FacebookTwitter
Hatrack River Forum Post New Topic  Post A Reply
my profile login | register | search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» Hatrack River Forum » Active Forums » Books, Films, Food and Culture » Grindhouse

   
Author Topic: Grindhouse
TL
Member
Member # 8124

 - posted      Profile for TL   Email TL         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I must be out of touch with something. My inner film-buff must be out of alignment with my inner ... something.

Because every review I read of this thing makes it sound like this fun, hip, roller-coaster ride of a movie that has to be experienced to be believed.

And it sucks. The movie -- well, both movies -- are horrible.

Robert Rodriguez's "Planet Terror" is completely unredeemable. What's good about it? What am I not understanding when I watch these movies that everyone else is understanding? Will this the reverse of '300' -- reviewers love it but the viewers think it stinks? Or will everyone love it... Everyone but me... And if so: Why. Seriously, why? What on earth.... I know it's campy on purpose. I know it's over-the-top on purpose. But campy doesn't make it good. There's campy-kitschy-good, and then there's this piece of crap.

Quentin Tarantino's "Death Proof" is also fairly awful. Though... I was into it at first. I was thrilled for the first 30 minutes. For the first 30 minutes, I was thinking, "I knew Tarantino wouldn't let me down. 'Grindhouse' is saved. Not even the lameness of Rodriguez and a thousand bad ideas can kill the creative spirit of Tarantino. Hurray."

But then... It started to suck. And I started to think "Maybe... Maybe it'll get better..."

But it didn't.

Stupid movies. With all their... disappointingness.

Posts: 2267 | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Icarus
Member
Member # 3162

 - posted      Profile for Icarus   Email Icarus         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I have no interest in seeing it. The very premise seems to be that it celebrates sucky movies and a forgotten trend that it best left in obscurity.

So yeah, I was pretty stunned to see that Ebert and Roeper gave it two thumbs up.

Has everything by Tarantino gotten excellent reviews? Seems like it has. Maybe he's just the darling of the critics.

Posts: 13679 | Registered: Mar 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TL
Member
Member # 8124

 - posted      Profile for TL   Email TL         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Well, most of his films (I think) are terrific.
Posts: 2267 | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
The Flying Dracula Hair
Member
Member # 10155

 - posted      Profile for The Flying Dracula Hair   Email The Flying Dracula Hair         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Fantastic, Grindhouse completely met my expectations, though maybe because I didn't know what to expect with Death Proof.

People bled, thing blew up, it all looked TOE TALLY AWESOME. All the 'titilating' sexy stuff is not so much for me, but it comes with the territory, and it was kicks in its own way.

Planet Terror is all the fun I look for in classic schlock minus all the things I felt were like an endurance test (at one point the movie purposely skipped all the "plot advancement" via "Missing Footage"). I could not have been more tickled by all the gun-leg action, it was completely my favorite thing.

It's action for action's sake - it knows what it is and doesn't try to be to be anything else, instead focusing on perfecting what people are going to see it for, namely all its violence and camp. I thought it was very smart in the way it chose to be dumb.

It's not crap if what it's trying to do it's doing for viewers like me; there's understanding why it's doing what it's doing, and then there's it really clicking. Otherwise, yeah, there's no reason for you to like it or for me to defend it. Planet Terror was ridiculous.

Death Proof was almost pretty boring at some points, though it's something I think I should have seen at least once. Car stuff just really isn't for me, but there was some great stuff - I loved how it ended. I probably won't be staying for it if I see Grindhouse a few more times.


Edited for more praise

"That boy... he has the devil in him!"

Ha ha ha

[ April 07, 2007, 03:27 AM: Message edited by: The Flying Dracula Hair ]

Posts: 299 | Registered: Jan 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
the_Somalian
Member
Member # 6688

 - posted      Profile for the_Somalian   Email the_Somalian         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
But TL, it's supposed to be bad. Don't you get it? It's a homage to older bad movies! BLah blah blah blah blah! (God I hate the recent Tarantino productions.)
Posts: 722 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
pH
Member
Member # 1350

 - posted      Profile for pH           Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I have to say, I don't understand Tarantino. I really don't. Aside from Kill Bill, I don't think I've liked any of his movies.

