DVD Review Death Proof Extended DVD Review (1 Viewer)

[Xenia Stathakopoulou]

I love the thanksgiving trailer too ! I would also like to see this made into a movie, in some parts the trailer reminds me of friday the 13th part 3 !!!!!!

 

[AaronMan]

Tony, you said, "I dont know I just didnt get it." And judging what you said in your post, it sounds like you didn't get it.

 

[Doug Schiller]

Man, I just love sticking to my guns. I didn't buy the separate Kill Bills and I didn't buy this either.
Why are both movies $8 at my theater but at home I have to spend $40?
Rented last night and I echo Ron's comments.
The best way to watch this movie is to press stop after the father son police conversation at the hospital (Austin sequence).
It is like 2 different movies. One had me on the edge of my seat wondering what was going to happen next, the other was a lesson in boredom. When you want the characters to die that the director expects you to root for, you are in trouble.
Also...
I don't understand why you build up this ultra cool serial killer in the first half, then completely emascilate him in the second. It would be like watching Cape Fear and having DeNiro crying for his life like a school girl. It was like Tarantino saying... the guy really is a puss. How can I watch it a second time?

And the big action scene in the 2nd half...
If QT was trying to get me nervous during the hood scene he got the opposite, after ten minutes I was praying that old Zoe would go careening off the hood into an oncoming car. How many times did I say to the movie... Slow down and stop the car, she will get off and be fine. Nope, lets keep driving fast and scream a lot. The only thing I was uneasy about was them driving the car back to the guy selling it and I was robbed of that scene!
I wanted all the girls in the 1/2 half to live and wish the opposite of the 2nd 1/2

 

[Michael Reuben]

As for the double-dipping, I was just as happy when I heard the two films were being released separately. I thought Planet Terror was a snooze, but Death Proof had me chuckling throughout -- not only for the dialogue and the endless references (I laughed out loud at the quotations from Telefon and Blow Up) but also from some of the sly acting choices. I thought Tracie Thoms channeling Samuel L. Jackson was hilarious. Her energy alone makes the second half of Death Proof pop.

M.

 

[Doug Schiller]

I realizes what he was trying to do with the character but it went so much the other way it just didn't work for me.
He (and anyone with rudimentary driving skills) had numerous opportunities to lose the car or fight back. This is supposed to be a stuntman, a professional driver. If he really is a complete whimp, he has options too, just stay on the highway until the non existant police arrive. I love revenge flicks but it would work better if they kept a core group of characters who know about the killer and live to exact revenge instead of some road rage beating.

and leave it QT to make me dislike a character played by Rosario Dawson, I thought that was impossible.
There are 2 directors who can get away with me suspending disbelief as characters read their words, QT and Woody Allen and even this movie stretched that. Samuel Jackson, she is not.

 

[Michael Reuben]

If you mean Rosario Dawson, I agree. Of course, I have trouble looking at her the same way ever since I saw the film she produced and starred in called The Descent (not to be confused with the British monsters-in-the-cave film of the same name).

But if you're referrng to Tracie Thoms, what can I say? I'm a fan -- whether it's Rent or Wonderfalls or Death Proof.

M.

 

[Mike*Sch]

TonyD brings up some interesting points in that the film damage in this movie has absolutely no basis in reality. Sure, it's not as bad as PLANET TERROR's damage, but it still makes no sense.

I love both of these movies, but I was really hoping that the video releases would eliminate the gimmick. I was so into this idea when I heard about it, but it absolutely doesn't work.

 

[Ronald Epstein]

I haven't made up my mind if I like the film damage gimmick or not on DVD.

It worked in the theatrical context of the Grindhouse saga because
it was a kickback to those low-budget films of the 70s. Also, things
that are not incorporated on this DVD such as "Reel Missing"
worked very well on the screen. In fact, it elicited the biggest groans
from the audience and I thought that was rather neat!

This "gimmick" actually made me feel like I was watching a film
from the 70s, so imagine how confusing it became when Tarantino
incorporates modern-day technology (cell phones and text messaging)
into the story.

Again, great Tarantino film as it contains so many of his trademark
elements. Just could have done with far less dialogue and most of
the second half of the film. However, I find Michael's explanation of
it fascinating to read and now I understand where Tarantino was going
with it.

 

[WillG]

Also, why does the first half have all the damage and the second half is pristine? I can't remember if it was this way in the theater or not.

 

[TravisR]

They wanted to simulate how the reels could be radically different when you'd see movies like this. So one reel would be beat to hell but another would be from a different print and be in much better shape.

It was that way in theater too.

 

[WillG]

I guess that might have come across better if it was more randomized instead of the first half damaged and the second half looking great

 

[TonyD]

yep i said that.
it was a poor usage of the phrase on my part.
i didnt mean i didnt get the movie.
i shouldnt have said that.

what i should have said there was,..."i just dont like it."

what i dont get, is more to what is liked about the movie other then the gimmick which wears off quickly.

so what is liked about the movie.

to me a see extended, long scenes of talking about nothing all that interesting.

a very brutal and graffic car crash, a long, long car chase that ends just ridiculously.

i'm trying to keep my posts away from becoming thread crap area.
i dont want to be the guy who comes in here and spoils the enjoyment for those who like the movie.

i made a starement on the movie, and was called out on it.
i'm just trying to defend my feelings about the film.

i think released as a seperate film it should have removed the gimmick,

put back together with planet terror and released as it appeared in theaters it would make more sense that way.

