Grindhouse - New Tarantino/Rodriguez film announced.. - Page 6

Jefferson Morris · 04-10-2007, 02:42 PM

Quote:

For the first time ever, Tarantino's dialog has failed him

I partially agree. I was prepared for Death Proof's chattiness by various reviews, so I knew what to expect going in, and wasn't really all that bored. I also think the dialogue picked up a bit in the second half.

That said, I don't know if I'd ever bother revisiting this film, which for me would be a first for a Tarantino picture. I was similarly disappointed in the last 40 minutes or so of Kill Bill Vol. 2 - another case of dialogue just not being enough to carry the film, IMO - but I still picked that up on DVD and revisited it for the wonderful stuff that precedes it.

Planet Terror, while less serious in intent and perhaps less "interesting" from a film analysis standpoint, doesn't forget to entertain. Rose McGowan was terrific, I thought. Hell, her dance over the credits was probably the highlight of both films for me.

All in all, I had fun with Grindhouse, but not as much fun as I was expecting to have. I do hope QT takes some of these criticisms to heart. I welcome Inglorious Bastards, in that I think a period setting may knock him out of his comfort zone (and 40's-era characters won't be able to reference 70's movies and TV shows...one imagines).

--Jefferson Morris

Jason Seaver · 04-10-2007, 02:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JayDerek

um, no. He quite cleary gets his face bashed in in the last shot of the film.

Also, it seemed to me that the nasty-looking scar from the first half has healed for the second half; you can see in there but not nearly as prominent. If the second half took place first (and the scar was the result of Abernathy's well-placed kick), I wouldn't expect to see it there at all.

JayDerek · 04-10-2007, 02:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jason Seaver

Also, it seemed to me that the nasty-looking scar from the first half has healed for the second half; you can see in there but not nearly as prominent. If the second half took place first (and the scar was the result of Abernathy's well-placed kick), I wouldn't expect to see it there at all.

exactly.

Jason Roer · 04-10-2007, 03:04 PM

Right you are Michael! Being a man who has had his head stomped on by many women, I can tell you this - A) You can live through it. B) It can be quite an enriching experience.

I'm interested in this theory of the "big reverse" and even if it wasn't something QT had in mind, there is nothing in the film (forget the screenplay) that suggests it couldn't be the case. I love films that are open to interpretation. Even if it isn't what the director had in mind it can lead to some really interesting discussion amongst movie fans.

As for Grindhouse as a whole - I enjoyed the experience. But it wasn't close to the greatest experience I've had in a movie theater. Possibly because I saw this with a rather anemic crowd (in fact I'm not sure too many in there had a pulse).

I enjoyed Death Proof more - mainly because while the dialogue was fluff - it was entertaining and QT always finds interesting ways of moving the dialogue around. His style reminds me of Godard with regards to dialogue. Watching Breathless (a movie with endless dialogue) I found myself constantly curious about what was going to happen next. Like QT, Godard (or more accurately - Like Godard, QT) really makes the spewing of dialogue entertaining and fast paced. The only time I felt Death Proof was sort a meandering was after the introduction of the second group of gals. They had a nice round of dialogue and then suddenly they another lengthy bit. It was during this second lengthy bit that I grew tired. But that was quickly chased off by a tremendous final 20 minutes and a real ass kickin' final five.

On the Planet Terror front, well - this one just didn't grab me so much. I love Rodriguez. I love Zombies. I love blood and guts. I love just about every actor in the film. I love scratches on prints and the whole retro look. I love the missing reels. I cannot figure out why I didn't enjoy Planet Terror more. Now don't get me wrong, I thought this was very entertaining, but I was hoping for more. And that is my entire and singular complaint with Grindhouse as a whole. QT and Rodriguez are exciting directors, very well schooled in groundbreaking cinema. Their knowledge of film history is legendary. The so-called exploitation films they've aimed to emulate here were always enjoyable - but they weren't great films. There are a few out there that are absolute gems. Faster, Pussycat! Kill! Kill! comes to mind. But all of those films have real gems within a construct of mainly crap. I thought QT and Rodriguez were going to mine for those gems across the board and toss them in a blender to spew out the ultimate B-Movie extravaganza. What I got instead was an entertaining - but nothing new here - 3 hour ride.