...but I'm really looking forward to Grindhouse.

-pH

Posts: 9057 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Rakeesh
Member
Member # 2001

 - posted      Profile for Rakeesh   Email Rakeesh         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I really, really enjoyed it [Smile] Almost certainly because I went in not taking it seriously.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Scott R
Member
Member # 567

 - posted      Profile for Scott R   Email Scott R         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
If I want beautiful action for action's sake, I go see a kung-fu movie.

Tarrantino comes off as action pornography to me.

YMMV.

Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Amanecer
Member
Member # 4068

 - posted      Profile for Amanecer   Email Amanecer         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I hate Tarantino movies. Kill Bill was tolerable, but all of the others made me feel like I'd just wasted hours of my life. Everybody says his dialogue is fantastic, but I just don't see it. A royal with cheese? Why in the world is that funny or impressive?
Posts: 1947 | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
BlueWizard
Member
Member # 9389

 - posted      Profile for BlueWizard   Email BlueWizard         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Maybe we should look at what 'Grind House' is as a concept. Grind houses are movie production houses that grind out bad 'B' movie after bad 'B' movie for the 8 to 14 year old Saturday matinée crowd.

Essentially, 'Grind House' movies are 'babysitters'. Send your kids to the movies and get an afternoon off. You don't need much plot because the kids aren't bothering to follow the plot. You just need implied sexiness and lots of action.

This a a homage to bad 'B' grade movies; not to bad movies, not to 'B' grade movies, but to assembly line poorly written poorly acted poorly directed poorly produced BAD 'B' grade movies. That is a genre unto itself.

But you can make GOOD bad 'B' movies and you can make BAD bad 'B' movies. Tarantino is trying to make GOOD bad 'B' movies and that is not an easy task.

For what it's worth.

Steve/BlueWizard

Posts: 803 | Registered: May 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
The Flying Dracula Hair
Member
Member # 10155

 - posted      Profile for The Flying Dracula Hair   Email The Flying Dracula Hair         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Scott R:
[qb] If I want beautiful action for action's sake, I go see a kung-fu movie.

Yeah, not sure how much I'm looking into semantics here, but if I wanted to see something beautiful I'd watch something beautiful - maybe even something with a real story, like Hero. Planet Terror is large sloppy kicks. I think SteveBlue's description of a Good Bad "B" Movie hit the nail on the head.
Also, I'm not exactly You. Go and see a kung-fu movie, rock on my man.

quote:
Tarrantino comes off as action pornography to me.
Sure. I think Rodriguez's half of Grindhouse was more like that though.
Posts: 299 | Registered: Jan 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Jutsa Notha Name
Member
Member # 4485

 - posted      Profile for Jutsa Notha Name   Email Jutsa Notha Name         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Scott R:
If I want beautiful action for action's sake, I go see a kung-fu movie.

Tarrantino comes off as action pornography to me.

YMMV.

I agree completely. I think Kill Bill would have been a much better movie without some of the gratuitous language and unnecessary crudeness. I am reserving judgment on this one until I see it, but parts of it look promising.
Posts: 1170 | Registered: Jan 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
The Flying Dracula Hair
Member
Member # 10155

 - posted      Profile for The Flying Dracula Hair   Email The Flying Dracula Hair         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
If Kill Bill bugged you, I don't recommend spending the money to sit through Grindhouse. I'd wait for some sort of DVD release you could borrow so you could just see Death Proof.
Posts: 299 | Registered: Jan 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
SteveRogers
Member
Member # 7130

 - posted      Profile for SteveRogers           Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
There was a preview for this before 300. And I was/still am interested only in Death Proof. Whatever, I don't want to see it that much at all.
Posts: 6026 | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
DevilDreamt
Member
Member # 10242

 - posted      Profile for DevilDreamt   Email DevilDreamt         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
This is beside the point, but I recently wrote an (8 page) argumentative paper with the main claim essentially being, "Weapons should be used for artificial limbs, on the account that it's pretty hot." I haven't watched Grindhouse yet, but I totally used the girl in the preview with the gun for a leg as evidence to support my claim.

