Grindhouse.....
- Thread starter thrope
- Start date
Zach,
I agree that's what QT was going for but seriously, it was a strange and not very effective (let alone efficient) way of setting up their eventual deaths. The loss of characters we grow to like is hardly something that's new to storytelling. The more I think about "Death Proof" the more that whole narrative feels more and more "off." The rhythm of it, the dialogue, etc.
What I will say is that I was not prepared for the graphic-ness of their deaths, especially Butterfly's. It seemed sadistic of QT but I assume that's what he was going for. And maybe he had that whole long set-up to make us "feel" her gruesome death more. The problem is that the transition to the hospital then the next set-up scene felt disjointed. We barely had enough time to really soak things in and all the sudden, here's another four women? Took me a minute to realize it was four other women.
I agree that's what QT was going for but seriously, it was a strange and not very effective (let alone efficient) way of setting up their eventual deaths. The loss of characters we grow to like is hardly something that's new to storytelling. The more I think about "Death Proof" the more that whole narrative feels more and more "off." The rhythm of it, the dialogue, etc.
What I will say is that I was not prepared for the graphic-ness of their deaths, especially Butterfly's. It seemed sadistic of QT but I assume that's what he was going for. And maybe he had that whole long set-up to make us "feel" her gruesome death more. The problem is that the transition to the hospital then the next set-up scene felt disjointed. We barely had enough time to really soak things in and all the sudden, here's another four women? Took me a minute to realize it was four other women.
I've found that a lot of Tarantino's critics want it both ways with his flicks. When they're all blood, snot and bones, he gets it in the neck for being one-dimensional, but when he does a slower-paced, character-driven thing like "Jackie Brown" (his best movie by MILES, imho), the same people are saying, "Where's the snappy dialogue? Where's the action?"
"Grindhouse" hasn't opened in the UK yet, but I will go and see it when it does, even though it's not really possible to replicate an authentic grindhouse experience over here. I like Tarantino's shit, and Rodriguez too. A genuine love for movies of all stripes comes over in their work, yet a lot of people remain suspicious of such enthusiasm, as if it could only be contrived, or that some kind of "ironic" subtext has to be at work. Tarantino in particular gets criticised for plundering other movies, and for littering his shit with arcane pop-culture references, but to me, that rarely gets in the way of the movie. If you dug "Reservoir Dogs", are you really going to dig it any less if you don't know that the whole "Mr. Pink/Mr. Blue" thing is jacked from "The Taking of Pelham 123"? I doubt it. That shit's there for the amusement of those who get it, certainly, but it doesn't exclude those who don't.
This, along with what you mentioned about the Jungle Julia character text messaging that guy, were the two main things about Death Proof that threw me off. I completely agree with you on both counts. The text messaging thing was completely pointless. The transition to the second part of the movie (which somehow transitions from Texas to Tennessee with no warning) was very abrupt and confusing. They could have thrown in at least a "3 years later..." type of thing to help set it up.
I know, I know, I paid to see a Grindhouse movie and it's not supposed to have a fluent plot or any kind of meaningful dialogue. I get it. But still, some things could have been clarified better.
All in all, it was still a fun time. I would go see it again. They do need an intermission though.
This, along with what you mentioned about the Jungle Julia character text messaging that guy, were the two main things about Death Proof that threw me off. I completely agree with you on both counts. The text messaging thing was completely pointless. The transition to the second part of the movie (which somehow transitions from Texas to Tennessee with no warning) was very abrupt and confusing. They could have thrown in at least a "3 years later..." type of thing to help set it up.
I know, I know, I paid to see a Grindhouse movie and it's not supposed to have a fluent plot or any kind of meaningful dialogue. I get it. But still, some things could have been clarified better.
All in all, it was still a fun time. I would go see it again. They do need an intermission though.
The whole beginning of Death Proof had no point as far as I'm concerned. Compare it with the conversation with the second set of girls. They talk about how Zoe never gets hurt, how they're all movie people, how they want this car, etc. All of that plays out when they run into Kurt Russell.
