him inthe show. And also Watermelon, who was apparently voiced by Chris Kattan, who has learned nothing since Monkeybone. Watermelon sucked.
My two least favorite characters in AT are Cybernetic Ghost and MC Pee Pants. Part of my boredom with them is that I can’t understand what they’re saying most of the time. And Cybernetic Ghost in particular gets a lot of lines. Sure, the Danzig episode he’s in is awesome, but the whole point of the episode is how unbearable it is to be around Cybernetic Ghost. So at 80+ minutes, it’s just that much worse.
If they had tried to do a couple of episodes in the space of the movie it might have worked better. Maybe even a sequel to the first half right there all in the space of this movie.
As it is, the movie takes the basic plot outline they use in one of their 15 minute episodes and stretches it too far. Maybe I’d like it more if I saw it again. Or with subtitles. Or if I smoked pot.
I wish they’d really fucked with expectations and format. Not that the League of Gentlemen movie is a classic or anything compared to the series, but the fact that the characters realize they’re trapped in a particular medium, then decide to escape it, is the kind of big step that the AT characters needed to take here.
I just got a message from Netflix that they were removing ‘Grindhouse’ from my queue because they could not obtain enough copies. Has this happened to anyone else? For any other movie? Is this a demand problem or a supply problem?
Just checked Netflix again and all they have done is divide the two movies, with ‘Death Proof’ released September 18th and ‘Planet Terror’ released sometime in October.
The first hour of ‘Death Proof’ is an almost perfect gem of a movie, for all the reasons Mauer lists. From the opening shot of feet on the dashboard the movie is alive in a way most movies can’t even come close to. It is not just that the dialogue is funny and clever, but it builds a gloriously fine-grained picture of the relationship among the women. I could watch the first crash over an over again it is so well constructed.
I enjoyed the second half of the movie less. The second group of women are just less interesting and it doesn’t help that Zoe Bell is a stuntwoman not an actor and it shows. Russell just turns into a a cartoon-ish character. He is wasted in this second part. The DVD version I saw was 115 minutes long. I don’t know what was added to the shorter theatrical version.
I just watched this again, and entirely agree with C’s first paragraph and sort of with his second.
The second group of women are less intriguing; I find their conversations far, far less effective. In the first half with the first group, as if to lull the audience into a secure sense of love with the characters, we spend a lot of time without anything more than a glimpse in passing of Stuntman Mike’s menace; what builds up is (for this viewer) a tremendous appreciation for these women.
SPOILER
SPOILER
And of course without that build-up the brief but vicious violence of the car crash wouldn’t have nearly the impact (ahem). Further, typical film convention, some of the women from the first crash should survive. That they *all* die is enormously powerful, a kick in the teeth to what I wanted and what I assumed.
The second half is gonna suffer no matter what: we know that all of these women could–maybe will–die. I think we invest far less; Tarantino kinds of prods us along that way, too, I think. I am hesitant to say that they’re less interesting because he made them that way, but it strikes me that the first half of the film is a long, slow, methodical message that exploitation films are brutal, nasty, and scornful of viewer identification. In the second half, our focus shifts from identifying with the women to foregrounding Mike; even though he is still in the background, in the diner I am constantly ignoring what the women are saying to see what he’s doing. Mike is now the focus of the movie, really–the women are (merely) the victims.
And I think, even as I was a bit annoyed by them, that reversal works very well when we get the film’s next lovely twist–and Mike becomes their prey, and they hunt him down and dispose of him. I really think that the film is carefully playing with structures of identification… even as (yes) I did find their conversation stilted, more abrasive.
That last long car chase really does it for me, though. I really, really dug it–and when Mike turns, when he starts whining and crying, and then gets his ass handed to him and his face kicked in… well, I gotta say I thought that was fucking wonderful, funny and smart and hoo boy exhilirating.
Again, as a fan of these kinds of films, I came to the reveal of Mike-as-bullying-coward with a load of expectations radically reconstructed; the ending was so perfect yet so unexpected, that amazing freeze with the women jumping in the air as “Chick Habit” comes on the soundtrack, all rumbling bass and lovely alto pop vocals… Heaven. So I didn’t find him cartoonish; he left the movie where he was the (grim) protagonist and entered the one where he was the (ridiculous) punchline (and punching bag). What’s startling is that we assume the first half is about the women fighting against Mike (and wonder who will survive), and in the second half we realize that it’s a far grimmer no-survivor watch-the-killer-dispatch-his-victims movie and get played yet again.
Added: the lapdance scene in the first half; the extended opening of the second half (in black and white) at the convenience store. I think the former is a great addition, the latter … meh. (‘Though the latter scene did reinforce my argument above, that Mike has become the scary protagonist in a film focused on murdering women.)
The lapdance scene is a work of pure art, as perfect a summary of the mixture of women’s sexuality and menace that underpin the first half of the movie as one could hope for. I’m really surprised it didn’t make it into the theatrical version.
I’ll have to ponder the rest of Mike’s comments more. I can agree that the second half (and I agree that the final freeze along with “Chick Habit” is glorious) is more true to the kind of grindhouse/blaxploitation films that Tarantino is aiming for (right down to the film stock), but, truth be told, I guess I am just not a huge fan of those movies.
I need to see this again, but I remember digging the women in the second half of the film far more than the girls in the first half (though I do recall their dialogue being quite fun). I remember the film as an open-hearted love letter to Zoe Bell–Tarrantino’s way of saying “sister, you rock!” Still, I need to see it again, though I am disappointed to hear that the Weinstein Brothers decided we needed to reinsert the lap dance (the missing reel). I loved that original bit of self-reflexivity as my imagination started working overtime. I’m not sure any human could actually reproduce the pictures flickering away in my head.
i’m quickly scanning these comments in my feeder without quite knowing what movie they are about and i see “the women” come up again and again, so i think, “THESE GUYS HAVE ALL WATCHED A MOVIE ABOUT WOMEN????”
and then i realize what movie we are talking about.
right.
What’s a feeder?
Nice dig. Still, I’ll go out on a limb here and suggest:
a) G, you might actually like this film. Despite your apparent hatred of Kill Bill. Like Jackie Brown, Death Proof seems to have spun its ’70s female-in-peril roots through feminist readings thereof…
b) I want to live in a world where both Death Proof and The Secret Life of Words are taken seriously as substantive responses to gendered violence. And I don’t want to have to rank ’em. Do I? Please say no.
no.
i meant a feed reader. feeder, feed reader, reeder, reed feeder.
Gio, keep talking that sexy talk!
watched planet terror last night. i don’t quite fit mike’s description upthread of the kind of person who he thinks will like this film, but i had a blast. i enjoyed it more than deathproof, which i see i never posted anything about (liked it too). even without a familiarity with the source genre’s conventions the film is a lot of (disgusting) fun.
the preview for machete was excellent as well. i insist that film be made. there were more fake previews in the theatrical release, right?
Yeah: The guys from Sean of the Dead made a Hammer horror spoof trailer.
Rob Zombie made an excellent nazi-ploitation/werewolf trailer starring Udo Kier (and apparently he has about half an hour’s worth of footage)
And dumb-ass Eli Roth made a pretty decent 70s shlock-gore trailer modeled after Halloween and Black Christmas.
Then there was Machete which of course Rodriguez made.
Again, watching these trailers between the films in a theater along with the restaurant commercials, the concession stand ads and so on really made a big difference. It was all about context with Grindhouse, and it’s too bad more people didn’t watch it as it was originally shown and intended.