The paper is written in an incredibly serious fashion, so I'm not sure how my prof will take it. I guess we'll see.

Posts: 247 | Registered: Feb 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
KarlEd
Member
Member # 571

 - posted      Profile for KarlEd   Email KarlEd         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I really enjoyed both movies, as well as the mock "pre-views" of presumably fake films from other directors that tarantino included before and between the features.

The thing with Tarantino, for me, is the dialog. It's almost always spot-on, funny, and interesting even when it's talking about nothing. Plot exposition seems to be the last thing on the character's minds.

Planet Terror was over-the-top gory, but that was sort of the point, as was the sex and violence, all elements of 70's exploitation cinema. It's really funny, but in a very specific and ethereal way. It doesn't survive explication.

Death Proof was also pretty good. The parts that TFDH found boring were likely my favorite parts. There were long single take scenes completely composed of dialog that had nothing to do with plot, but did often have payoff later in the film. But even the parts that didn't were thoroughly enjoyable in their own right. Death Proof is definitely a movie in two acts. The first act seemed to go a little too far, I thought, until I saw the second act. I thought the second act was perfect, and I'm pretty sure it wouldn't have been if it weren't for it's relationship to the first act.

Anyway, I'm not trying to convince anyone who hated Grindhouse. I'm just presenting my own view of it. I loved it and will highly recommend it to a select group of my friends, while simultaneously warning others of my friends away from it.

Posts: 6392 | Registered: Dec 1999  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
David Bowles
Member
Member # 1021

 - posted      Profile for David Bowles   Email David Bowles         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I dug it. The problem is that Rodriguez and Tarantino should not be allowed to have their movies shown within half an hour of one another... because Rodriguez, despite his skill with a camera, is —as a storyteller— all about gimmicks. Tarantino, on the other hand, is all about characters, which is why I love his films.
Posts: 5663 | Registered: Jun 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Strider
Member
Member # 1807

 - posted      Profile for Strider   Email Strider         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I'm seeing it tonight!

I'm a big Tarantino supporter. His script for True Romance was superb. And Reservoir Dogs and Pulp Fiction are classics in my book. The Kill Bills were awesome too, though I really wish he had released "The Whole Bloody Affair" like i remember reading about, I think that would've solved a lot of my problems with them.

And Rodriguez, between the El Mariachi movies and Sin City, is also masterful.

I'm coming into Grindhouse expecting lots of cheesyness and action from two directors who are awesome. I doubt I'll be dissapointed. What I'm not expecting is a mind blowing life altering cinematic masterpiece.

Posts: 8741 | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Euripides
Member
Member # 9315

 - posted      Profile for Euripides   Email Euripides         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I haven't enjoyed a single Tarantino movie I've seen. I don't mind the violence. I just want to be able to care who's head is being blown or hacked off. And the all-pervasive... um, what's the word?... cheesiness.
Posts: 1762 | Registered: Apr 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
KarlEd
Member
Member # 571

 - posted      Profile for KarlEd   Email KarlEd         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by David Bowles:
I dug it. The problem is that Rodriguez and Tarantino should not be allowed to have their movies shown within half an hour of one another... because Rodriguez, despite his skill with a camera, is —as a storyteller— all about gimmicks. Tarantino, on the other hand, is all about characters, which is why I love his films.

I see your point, but the juxtaposition is part of the fun of Grindhouse. IMO, of course.
Posts: 6392 | Registered: Dec 1999  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Tresopax
Member
Member # 1063

 - posted      Profile for Tresopax           Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Grindhouse is not worth the 3+ hours it is worth to watch. Planet Terror is amusing just because it is so over-the-top and ridiculous, but that's pretty much its entire value as a film. The characters, plot, special effects, action, etc. were all nothing special. And Death Proof is just plain boring - filled with excruciatingly long bits of dialogue that have minimal value. Death Proof would be a better film if the dialogue were cut and only the final 15-minute chase scene was shown. All in all, the best part was definitely the fake trailers shown before and between the films. Nicholas Cage should get a Best Supporting Actor nod!

