Deathproof - spoilers

madrab

Has anyone scene Deathproof?

Saw it at the weekend &...wow what was tarantino thinking?

it takes feckin ages for anything to happen, 1 hour of crap dialogue (sorry tarantino fans but i just cant take anymor of his self indulgent ****) then a nice car crash, then another hour of talk followed up by a long car chase (ok that scene was good, the stunt work was amazing looking)

what did yous think?

User45701

I saw it months ago and couldent stop laughing especially at the end, one of the funniest endings to anything, i dont know why you didnt like the movie, there have been reviews and stuff for months, you should watch trailers and also talk to people before watching a movie

It was a good movie, much better than planet terror

mjsmyth

I saw it Friday night and really enjoyed it and as the previous poster said, the ending, what an ending

mj

koneko

Yeah, I enjoyed it too, but I can see how someone would really dislike it if they don't like the typical Tarantino dialogue.

Basq

I enjoyed it anyways.. and i'm a huge Tarantino fan.

The dialogue wasn't typical Tarantino but the car scenes were fantastic and the ending was oddly enjoyable.

My girlfriend even enjoyed it and she's not that much of a Tarantino nut. It was very different and original in a lot of ways, but i enjoyed it.

And Kurt Russell is still THE MAN!

humanji

basquille wrote:

And Kurt Russell is still THE MAN!

Amen brother!!!

As I said in another thread, I thought the film was a load of rubbish. But it was meant to be a load of rubbish, and knowing that made it a lot of fun to watch.

I actually felt that the first half, excluding the end of it, would of been a great film on it's own if it was stretched out and some more plot added. Some of the conversations were brilliant, especially Kurt Russells character talking about the films he had done

S.M.B.

humanji wrote:

As I said in another thread, I thought the film was a load of rubbish. But it was meant to be a load of rubbish, and knowing that made it a lot of fun to watch.

... that statement is a load of rubbish!

CiDeRmAn

I quite liked Planet Terror.


I really can't wait for the full version of MACHETE!
THEY PICKED THE WRONG MEXICAN TO **** WITH!

RAUL DUKE

absolutely loved death proof!

monkey tennis

Just watched it tonight, thought it was a load of bollocks (and I'm a Tarantino fan). Pulp fiction and Reservoir Dogs had snappy dialogue. Death Proof had a load of birds waffling about sh1te for half an hour (and then suddenly some completely out-of-place crazy stuff). Movie doesn't deliver.

User45701

It was supposed to be unconventional, if someone asks me to describe it i would say it is a "unconventional comedy " and it was avery funny

Roar

i quite enjoyed it.

may i ask, what exactly were people expecting from a movie that's been called a b movie from its inception?

Dont be at yourself

may i ask, what exactly were people expecting from a movie that's been called a b movie from its inception?

Well, really, this is the whole issue. By the pre-release hype machine and the trailers and so on, the audience were led to expect a balls-out slightly-cheesey old-fashioned horror film. Instead, they got what amounts to little more than an episode of Desperate Housewives with some car chases.

Deathproof is a million miles away from being a b-movie.

monkey tennis

Roar wrote:

may i ask, what exactly were people expecting from a movie that's been called a b movie from its inception?

I was hoping for a Tarantino flick.

Fysh

monkey tennis wrote:

I was hoping for a Tarantino flick.

Screw that, a decent film was all I wanted, whether or not it was a typical Tarantino-style film or not. Deathproof was a let-down as far as I'm concerned - it seemed too concerned with Kurt Russell hamming it up and having the same colour scheme as the films it was allegedly trying to emulate, and forgot to be interesting along the way. For this kind of film to spend most of an hour introducing characters and then kill them off, then spend another half hour introducing a second, even less likeable set of characters, before finally getting on with an extended action scene that actually builds some tension, is just ridiculous - if it's a tribute to grindhouse films it should be about gratuitous entertainment, since that's what the genre's known for. On top of that, it tacked on one of the stupidest endings I've ever seen.

It's not just that this film is poor, it's the fact that it was developed in tandem with Planet Terror - a film which managed to do the whole B-movie homage in a much better way.

Edited to finish my sentences properly

JPA

I saw it and it was very meh.
A tribute to films that were rubbish in the first place.

Jello

Big Tarantino fan but didn't enjoy this as much as most of his other stuff.

As it's been said the dialogue wasn't Tarantino's usual, I found it a drag in places - 'the girls' becoming quite irritating at times.

