my profile | my password | search | faq & rules | forum home

» Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE   » Community   » Film Handlers' Movie Reviews   » Grindhouse (Page 3)

This topic comprises 4 pages: 1  2  3  4

Author Topic: Grindhouse Dustin Mitchell Phenomenal Film Handler Posts: 1865 From: Mondovi, WI, USA Registered: Mar 2000 posted 04-08-2007 03:05 AM                     I enjoyed it quite a bit. Planet Terror was a romp, just like everyone else has said-and I agree with Aaron that is one of Rodriguez's best films. Death Proof...eh, I like it, but Planet Terror was the better of the pair. Its not that Death Proof was a bad movie, not at all, it just didn't capture the Grindhouse feel at all. I don't mean because it had less fake film damage or anything like that-the long dialogue sequences were completely out of place for the kind of movie it was trying to be. I happen to like Tarantino dialogue...but it didn't belong in this movie, at least not to the extent it was present.  |  IP: Logged Mike Schindler Phenomenal Film Handler Posts: 1039 From: Oak Park, IL, USA Registered: Jun 2002 posted 04-08-2007 11:22 AM                     I think that they kind of shot themselves in the feet by calling it GRINDHOUSE and trying to replicate that experience. It's an interesting idea, but they fracked it up, and also boxed themselves into a corner. Darryl, Dustin, and others are right that a lot of what's done in the movie goes against the Grindhouse aesthetic. But no one complains about that in JACKIE BROWN, which is clearly Tarantino's take on the blaxploitation genre. With that movie, he infused the genre with his own style. DEATH PROOF is a similar take on the slasher film. SPOILERS for DEATH PROOF and PSYCHO DEATH PROOF is structured similarly to almost every other slasher film, going all the way back to the first (not counting BLOODFEAST), PSYCHO. That movie starts off with Marion Crane as the protagonist, and the first 45 minutes or so are all about her stealing money. At no point does Hitchcock tip his hand by indicating that this woman is going to be knifed to death in the shower. Then when it does happen, and the big movie star Janet Leigh is killed off with more than halfway to go, the point of view shifts to Norman Bates, and the movie changes entirely. DEATH PROOF does the same thing. We are led to believe that this is the story of Jungle Julia and her posse, who exist in a very "Tarantinian" world. Stuntman Mike is just a supporting character in this story. But when he kills them all, our attention shifts to his character, because there is no one else to turn to. Then Tarantino hits the "reset" button, and the story plays out in a similar fashion to how it did before, only with the knowledge of what Stuntman Mike's role is in the movie. That first half is very necessary, because it forces the audience to become emotionally invested in the characters, and makes it all the more terrifying when they're slaughtered. This allows for the full emotional weight of the second half's climax, which would not have existed if Stuntman Mike had not been so clearly defined as a true menace in the first half. This is classic Tarantino. FROM DUSK TILL DAWN is structured the same exact way. If people went into this thinking of it as "The New Film by Quentin Tarantino" instead of "A Grindhouse Film by Quentin Tarantino," I think their reaction to the finished product would be quite different. Also, a lot of people have questioned Stuntman Mike's motive. In the film, Earl McGraw speculates that he becomes sexually aroused by the crash. While this is never verified, it's the only possible explanation given. Additionally, McGraw's only purpose in the film is to provide this explanation. It's true that McGraw has always been presented as a fool, but he's also a good investigator. In KILL BILL, he accuratley, recreated the wedding chapel massacre with the forensic evidence at hand, and he does the same thing here. Besides that, I've watched enough MILLENNIUM to know that 9 times out of 10, serial killers are sexually motivated. So I personally think that this is the correct explanation.  |  IP: Logged Matt Barth Film Handler Posts: 46 From: Albuquerque, NM 87109 Registered: Oct 2005 posted 04-08-2007 01:09 PM                     I dunno, all around I really did enjoy the experience. I figured I was going to have a difficult time not trying to race the projectionist to the booth but I really took to the whole thing and enjoyed it. I agree PT was the more interesting but for some reason I think Kurt Russell made DP watchable. I remember watching late movies on Skinimax and occassionally finding those slasher films that were rediculously boring through the entire plot development between kills. Granted we can all find errors in the fake presentation but I'm willing to give them points for trying. Once again I think it'll only bother the small percenrtage of us on this page. Here's hoping all the copy-cats try harder though. As for the fake trailers, they were enjoyable but the whole thing really made me wish Rob Zombie had taken Devil's Rejects the same way. ---Matt  |  IP: Logged Steve Scott Phenomenal Film Handler Posts: 1300 From: Minneapolis, MN Registered: Sep 2000 posted 04-10-2007 08:52 AM                     Wow, two films with Will Arnett in two weeks! He made Don't my favorite trailer Planet Terror was worth an immediate second viewing to catch more ambiance in the details. Nicolas Cage was a riot for five seconds! Death Proof was giddy like Kill Bill vol. 2, but it's way more chick-driven. A lot of gratuitous fan-boy aspects throughout that I'll probably embarrassed in taking so much enjoyment from it all within a few months. But as long as we have this loud monster of a film, I'll enjoy the variety of film incursions.  |  IP: Logged Pravin Ratnam Jedi Master Film Handler Posts: 844 From: Atlanta, GA,USA Registered: Sep 2002 posted 04-11-2007 04:53 PM                     Saw it. Loved three fourths of the movie. Planet Terror was silly fun and resembled an 80s zombie flick more to me than a 70s exploitation flick despite all the fake giommicks put in. Regardless, I had LOTS of fun. ANd that's all that matters. So analysis over for Planet Terror. The fake trailers rocked. I was a little sad that none of them would be made into a real movie. I would love to see Machete or Don't or Thanksgiving. Then the Tarainto movie started and I was primed for a fun ride. And then I realized I should have taken a bathroom break, then take up smoking as ahabit so I could take a smoke break outside, then return to the theater in time for the Kurt Russell - Eli ROth scene. FWIW, I do not have ADD. I have loved Tarantino's slow movies like Jackie Brown and even while initially disappointed with the slow pace of KB2, I grew to like a lot of the dialogue and even had some kind of appreciation for it when I watched it. But I am PISSED off at the time I wasted in the first hour of Deathproof. Hated the first half of DeathProof. THe worst thing is if Quentin was going to subject us to the boring longass conversations between Zoe Bell, Rosario & Co, why subject us to the even more boring longass conversations of the other girls at the beginning of the movie? I understand part of the "grindhouse" experience was that amidst all the sex and violence in old exploitations mvies, you would have some low budget auteur trying to inject art into it and the result usually was some boringass superlong static conversation that was neither interesting nor revealing. I do not need Tarantino to recreate every single aspect of that movie experience because there is one big fucking difference - I am watching this movie in a multiplex paying 7-10 fucking dollars to have fun and i do not have a remote clicker to go back and forth to different channels and I am not half awake just enough to catch all the fun parts and snooze through the boring parts at 3am in the morning. Time has a wonderful way of condensing boring periods from your life that you can look back at the whole package and laugh at how fun the total experience of something was. When you bring back that whole package, condense the boring stuff. Also Quentin veered from that concept anyway of faithful recreation when he put in a pretty good movie in the second half. That was not a low budget chase he put in. So when he inserts fake scratches, that is a fake homage to me. Why spend 50M on the budget? Why not make the movie Roger Corman style on a low budget? What Tarantino tries to do with this movie is confusing. Either make a straight ahead fun movie getting rid of the boring dialog or flesh out the movie a little bit and make the boring long conversations into good long conversations. The Kurt Russell character was a pretty great character with what goes on. It's too bad we had to endure all that shit. I wish the MISSING REEL gimmick was used for the 90% of the girls conversations instead of the lapdance. Having such overlong boring dialog was Tarantino jacking off to his drug addled memories