Grindhouse - New Tarantino/Rodriguez film announced.. (1 Viewer)

[Joe Karlosi]

Mike, this kind of brings me back to recent discussions we've had about films. IMO, a viewer may say he was underwhelmed that a movie failed to bring anything new to the table, for example, even though that may not ever have been the filmmaker's intent at all to try something new. I don't have to like or enjoy it just because it's what the director wanted to do.

I guess for me it depends on the movie in question; there are times when I too think you should judge a film for "what the movie is, not for what it's not", but with movie reviewing I must confess that it doesn't seem like "one rule always fits all for every movie," or at least this has been my personal experience. Sometimes I'd be right there with you. I just go by how my gut feels. With PLANET TERROR, I needed something different from the same. Maybe not as much with another movie.

 

[Nathan V]

I agree. A film should be reviewed on what it accomplishes, not the viewer's preconceptions of what s/he thinks the movie will accomplish. Additionally, I think a film should always be seen in the best circumstances possible, particularly for Grindhouse, being in a theatre makes the experience of all the scratches, hairs, mismatched colors, etc, a real "experience;" it really feels like you're watching a shitty print. For example, on dvd, there's never really a chance that a reel will be 'missing;' in a theatre, it's very possible, which is what makes the missing reel moments so funny.

No disrespect to your review, Mario; as usual, it's a well-thought out review, which is more than I can say for some published critics. I do think you would've enjoyed the picture more if you'd seen it in a theatre, though.

Regards,
Nathan

 

[Michael Elliott]

That wasn't exactly what I was going for but I see where you're going.

I've read a couple reviews that were "negative" because "it's stupid for a machine gun to be on a leg". The person reviewing the film went into how it's not possible for her to fire the gun, how this wasn't possible and how that wasn't possible. If someone doesn't like the leg thing that's fine but I think they're missing the point that it's suppose to be stupid. That's a whole joke they they're just missing or not wanting to see.

Yes, we've seen PT countless times over the past forty years but I think the director tried to take the best moments out of all of those and put them together and add his own joke of the machine gun leg. Of course it isn't original but I don't think it was meant to be and as you said, some will have a problem with this. I said earlier that this film had more gore than any film I've seen and that was the joy. The same as someone being a fan of Fulci and getting the homage to ZOMBIE here. If someone doesn't know the homage then they might say it was a stupid moment in the film. If you know the film then you'll love the homage. Neither is a wrong viewpoint.

 

[Adam_WM]

I saw it tonight. LOVED IT... unconditionally. It was a ton of fun and what going to see fun movies should be like: laughs, violence, car chases, zombies... AWESOME.

As for which I liked better, I don't think it's fair to compare them. Planet Terror seemed like a pretty straight out action/zombie/horror picture and DEATH PROOF was a slower paced movie with two payoffs. Both great.

HIGHLY RECOMMENDED. See it before it's gone forever. It should be SEEN in the theaters.

 

[AaronMan]

Nice review Adam. Its refreshing to find someone else who "gets it." It was a zombie infested, machine gun legged, blood splattered, muscle car powered extravaganza at 200 miles per hour! I mean, come on! Bruce Willis plays a badass who killed Bin Laden! I laughed my ass off when the kid died. I find it hilarious that some people here are slamming Tarantino for his acting, but fail to mention his balls rotting off! Its that kind of movie, folks! I never thought a movie about this kind of material would be analyzed like it is on these boards. I realize its a discussion board, but still, it isn't Citizen Kane, you know?

 

[Mario Gauci]

Thanks for the compliment, Nathan, and yes, I do think that the theatrical "experience" is required for this movie...although, I'm not so sure it would have drastically improved my impressions.

 

[Joe Karlosi]

I forgot to mention here that I was surprised by this, as I know I've seen even gorier films and I was almost certain you had too. The funny thing is that I can't readily name them right off the bat, but I know I have seen worse. Perhaps even the SAW films or HOSTEL (from recent memory), but also many foreign exploitation horror movies. I am still struck by the power of Tarantino's "crash" sequence and when he killed Rose McGowan which, while not as gory, are still way more powerful and effective in the way he handled it than all the stuff in Rodriguez's entire film put together.