Great car chaces though and Stuntman Mike easily the star of the show! Pity he didn't get more screen time. The last 20 mins or so were fantastically well done.

A generous 7/10 from me.

Driver 8

I think as long as you lower your expectation, ie not expecting another Pulp Fiction or Jackie Brown, and are willingly to indulge the level of **** shooting between the characters (including another Tarantino cameo :rolleyes: ), this is a solid, watchable movie, even if the ending is just...awful

6/10

Gonzo

I absolutely hated this movie, apart from the crash in the middle in the last 15 minutes of the movie, this was a truly boring film.

Dont be at yourself

Mark Kermode reviews it in his latest podcast and makes an excellent point: everybody in the movie talks and acts like Quentin Tarantino.

Running Bing

JPA wrote:

I saw it and it was very meh.
A tribute to films that were rubbish in the first place.

Very true. Lets face it QT is hugely sentimental when it comes back to looking at old grindhouse films....I know this because I am the same way(I didnt live through it but they just have a nostalgic crappy charm for me).


Truth is the majority of film goers think they are ****e and rightly so. QT has almost perfectly recreated and captured the atmosphere of these old movies and for someone who is a fan of them it is bloody brilliant. But aside from the excellent action scenes(havent seen action like that in ages. It is the realest, Purest, coolest action scene in years) there really is not much here for the general movie going population to enjoy.


Only thing that amazes me is that they were surprised it was a flop.



Still though no matter what you think of the film QT should be applauded for what he achieved (it is no easy task and I dont believe there is a filmmaker alive today who could have done it as well...although I have not seen planet terror yet:) ) and for thinking outside the box and refusing to go down the conventional route of another crime flick. He constantly forces us to reappraise our view of what cinema is.

Fysh

Babybing wrote:

Still though no matter what you think of the film QT should be applauded for what he achieved (it is no easy task and I dont believe there is a filmmaker alive today who could have done it as well...although I have not seen planet terror yet:) ) and for thinking outside the box and refusing to go down the conventional route of another crime flick. He constantly forces us to reappraise our view of what cinema is.

This is what I don't get. Why should he be applauded for this film? The action sequences are fantastic, but they're barely 20 minutes of its running time. The rest of the film is dull to watch and doesn't even have the sparkling dialogue that could normally be expected of a Tarantino film. And, frankly, if anyone else produced this piece of dreck and expected its audience to sit there and take it seriously they'd be laughed out of town. Magically, because it's Tarantino, it's ok. Reappraise my view of cinema, my ass. The only thing I reappraised after watching this film was my opinion of where Tarantino's head is located relative to the rest of his body.

slave1

just did nothing for me, very poor

Savman

Strangest film I've seen since.....well the last Tarantino film.
He makes films noone else will make and gets them into mainstream cinema, have to give him credit for that.
Run of the mill he is not.

Cactus Col

Babybing wrote:

Truth is the majority of film goers think they are ****e and rightly so. QT has almost perfectly recreated and captured the atmosphere of these old movies and for someone who is a fan of them it is bloody brilliant. But aside from the excellent action scenes(havent seen action like that in ages. It is the realest, Purest, coolest action scene in years) there really is not much here for the general movie going population to enjoy.

The action scenes were pretty damn good.

But as far as grindhouse films go, I'd have to say that death proof was pretty far removed from it. The film was full of Tarantino stock dialogue and characters. The first half was almost painful to watch it was so full of typical tarantino schtick. The oh so cool, oh so badass, but still slightly nerdy dialogue grates when it comes from every character. The only dialogue missing from the first half was somebody telling somebody else why morbius was the better silver surfer artist.

The only scene in the first half worthy of being thought of as anywhere near a grindhouse film is the hospital scene, with the sheriff and son talking.

The second half was an improvement, but only because there was more action. Although, the samuel l jackson character bored me. The action sequence was fairly grindhouse though, and was very enjoyable.

I would like to have seen this film with the two reels missing, I think the film would've been greatly improved.

Roar

Cactus Col wrote:

T
BAlthough, the samuel l jackson character bored me.

was he in it???

Fysh

Cactus Col wrote:

I would like to have seen this film with the two reels missing, I think the film would've been greatly improved.

It ain't the same as a cinema viewing I know, but if you were to procure yourself a copy of the original Grindhouse cinema release that was in theatres in the US, you can see the shorter version. It's marginally improved in this form, by virtue of being shorter, but still suffers the same flaws as the full-length version.