I think the reviews for Grindhouse illustrate how out of touch critics are with modern film audiences, especially when you compare it to how critics panned 300. I'm not surprised the latter was a smash hit while the former didn't even become the #1 film of the weekend. There is a reason why movies like these aren't made anymore - most modern film audiences expect something more polished and sophisticated, even if not always more meaningful.

Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Euripides
Member
Member # 9315

 - posted      Profile for Euripides   Email Euripides         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
You guys are always watching the movies just as their trailers are showing up in the cinemas over here. This sucks.
Posts: 1762 | Registered: Apr 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TL
Member
Member # 8124

 - posted      Profile for TL   Email TL         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I agree with you, Tresopax.

You know, I did enjoy *some* of the trailers. Especially "Don't."

DON'T go into that house. DON'T turn around. DON'T open that door. DON'T. DON'T! DON'T! DON'T!

That was actually completely awesome.

Posts: 2267 | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
David Bowles
Member
Member # 1021

 - posted      Profile for David Bowles   Email David Bowles         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I'm actually chatting with Robert Rodriguez's cousin right now, and he says RR is pretty bummed at the low turn-out, but feels confident that DVD sales will fix things...
Posts: 5663 | Registered: Jun 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
The Pixiest
Member
Member # 1863

 - posted      Profile for The Pixiest   Email The Pixiest         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
My hubby loved it. I thought it was dull but had its moments.

Planet Terror was just what I expected. But hey, at least it had zombies, right? Zombies are neato.

Deathproof was surprisingly dull, though the ending was very satisfying.

Posts: 7085 | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
pH
Member
Member # 1350

 - posted      Profile for pH           Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
So far from what I'm reading...I'm gonna love Planet Terror and hate Death Proof. 'cause yeah, Tarantino's long stretches of dialogue seem so pointless to me most of the time. Ugh.

-pH

Posts: 9057 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
GForce
Member
Member # 9584

 - posted      Profile for GForce   Email GForce         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Grindhouse confirmed my suspicions that Rose McGowan doesn't have much talent as an actor. However, her lack of talent turned out to be perfect for her roles in this movie. I loved her in it, and I loved the movie as a whole. Somebody posted that Death Proof had too much dialogue. I think that Tarantino's dialogue is what sets him above other writer/directors. You can always be sure you're going to get something original and fantastic with Tarantino. Ditto with Rodriguez, minus the fantastic part. Don't get me wrong, some of his stuff is fantastic, but not all of it (Once Upon a Time in Mexico is not one of my favorites).
Posts: 127 | Registered: Jul 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
the_Somalian
Member
Member # 6688

 - posted      Profile for the_Somalian   Email the_Somalian         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
They messed with the wrong Mexican.
Posts: 722 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
The Flying Dracula Hair
Member
Member # 10155

 - posted      Profile for The Flying Dracula Hair   Email The Flying Dracula Hair         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by the_Somalian:
They messed with the wrong Mexican.

So word on the street is that there's going to be a Machete movie made straight to DVD.
Posts: 299 | Registered: Jan 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
David Bowles
Member
Member # 1021

 - posted      Profile for David Bowles   Email David Bowles         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Heh, I can confirm that this is more than just a random rumor...
Posts: 5663 | Registered: Jun 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Tresopax
Member
Member # 1063

 - posted      Profile for Tresopax           Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
I think that Tarantino's dialogue is what sets him above other writer/directors. You can always be sure you're going to get something original and fantastic with Tarantino.
I didn't get something fantastic in Death Proof. The dialog was just boring - like you might get if you were just filming some random people having a conversation, about nothing of much importance or interest. It seemed out of place in a B action movie.
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
GForce
Member
Member # 9584