 

[Adam_WM]

"I forgot to mention here that I was surprised by this, as I know I've seen even gorier films and I was almost certain you had too. The funny thing is that I can't readily name them right off the bat, but I know I have seen worse. Perhaps even the SAW films or HOSTEL (from recent memory), but also many foreign exploitation horror movies. I am still struck by the power of Tarantino's "crash" sequence and when he killed Rose McGowan which, while not as gory, are still way more powerful and effective in the way he handled it than all the stuff in Rodriguez's entire film put together."


Yeah, I would agree with those sentiments about Tarantino's crash, but I do believe Tarantino wanted his car accident to be horrifying, while Planet Terror, IMHO, was not supposed to be that kind of real.

 

[Don Solosan]

I believe Tarentino was quoted as saying that PT is horror, which isn't real, and that DP is terror, which can be real. Or something like that.

My vote for most gore would probably be Dead Alive.

 

[JonZ]

"Girls are arrested and go to jail, where there are many shower scenes and cat fights, maybe a rape or two, etc., etc"

 

[JonZ]

My 2cents:

Machette - trailer was awesome.
Planet Terror - Started off great and lost steam. A hour into it,I was really just waiting for it to end.
Werewolf women of the SS - sucked beyond words. Please god, dont let Rob Zombie ever behind a camera again. Please. Pretty please with sugar on top. Ugh.
Dont - was fanfreakintastic. What a excellent trailer.
Thanksgiving- same as above. I loved it. What a great job mimicking the superlow budget horror of the late 70s and even early 80s. Twisted and great.
Death Proof - I agree with those saying nothing happens for too long. Way too long. When this was good, it was really good. I enjoyed the scene in the bar but by the time the second group of girls where on 20+minutes of dialgue I was loosing patience (coming from somone who loves long slow movies). I do like how the film was split into 2 groups of girls(commented by somoen earlier as a complaint). Its a technique weve seen before and it worked well here.The crash scene was one of the most spectacular ever put to film IMHO. QT really has a knack for action sequences. That was jaw dropping, beautifully done. Loved the chase scenes as well. I smiled at the car coming over the horizon, with the moving crane shot (Road Warrior homage?). Best laugh was when he saw them coming in the rear view mirror and spit a mouth full of alcohol all over the windshield.

Zoe Bell is awesome!

 

[Blu]

The one gripe I had about both movies is that they went for a 70's and 80's low budget feel but set the movies in a time with modern technology such as texting.

 

[Justin W]

i thought death proof was genius. it didn't bother me that nothing happened for a long time. every slasher movie starts out with a group of friends partying for a half hour before any kills. i enjoyed hanging out with these characters and kurt russel was outta control good. quentin's twist on the slasher genre, instead of having the girls picked off one by one, he trashes em all at the same time. the middle segment lagged a bit. but zoe was infectious. and rosario and the dumb girl were entertaining. tracy thomas i felt brought this segment down a little bit. she was too obviously going for a female samuel l jackson thing.

the talking was necessary i felt, cause when the final chase came around, i cared about these girls and didn't want anything to happen to them. i think if you don't fall in love with zoe during th emiddle segment, the movie doesn't work. you have to be on the edge of your seat hoping nothing happens to her. you have to be in shock when you think she's dead. and you have to laugh when she jumps up. and you have to want them to get revenge. this works for some people and doesn't work for others.

the demystification of stuntman mike at the end was great. it's revealed he's just a pussy that preys on people that are weaker than him.

i thought almost everything had a place in the movie. the texting showed that despite julia's facade she could be left completely vulnerable just from a guy standing her up. the whole lapdance thing showed butterflys vulnerability. and the girls in the first segment were clueless on the car movie references. the girls in the second segment got it. they were stuntwomen. they were tough. they were on his level. he should've foresaw this. but that was his undoing.

it's just a brilliantly orchestrated film. and way way better than it has any business being. the aim was to make a low budget slasher/car chase movie. he made a brilliant deconstruction of both genres.

i don't think the phones or the modern cars hurt anything. there's no reason why an exploitation film has to be set in the 70s.

planet terror was fun for what it was. but it was a comedy and bordering on spoof at times. it just wasn't very engaging or memorable despite some great gags. death proof is a lasting film. at least in MY memory.