In fact, something else you'll notice if you do watch the double feature version is how far off the mark Tarantino's "grindhouse" film is when compared to Planet Terror, which hits the bullseye. Plus you'll get those fantastic trailers

monkey tennis

Roar wrote:

was he in it???

He means the extra-black black girl.

Driver 8

Listen to Mark Kermode's review, he tore it apart, and Tarantino in general as well.

There is very much a case of Emperor's New Clothes with Tarantino at this point to be fair. By my count, he hasn't made a movie that was anything special in a decade.

Running Bing

Driver 8 wrote:

Listen to Mark Kermode's review, he tore it apart, and Tarantino in general as well.

There is very much a case of Emperor's New Clothes with Tarantino at this point to be fair. By my count, he hasn't made a movie that was anything special in a decade.

A lot of film makers go there whole career without making anything special.

Fact of the matter is Reservoir dogs is one of the greatest debut films from any film maker ever, Pulp Fiction is a masterpiece, Jackie Brown is far superior to the huge majority of films made today(It only gets a hard time because PF and RD were so good, it is seriously underrated).

Kill Bill and Death Proof are far from everybodies cup of tea but at least he tried something different, which given the amount of generic trash in cinemas today, is to be commended in itself.

Driver 8

He dredged up his film geek favourites, made films that were actually inferior to that inspiration (which is saying something) and for this we should applaud him?

Yes, most film-makers go entire careers without making films like Pulp Fiction, but they don't get the fanboy worship Tarantino does. I'd like him to make at least a decent film, I don't expect another Pulp Fiction or Jackie Brown, but he's not even delivering that.

And the excuses! People don't understand it! He's trying something new? It's too clever/long/knowing/offbeat. Maybe, just maybe, it's the quality that's the problem. I know i said it was decent, but i watched it recently when a friend dragged me along again, and...i was generous.

Magic Eight Ball

Babybing wrote:

Fact of the matter is Reservoir dogs is one of the greatest debut films from any film maker ever.

I’d call your comment ridiculous if it wasn’t so funny!

Reservoir Dogs is nothing more then a blatant exercise in how to plagiarise the **** out of lesser known movies and get away with it.

Take a trip down to your local video library and rent ‘City on Fire’ it’s an 80’s Hong Kong movie that Tarantino stole heavily from for Reservoir Dogs! Disgusting!

Tarantino is, and always has been, a one trick pony!
He doesn’t make movies, he cuts and pastes from other great and little known movies.

Decuc500

The only similarity between City On Fire and Reservoir Dogs as far as I can remember is the Mexican standoff at the end. Stylistically the films are so far apart it's a joke to compare them.

It's true though, Tarantino 'borrows' from other movies all the time. But he's always able to make his movies unique and add something fresh to make them stand out.

Running Bing

Trevor Coulahan wrote:

I’d call your comment ridiculous if it wasn’t so funny!

Reservoir Dogs is nothing more then a blatant exercise in how to plagiarise the **** out of lesser known movies and get away with it.

Take a trip down to your local video library and rent ‘City on Fire’ it’s an 80’s Hong Kong movie that Tarantino stole heavily from for Reservoir Dogs! Disgusting!

Tarantino is, and always has been, a one trick pony!
He doesn’t make movies, he cuts and pastes from other great and little known movies.

Believe it or not I have actually seen city on fire Trevor.:rolleyes:

Have you seen it yourself? The reason why I ask is because it is clear to anyone who has seen both(including the maker of "who do you think your fooling) that they are completely different films.


The debate was never about RD being a rip off of city on fire it was about QT refusal to acknowledge it as an influence. Almost every great filmmakers work is heavily influenced by other films.

This circumstances do not take away from the film at all only Quentin Tarantino's character.



As for my statement being ridiculous, name 10 better film debuts than RD. The impact that had on filmmaking at the time of its release was immense. It made the whole industry wake up and take notice.


I fear your dislike for QT may be clouding your judgement of the film. Go back, have another look and forget QT made it and you might like it a bit more.

Roar

monkey tennis wrote:

He means the extra-black black girl.

oh right.. ha ha, for a sec i thought sam had played one of the chicks.. as chris griffin would say "He's in everything!! "

Vic Vinegar

User45701 wrote:

It was a good movie, much better than planet terror

Yeah right. Death Proof is the biggest pile of sh1t i've ever seen. Tarantino is an annoying fcuktard living on past glories (all two of them) Planet Terror however was a splendid gore-fest, never a dull moment, witty, tense and better than Quentins crap in every possible way.