 

[Mike*Sch]

Have they actually said this? Because it doesn't work at all. It wouldn't surprise me if it were true, since Tarantino seems to have no concept of what film damage actually looks like, but I assumed it was more of a case of providing a different aesthetic for the second half. The most noticeable change in the second half to me was the fact that shots were hot-spliced together instead of tape-spliced. This is a form of imperfection which would have occurred in the lab, and would probably not exist at all. But if it did, I'd imagine it would be consistent throughout.

 

[Bryan^H]

I remember a reading a quote from Rodriguez that said both films are going to be released in their scratchy "old" look, and a prisitine cut without all the grain on dvd. I'm waiting for the second release for both films.

About Tarantino, and technology, I thought all the cell phone scenes were a big distraction. I wanted the complete 70's vibe, and those damn cell phones kept reminding me that, yes this is a current film with a 70's feel.
Oh well at least he hasn't embraced CGI, so that's a huge plus.

 

[Sean Richardson]

If you "got" it, then why are you asking people to explain the ending to you?

Just so you understand, I think it's possible to get it and not like it, but if you're asking "How am I supposed to feel about the ending?", it does kinda sound like you didn't get it.

(Which is also a reasonable reason to not like a movie.)

 

[TravisR]

For me, I loved the dialogue, the acting and the whole look and feel of the movie. The CG-less car chase is cool but the other things are why I enjoyed it so much.

 

[TonyD]

good point..

sean when did i say explain the ending for me.

i said i thought the end was stupid.

all i'm asking is actual talk about what is good about the movie.
not "you dont get it"

i do get it.
he made a movie that had a 70's old dollar theater "grindhouse" feel to it.

i didnt like it because it didnt have the feel, except for the look of much of the first half of the fim.

after the grindhouse effect was removed it(second half)
became another ordinary section of an ordinary movie that was nothing but a chase sequence.

i just simply didn't like the movie.

 

[John CW]

So much interesting stuff to reply to here, and a lot of things I'd like to say... Not sure if I can get it all out, though!

Firstly, I was definitely in two minds about Death Proof when I saw it on DVD, but when I saw the extended version in the theater (here in London) it completely changed my mind aboout, and now I think it's great. It really works as a crowd movie, IMO. Also, the structure is actually a lot cleverer than it looks at first glance.

I don't want to keep advertising my blog, but Ron, I wonder if you read my (spoiler filled) post about how my mind was changed, it might help you?: http://thunderpeel2001.blogspot.com/...-q-part-1.html

I can definitely understand about what you mean about dialogue fatigue in the second half, but it seems to be something that fades the more you watch it. As someone already pointed out, while the dialogue might not be "quarter pounder with cheese" immediately interesting, it's never-the-less solid characterisation and, as such, holds up to repeated viewings.

If anything, watching it again allowed me to follow what they were saying and enjoy their different characters more.

It seems to me that there are definitely some people here who do not "get" Death Proof (not specifically you, TonyD). Let me just explain what's going on.

Firstly Stuntman Mike is NOT being set up as an "ultra cool serial killer" (quite a shocking idea). You KNOW he's the bad guy from the outset, you know he's probably going to kill one of the girls, but you imagine it'll probably be one or two of them, and that the remaining girls will either spend the rest of the movie getting revenge or being chased.

Except Tarantino does something clever. He spends the whole first half of the movie slowly trying to change our mind. We spend so much time getting to know the girls, for one. But more importantly he, step-by-step, inch-by-inch, starts to make us trust Stuntman Mike. We like him, maybe he's not such a bad guy, afterall... But when we're just warming to his charm, that's when Tarantino pulls the rug out. Mike turns out to be one truly twisted sick fuck and he brutally murders ALL the girls in the most messed up way. We're appalled, shocked and horrified.

Now we can't trust Tarantino at all for the rest of the movie. He's just made us get to know these girls, feel for these girls and talked us into believing that Stuntman Mike is actually quite charming, only for him to then go and kill them ALL. We have no idea what he'll do next, we can't trust him anymore, and so anything can happen to anyone, at any time.

If you're "on board" with the film at this point, you should be hating Stuntman Mike and hoping someone will stop him. And when we see the "new girls" you feel a sense of dread and worry for their safety.

In the second half, we're still suffering from the shock of the ending of the first half, and we're partly expecting these new girls to meet the same fate. When Zoe's on the hood of the car... that's when we're REALLY concerned. As Tarantino pointed out, it would have been perfectly dramatically acceptable to allow Zoe to be killed there (the character, not the actress ).

But after she survives, we're buzzing, and the girls go out to get revenge (and in our minds, it's not just for what he tried to do for Zoe, it's for Butterfly and company, too) and really there's not a happier moment in recent cinema memory for me when that deliberately bad "The End" sign comes up. It's a real "buzz" moment, smiles all round, especially in the cinema I saw it in.

So yes, to answer some of the questions in this thread, you ARE supposed to cheer when they finally kill Stuntman Mike. NO, you're not supposed to think he's an "ultra cool serial killer" (?) and, as an aside, it was actually Kurt Russell who added the utterly hilarious whining to his character (some of my favourite moments).

My girlfriend, incidentally, came up with a really interesting psychological profile (or sorts) for Stuntman Mike. She says that basically he's this guy who got into stunts a little too much. The buzz from surviving the car accidents he filmed made everything else pale in comparison and he got hooked on the rush. Even sex paled in comparison, it just couldn't compare to the life-threatening thrill or surviving a crazy accident. So he developed his own twisted version of sex, and that (as its put in the film) is the only way he can "shoot his goo" (figuratively speaking).

I have to say that it makes sense to me!

 

[John CW]

 

[JeffMc]

Oh come on. As if any of these idiotic girls knew anything about physics!