 - posted      Profile for GForce   Email GForce         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
The dialog was just boring - like you might get if you were just filming some random people having a conversation, about nothing of much importance or interest.
That's kind of the point. Tarantino's dialogue feels real, which, by the way, I find endlessly fascinating, rather than boring. But hey, if you don't like it, you don't like it. I hate fake sounding dialogue, you love escapist cinema.
Posts: 127 | Registered: Jul 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
KarlEd
Member
Member # 571

 - posted      Profile for KarlEd   Email KarlEd         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I'm with ya, GForce, on the dialog. I love Tarantino's dialog. Well, and Roberto Rodrigues's dialog was pretty good too, all thiungs considered.
Posts: 6392 | Registered: Dec 1999  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Tresopax
Member
Member # 1063

 - posted      Profile for Tresopax           Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Tarantino's dialogue feels real, which, by the way, I find endlessly fascinating, rather than boring. But hey, if you don't like it, you don't like it. I hate fake sounding dialogue, you love escapist cinema.
What do you mean by "escapist cinema"? And how would you know whether or not I like it? Would you classify Grindhouse as escapist? (In accordance with traditional B movie style, it certainly wasn't realistic!)

What I do like is when movies have dialogue that serves some purpose, and doesn't just fill screen time. You can be realistic without being boring. When real people talk about interesting or relevant things, they are interesting and realistic. But in Death Proof the characters aren't chatting about anything relevant to the movie or the audience for the most part. Realistic doesn't automatically equal interesting. For the most part, they aren't revealing much about their character through their dialogue, they aren't communicating much information to us that we will need to know in future scenes, and they aren't touching on things we can relate to our own lives. Some parts seem orchestrated to give us information on how the stunt industry used to work, but (although I'm sure Tarrantino would love us to be interested) I doubt most of the audience was really interested in that. I'd be more forgiving if the movie as a whole wasn't over three hours long. But if they want to take up that much of my time, they should either be filling the time with important dialogue of some sort, or they should just cut to the chase (literally in this case.)

Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
GForce
Member
Member # 9584

 - posted      Profile for GForce   Email GForce         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Escapist cinema was a bad choice of wording. Grindhouse was pretty escapist. I don't really know where I was going with that.

Anyway, I do believe that Tarantino's dialogue serves a purpose, and you hit on it and dismissed it. I think it says a lot about his characters. Tarantino doesn't really write for plot. He writes for characters. His characters are always in outrageous situations, but they are still unique creations, rather than cardboard cutouts, and dialogue is the most important part of creating a unique character.

I enjoy movies that do things for the simple aesthetic pleasure of them, rather than because they "advance the plot". Plot is, of course, important, but it's not the only thing that's important to a movie. Underworld had a lot of plot, but it still sucked. In Death Proof, one of the characters mentions "Zatoichi". This is a Japanese character. He's a blind samurai swordsman. Zatoichi is an excellent example of a movie that does things completely unrelated to the plot, yet is incredibly better for it. There is a huge tap dance number at the end of it. Why are 19th century Japanese tap dancing? It doesn't matter, I loved it, I watched that scene over and over again. The idiosyncratic side notes are what makes movies like that great, and obviously Tarantino agrees with me.

From what you are saying, Tresopax, I recommend that you stay away from "Zatoichi" and all other films by Takeshi Kitano. While they are worth every minute of useless dialogue to me, it appears that they would be an enormous waste of time to you.

Posts: 127 | Registered: Jul 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TL
Member
Member # 8124

 - posted      Profile for TL   Email TL         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I think this needs to be steered away from the idea that those of us who disliked Grindhouse -- specifically "Death Proof" only disliked it because it had too much dialogue.

That's kind of a cheap defense. I understand if you liked the film and cared about it but don't try to make it seem as if it is only our failure to understand that makes us dislike it.

I sort of think the opposite is true, but I'm not going to have that conversation.