 

[JonZ]

"tracy thomas i felt brought this segment down a little bit. she was too obviously going for a female samuel l jackson thing."

Agree. She may have been why I was getting bored with the second groups dialogue by their 20 minute(hour into the film) mark.

Zoe is so likeable she should have her own movie.


"You're acting like Mike changes. He doesn't - this is how bullies act when they meet someone who can fight back."

Justin explains this perfectly above.

 

[Colin Jacobson]

Actually, I don't mind that part - it'd look even campier to set the flicks in the Seventies. However, I think they should have not used all the modern digital technologies - make the flicks with low budgets similar to those of the movies that inspired them. It was hard for me to reconcile a movie that was supposed to be a cheap "B"-flick with such good effects!

 

[AaronMan]

But Rodriguez said that their goal was to give the audience what the posters always promised, but could never deliver due to extremely limited budgets. He wanted to take a story that would typically be used for a grindhouse film, and give it what they never had: nice effects, good actors, etc.

Personally, I think Rodriguez and Tarantino each have their own opinion on what a grindhouse film is. Rodriguez chose to take a grindhouse film and dial everything to 11. Tarantino chose to try and match the look, style cinematography, and every other minute detail of a grindhouse film, and then sprinkle his touch on top of it. I think they both succeeded on what they were trying to do.

They wanted to capture the feel of a grindhouse type film, not a time period. I think it would have really sucked if they were confined to the 70s. I actually thought it was nice contrast to see the present day time period captured as if filmmaking never progressed past 1981.

 

[BarryS]

Actually, in slasher movies there's usually a kill right at the very beginning... then after that nothing happens for 30 minutes or so. That's the one of the things Death Proof lacked... an opening-scene kill. That and nudity.

 

[JonZ]

"Rob Zombie is quite a capable filmmaker, just look at The Devil's Rejects."

Since you asked...One of the worst movies Ive ever had to sit through. The dialogue was pathetic. It sounded like it was written by a 12 year old. Stupid characters saying stupid things. Look at Justins comments about you have to get to know characters before you care about them before putting them in danger. Zombies characters show up just in time to get hacked. Rob has no idea how to set up a scene and has to rely on shaky cam cliches to show tension. Cliches and formula is something hes good at. Look at his ideas for Halloween.

"I love his work and will see anything that he directs. If you don't like his films, don't watch them."

Well during Grindhouse, I didnt have much of a choice did I?

As for why I disliked his trailer so much, yea I thought it was really bad - especially compared to the others and really showed where he stands creatively amounst those other guys. What was he trying to emulate? The Ilsa type films? The T&A girl prison movies of the 70s? The others nailed their trailers Zombies didnt look at all like something from the time period or genre (IMHO anyway).

I dont want to turn into a Rob Zombie debate. I answered you becuase you asked, but I dont care enough to debate the guy. I talked about him enough in the Halloween thread.

 

[Ronald Epstein]

Finally got around to seeing Grindhouse and I have mixed
opinions about the experience.

On the plus side, I loved the fact that these films, complete with
trailers, faithfully reproduced the look and feel of those Drive-In
films I used to see in the '70s. What's really cool, is that (as in
KILL BILL) they used the same psychedelic "Now For Our
Feature Presentation" trailer that I remember seeing in theaters
at the time. That brought back quite a few memories.

As mentioned in this thread, I also was a little confused why they
used modern technology in a film that was supposed to look pre-dated.

I loved the shock value of Planet Terror. Rodriquez really
poured on the "gross factor," most notably, Quentin's dripping anatomy.

I had high hopes for Death Proof. The first half of the film
was quite good. I am absolutely hot for Vanessa Ferlito. She was
just remarkable to look at. The crash sequence was probably the very
best I have ever seen staged in film.

It was the second part of the film that bothered me. The dialogue
sequences were just far too long for their own good -- so long in
fact that the next time I see the film on DVD, I am going to fast-forward
through it. Once is enough.

On a whole, I thought Grindhouse was quite good, but
nothing nearly enjoyable as past fare from Quentin Tarantino.

 

[JonZ]

I knew I had seen Stuntman Mikes Duck hood ornament before. Its a replica of the one from Convoy.