at the cost of us sitting through it. It is like watching one of your drunk buddies ramble on while you are stuck with him for an hour. MINI SPOILER START: I get the point of the whole long setup repeated to get us invested in whatever characters we happen to be watching (I wont spoil which set of characters because both set ramble on). But my point is that it didn't ahve to be so fucking boring. Richard Linklater has done movies where conversations ramble in realistic fashion on but are not really boring. You do not sit in the theater wanting to get out for some air. Neither did the conversation even have the trademark Tarantino zaniness. SO it failed on both levels to me. All the conversations had were the trademark Tarantino self indulgent wordiness. MINI SPOILER END. What i liked about Kill Bill is he took his influences from shlocky, and sometimes boring ass movies, and he converted them into something better. And he actually does this with parts of DeathProof. RR did a fun B energetic reworking of 80s zombie movies despite aping some of the 70s b movie visual cues. And this is what counts - guiltless fun. If i wanted to watch an authentic boring ass movie from the 70s, I would rent a fucking old tape. Or wait for Showtime to show one of those forgotten movies on one of its extra digital channels. And Mike, the buildup in From Dusk Till Dawn was a lot more interesting than the buildup in Deathproof. That's why you hear very few complaints about the first hlaf of From Dusk till Dawn. IN fact, most people love the slow buildup of that movie better. END OF RANT.  |  IP: Logged Mike Schindler Phenomenal Film Handler Posts: 1039 From: Oak Park, IL, USA Registered: Jun 2002 posted 04-11-2007 05:41 PM                     I would agree that FROM DUSK TILL DAWN is a better movie. But I think that people's tolerance for the buildup has more to do with expectations. In much of the advertising for FROM DUSK TILL DAWN, the twist that occurs halfway through the film is never revealed. Many people went into that movie with the expectation that it would be like the first half of the film. When the twist occurs, people are either pleasantly surprised, because the payoff is way bigger than they could have possibly imagined, or disappointed, because it's not what they signed up for, which would be why many people prefer the first half. There's also a substantial amount of action in the setup of FROM DUSK TILL DAWN. There's even an explosion in the very first scene. I can see how people would find the setup of DEATH PROOF boring. I don't, but that's me. I think the way all of the exposition in the movie is delivered in seemingly off-topic conversations is very interesting. By doing this, he's establishing plot with content, and character with form. But regardless, the setup needs to be incredibly long and slow in order to serve as a counterpoint to the extraordinarily abrupt climax. The ending would not have worked if the rest of the film were any less drawn out.  |  IP: Logged Scott Norwood Film God Posts: 8146 From: Boston, MA. USA (1774.21 miles northeast of Dallas) Registered: Jun 99 posted 04-16-2007 07:41 PM                        In the "trailer" section, why did they put the "starts Wednesday" dater _after_ the trailer? Normally, the dater would go before. Same with the "Get more out of life" trailer--that shouldn't have come after the "Feature Presentation" Astro-Dater. WTF? Anyway, it was an interesting attempt at doing something different and I give the filmmakers all the credit in the world for doing something creative. Unfortunately, the films, while fun, weren't really my cup of tea. Both were too long to be "grind house" material, especially if the missing reels were put back in (though neither could possibly have been a full 20 minutes). Agreed with all the comments about the fake-looking film damage. Sound mix should have been mono and should have had noise to correspond with the "print damage." Oh, well. I'm glad to have seen it, but have no desire to see it again anytime soon.  |  IP: Logged Mike Heenan Phenomenal Film Handler Posts: 1896 From: Scottsdale, AZ, USA Registered: Mar 2000 posted 04-16-2007 07:58 PM                     I pretty much agree with Scott's second paragraph, just saw it this weekend. Was ready to walk out of Death Proof but had a date so I couldn't and she loved it naturally. One thing I didn't get was why RR's movie had all the wear while Tarantino's didn't really, was that because RR pretty much hates film? What's ironic is he harps about the limitations of film, but film for his movie would have been technically more accurate, I guess.  |  IP: Logged Richard Greco Phenomenal Film Handler Posts: 1180 From: Plant City, FL Registered: Nov 2003 posted 04-16-2007 09:34 PM                     When did Rose McGowan become hot! I loved this!!! After the intermission, I stretched and was ready for part 2. I loved em' both! So bloody and gory  |  IP: Logged Keith Peticolas Expert Film Handler Posts: 108 From: Eagle River, Alaska, USA Registered: Aug 2001 posted 04-16-2007 09:50 PM                     Ick. Thank the makers this trainwreck is pulling out of here on Thursday night. 2 weeks of an empty room is enough, what a waste of seats. Death Proof now stands with Eragon as my biggest loser movie of the last few years. We had a big number of folks leave during DP every show. Big being 3 out of the 7 that might be in the house on any given showing. Fortunately most of them enjoyed Planet Terror enough not to bitch about refunds. Mr. Tarantino you now suck...big time.  |  IP: Logged Bobby Henderson "Ask me about Trajan." Posts: 10973 From: Lawton, OK, USA Registered: Apr 2001 posted 04-17-2007 11:01 AM                     Location: Carmike 8, Lawton, OK Auditorium: #7 Format: 35mm, Optical Stereo Rating: 2.5 stars out of 4. Planet Terror This half of the show was deliberately ridiculous, but at least it was fun for what it wanted to accomplish. I liked the movie digging up actors we haven't seen in a while like Michael Biehn and Jeff Fahey. The gore and gross out moments were over the top, well past Sam Peckinpah level, for comedic effect. For the "out there" nature of the movie, no one will really care too much just how Cherry Darling is able to make the gun on her leg actually fire. Does she use "the force" to telekinetically pull the trigger? Overall, the show seemed like an effective satire on lots of different genres, everything from horror movies to daytime TV hospital soaps. Still, this part of the show was "good" but not really "great." I could only get into the movie to a limit. That's a usual cost of spoof and satire. Some movies, like Doctor Strangelove have managed to rise to levels of greatness despite their satirical tone. On its own, I'd give Planet Terror three stars, but only just barely. I also found it strange how the simulated film damage on Planet Terror was so much more pronounced than on Death Proof. The 2nd feature only seemed to have a few simulated problem spots in the beginning, but looked OK for the most part. Maybe this is just Robert Rodriquez making a statement on how much he hates film. The problem is many of the simulated film damage effects do look very simulated. I've seen enough film prints with real damage to know the difference. There's all sorts of very realistic things they could have done. Dirt and other debris just shows up black. Not strands of yellow or other colors. They could have simulated a bad reflector burn on all of one reel, put some deep yellow-layer scratches throughout and finding a better place to use the effect of the film jamming and burning in the gate. I would have had the film jam and melt effect placed at "The End" title card instead of sticking in the middle of the show. It would have made for a more believable transition to the middle trailer pack. Fake Trailers I found the fake trailers more entertaining than the two "features." Lots of cameos. The Machete trailer (featuring Danny Trejo and Cheech Marin) at the beginning was gory and funny, which did a good job of setting up Planet Terror. The trailer pack in the middle was even better. Werewolf Women of the SS was zany. The trailer for Don't had me laughing pretty hard, but not nearly as much as Eli Roth's Thanksgiving trailer. I thought I was going to bust a gut with that one. The combination of the announcer's low, deadpan voice and the comedic way people were getting killed (often while taking part in sex acts) was simply great. And it effectively spoofed shitty horror movies from decades past. Death Proof This is the first Quentin Tarantino movie I just didn't like very much. By itself, I give it 1 star out of four. I think QT's movie failed on a lot of different levels. On the whole, this movie seemed like something he threw together at the last minute like an overdue term paper or something. The material just has that rushed "all-nighter" feel to it. Good scripts demands lots of time, work and re-work. This movie had more dialog in it than some bad off-Broadway plays. Screenwriting 101 