What do the first set of girls talk about? The DJ girl always has to score the weed, she's a popular DJ, she wants to see this film director, these guys are scheming how to hook up with them, they play some cool music, QT gets his usual cameo appearance. The only part of the dialogue that I can remember that has anything to do with the next act is the lap dance part because that brings in Kurt Russell. Otherwise, NOTHING they talk about has any point IMO besides showing off the girls as eye candy.
If, as one person has argued, that it's suppose to contrast their everyday existence with their violent and unexpected death than it's a complete failure.
Seriously. If they had simply had shown the girls in the car, at night, talking for five minutes, listening to music and then had Kurt Russell slaughter them...it would have had the exact same effect - sympathy for the victims and the audience's enmity of Russell. There - 40 minutes just saved! Minus one nice scene of Poitier swanging to Smith's "Baby It's You."
Wish he was in both moviesGive me more Kurt Russell!?!?!!
I recently saw a graphic for 'Death Proof' that had Mickey Rourke top billed instead of Kurt Russell. Any fanboys (or girls) know the story? Was Mickey originally cast? It would make sense him being in either films given Mickey Rourke's name being synonomous with trashy flicks, but I never heard anything about him being considered for Russell's role.
Here it is, look vERY close, biggest one I could find-looks like the script cover
Wish he was in both moviesGive me more Kurt Russell!?!?!!
I recently saw a graphic for 'Death Proof' that had Mickey Rourke top billed instead of Kurt Russell. Any fanboys (or girls) know the story? Was Mickey originally cast? It would make sense him being in either films given Mickey Rourke's name being synonomous with trashy flicks, but I never heard anything about him being considered for Russell's role.
Here it is, look vERY close, biggest one I could find-looks like the script cover
Word is that Tarantino and Rourke had a falling out or Rourke no showed and Russell was a quick replacement.
Wish he was in both moviesGive me more Kurt Russell!?!?!!
I recently saw a graphic for 'Death Proof' that had Mickey Rourke top billed instead of Kurt Russell. Any fanboys (or girls) know the story? Was Mickey originally cast? It would make sense him being in either films given Mickey Rourke's name being synonomous with trashy flicks, but I never heard anything about him being considered for Russell's role.
Here it is, look vERY close, biggest one I could find-looks like the script cover
Word is that Tarantino and Rourke had a falling out or Rourke no showed and Russell was a quick replacement.
If that's the case, QT made a good decision. I am surprised that he didn't dial up his old pal Michael Madsen.
My only beef with the Stuntman character was that his dialogue sounded too much like David Carradine in Kill Bill. Still, the chicken-shit part was awesome.
I saw this last night.
SPOILER
My main beef is with Stuntman Mike's sudden change of heart. After he was chasing Rosario and Co., damn near killing them a few times, he stops his car, gets out and was like "Wasn't that fun?" Then, they shoot his ass. Wasn't this dude a homicidal maniac just like two seconds ago? After that he was just a cowering little bitch. Completely flipping a character that isn't really all that developed in the first place is just lazy filmmaking.
SPOILER
My main beef is with Stuntman Mike's sudden change of heart. After he was chasing Rosario and Co., damn near killing them a few times, he stops his car, gets out and was like "Wasn't that fun?" Then, they shoot his ass. Wasn't this dude a homicidal maniac just like two seconds ago? After that he was just a cowering little bitch. Completely flipping a character that isn't really all that developed in the first place is just lazy filmmaking.
I think that given more time, and not having gotten shot, he would have continued to fuck with them and killed them. Him saying "wasn't that fun" was just part of his fucked up schtick. But then they flipped things around on him and he freaked out. He lost control of his set up situation and that is why his character did the quick 180. I think that was the point. Earlier he calculates and plans how to kill the girls. Then with this set of girls he watches them and plans on doing the same. He didn't expect them to be tougher than him.
Does anyone notice if Kurt Russel has a scar in the second half of the movie? I'm trying to figure out if the timeline of the movie was flipped.
This would mean that the Rosario crew did this to him, and he decided to make a "Death Proof" car and attack a similar group of girls... Anybody?
This would mean that the Rosario crew did this to him, and he decided to make a "Death Proof" car and attack a similar group of girls... Anybody?
Similar threads