Cheers,

Jason

Matthew Marino · 04-10-2007, 03:10 PM

Thats either a publicity shot from the second half or from a deleted scene from the second half. Either way, the scar is clearly there in the second half. As you you guys have pointed out its more noticeable in the first section. So if you are really buying into this out-of-order nonsense you must believe that scars dont' heal; they get worse over time. You must also believe that after having his entire head compacted into the pavement like a water balloon that no other scars formed and somehow isn't brain dead. The difference in the cars is beyond irrelevant. The end result of his car in each section would require extensive repair to both the hood and interior. It may not even be the same car. No less than 6 of each car was needed to film Death Proof so its not inconceivable that a stuntman would have access to several of the same car each with specific modifications.

More importantly, having it out of order doesn't make it a better movie. After the uplifting and exciting finale we then find out that it was all for nothing as he lives another day just to attack more girls? Sorry, I guess I don't always root for the bad guy. Tarantino clearly made the ending a "girl power" ending and having Stuntman Mike survive would just trivialize this.

As McGraw is talking to his son about Stuntman Mike walking away and getting away with it, it cuts to Mike stalking his next victims but the voiceover continues; showing us what Stuntman Mike is doing now that he got away with it. Tarantino always gives us clues if something is out of order and just to leave it open like that doesn't make sense. If he wanted us to know it was earlier, he would have told us.

JayDerek · 04-10-2007, 03:25 PM

^ well said Matthew.

Honestly, this '2nd half came first theory' popping up all over the net now is pretty dumb...there's absolutely NO evidence for it being correct...and PLENTY of evidence for it being chronological.

The pic from the scene above was from a deleted scene. Mike meets up w/ the girls for a bit at a convenience store

Jason Roer · 04-10-2007, 03:34 PM

Guys, guys - It's all just for fun. It's the "what ifs" in the world that spawns creativity. What if someone reads this theory and we get a really amazing film based on it?

I like the way the film plays out - the grrrrl power thing is righteous and fun. But I also really enjoy the discussion that has come from the "theory" being passed around. It's why I surf the net - I love to see what other people think about films, books, news, etc. It's those unique points of view and creative (sometimes extremely creative) theories that give us individual voice and quite frankly, a reason to communicate with one another.

I've always come from the school of thought that no questions or suggestions are bad ones. If I'm looking at a square and you tell me it's a circle, I'm more interested in WHY you think it's a circle than telling you you're wrong.

Cheers,

Jason

JonZ · 04-10-2007, 03:37 PM

I havent been following this thread so I dont knwo if this has beenmentioned.

Heres a article about some agree guy who claims QT stole his idea even using the same name.....
http://www.filmthreat.com/index.php?...atures&Id=1917

Michael Elliott · 04-10-2007, 03:48 PM

Quote:

Honestly, this '2nd half came first theory' popping up all over the net now is pretty dumb...there's absolutely NO evidence for it being correct...and PLENTY of evidence for it being chronological.

In interviews Tarantino has mentioned the fact that many of these films would be shown with their reels out of order.

I'd actually like to hear from someone who thinks the film IS shown in order.

It really doesn't make much sense IMO for Stuntman Mike to be so evil to the first set of girls and then be willing to let the second set go free. Seriously, he kills the first set without warning and without playing with them. In the second, he actually gets out of his car smiling, telling the girls it was fun and then tries to leave without finishing them off. As for the scar, it's certainly in both segments but I'll pay more attention when I see it again in a few days because, if my memory is correct, in the first segment there was a round (like a heel mark) scar around his eye.

Quote:

Guys, guys - It's all just for fun. It's the "what ifs" in the world that spawns creativity. What if someone reads this theory and we get a really amazing film based on it?

Exactly. The film is fun enough on its own but it's even better when a film gives you something to think and discuss about.

Mark Leiter · 04-10-2007, 04:03 PM

I went to and really enjoied this movie. Heck just seeing Rose MacGown in a skimpy outfit (even if it is sans leg) is worth the price of admission in my book. Nice to see her get out of Charmed hell. Hopefully we'll see a but more of her in the future.

I have to agree that in DP there is a seemingly endless amount of dialoge to get to the nice car chase pay off. But to me that was pretty much what QT was going for. This being a homage to seventies exploitation car chase movies, its the audiance that is being exploited here. With these low budget chase movies they only had enough money to film about 20-30 minutes of stunts. For the rest of the required 90 minute running time of the movie they would film 60 more minutes of inane meaningless dialoge that had nothing to do with the plot.