Posts: 2267 | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
GForce
Member
Member # 9584

 - posted      Profile for GForce   Email GForce         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
What sort of movies do you like, TL?
Posts: 127 | Registered: Jul 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Tresopax
Member
Member # 1063

 - posted      Profile for Tresopax           Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Tarantino doesn't really write for plot. He writes for characters. His characters are always in outrageous situations, but they are still unique creations, rather than cardboard cutouts, and dialogue is the most important part of creating a unique character.
The problem with this is that the characters in Death Proof were, for the most part, cardboard cutouts. They are just like the characters in any other average B horror movie. The initial group of girls were stereotypical victims. The second group fit virtually the same stereotype, until the very end when they curiously change their attitude - at which point it is a little bit late for the audience to get interested in them. That is a large part of why their dialogue was boring - why should I care about these characters enough to want to listen to them chatting about their daily lives?

Strong characters can justify lengthy dialogue without plot development. However, weak characters and little plot development tend to make lengthy dialogue really boring.

Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
pH
Member
Member # 1350

 - posted      Profile for pH           Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Here's the thing: a lot of dialogue doesn't mean a lot of GOOD dialogue. Pulp Fiction can't hold my attention worth beans.

And considering that I have to actively force myself to listen to people during real daily conversations in which I'm participating, a movie with a bunch of daily, everyday dialogue isn't going to cut it. If the characters are talking about something I find interesting, fantastic. If not....well, then you get Pulp Fiction.

I also hate Clerks. *ducks*

-pH

Posts: 9057 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TL
Member
Member # 8124

 - posted      Profile for TL   Email TL         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
That's a different question -- and for me, it's pretty much impossible to answer that in any kind of succinct way. I like all sorts of movies. I'm a fellow who loves movies. Grindhouse just bored me unbelievably. I wanted to like it. I went in expecting to like it. I just thought it sucked.

I liked the first half of "Death Proof" quite a bit, and specifically for some of the reasons you talked about. Tarantino letting the camera linger on plotless points, the three-dimensionality of it. I was interested in the characters. Their conversations were fun to listen to. ("Is your name Butterfly?" "Yes it is. And it seems you have me at a disadvantage." "I'm Barry.")

Where QT went wrong, (in my view) is that the focus during the second half of the film is on characters who are one-dimensional. They represent something bigger than themselves, which is the innate power of women. It becomes a problem because they cease to exist in an interesting way in and of themselves; they seem to serve no purpose, as characters, other than to represent this power. They seem to have no inner lives. They're just the avenging angels. And they look and act very masculine; the one really feminine character in the group is powerless and stupid.

Once you realize what Tarantino is doing with these characters (the girl power thing), it becomes very boring to watch them.

He's counting on two things to carry this off. First, he's counting on the fact that we want to see Stuntman Mike punished for what he did to the girls in the first half of the movie. (For the record, I did; I really liked those girls.)

The other reason we're supposed to be interested in this second section of the film is because he plays a suspense game with his dialogue. Two of the characters talk about doing something (I forget what it was called) and the other characters, and the audience, don't know what this thing is. So in order to buy into the story you have to be intrigued by this notion. You have to want to find out what they're planning.

The entire second half of "Death Proof" hinges on those two concepts.

And it didn't work for me, at all, and the reason is because the characters were not interesting.

Posts: 2267 | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
GForce
Member
Member # 9584

 - posted      Profile for GForce   Email GForce         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I still disagree with you, but short of writing a thesis paper on why Tarantino's characters are more complex than most characters in film today, I don't know how to communicate this, so I guess I'll stop trying.
Posts: 127 | Registered: Jul 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TL
Member
Member # 8124

 - posted      Profile for TL   Email TL         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Usually Tarantino's characters are complex. "Death Proof" is the exception. Hence my disappointment.
Posts: 2267 | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
   

Quick Reply
Message:

HTML is not enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.
UBB Code™ Images not permitted.
Instant Graemlins
   


Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


Contact Us | Hatrack River Home Page

Copyright © 2008 Hatrack River Enterprises Inc. All rights reserved.
Reproduction in whole or in part without permission is prohibited.


Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.2