teaches you to keep dialog to a minimum. Audiences can retain only so much of it. You have to "show, don't tell." Good movies will use action more to define their characters than long passages of dialog, especially when it's dialog that doesn't really have any useful function to the story. Tarantino is usually pretty good with writing lots of snappy dialog, but much of what he had in this movie was goofy at times and forgettable much of the rest of the time. It seemed more like it was just filling space than providing any other function. And that took the extra toll of bogging down the pace of the story to painfully boring at many points. The only relief was when other characters that played in Kill Bill appeared in various points in the story. I also didn't like how the Death Proof effectively took the story back to square one about halfway through the film. A bunch of time is spent on one group of ladies only to see them all exit. Another groups of ladies come in halfway through, but not a damned thing is done to connect the two halves together. Sure, some people will try to bring up Psycho as a comparison, where 40 or so minutes is spent on Janet Leigh's character only to see her get killed in the famous shower scene. However, Psycho revealed a whole new story and continued in that direction. Death Proof did not. It just went back to square one, which also meant going back to more marathon talking sessions. But not as many shots of bare female feet. Maybe Tarantino guessed if he had pretty ladies on screen spouting all this endless dialog we wouldn't mind it. We would just sit there and admire the looks of Rosario Dawson and Vanessa Ferlito. Um, Quentin, guys don't want to listen to ladies yammer away pointlessly for hours on end over made up stories we don't know or care about. We're just vamping until we can get to the good part. And that brings up the car chase that FINALLY comes at the movie's end. You know what? Even that got boring at times and also did things to get me irritated. Real life stuntwoman Zoe Bell was playing herself, but not with herself even though that would have been more interesting. Zoe straps herself to the hood of a car to enact a stunt when the woman-hunting Stuntman Mike shows up to try to make her fall off the vehicle and proceed to killing the two other ladies. Question. Why didn't the ladies just slow down and stop? The lady driving the vehicle was packing a gun. Why wasn't see shooting at Stuntman Mike or handing the "Roscoe" to the chick in the passenger seat to take more carefully aimed two-handed shots? Even though the car chase scene had some pretty dangerous stunts and spectacular crashes, much of it defied logic. In fact, much of the movie defied plausible logic. Hot women in their early 20s, especially in a place as happening as Austin, will have no shortage of guys their own age wanting to drive them home -in a car that actually has real passenger seats. The climatic fist fight at the very end didn't deliver any real satisfaction to it since there was no connection to the previous half of the story. The characters had no idea they were delivering any justice for anyone else but themselves. The abrupt ending with its kooky vintage music just didn't work. It seemed more like the tail end of a chewing gum commercial than a movie. Ugh. End Titles were kind of interesting. Was kind of expecting some other trailer or funny moment on the end of the credits.  |  IP: Logged Mike Heenan Phenomenal Film Handler Posts: 1896 From: Scottsdale, AZ, USA Registered: Mar 2000 posted 04-17-2007 07:29 PM                     They also failed Roger Cormans #1 rule... always have a few breast shots per reel.  |  IP: Logged Chris Hipp Phenomenal Film Handler Posts: 1462 From: Mesquite, Tx (east of Dallas) Registered: Jul 2003 posted 04-18-2007 11:43 PM                     I've never even heard of a grindhouse theater before this movie. However, it would seem to me that if you go to see a double feature you kind of have to accept the fact that you are going to pay for the good movie that you want to watch and get stuck with the second one. Is it possible that Tarrintino considered this and made Death Proof suck on purpose? Basically, you are paying to see Planet Terror. I only watched Death Proof, because every other screen in the building was down. I am going to hold off judgement until I see the missing lapdance scene. I will add that I hate Grindhouse for the simple fact that it keeps me at work until 2am.  |  IP: Logged Phil Hill I love my cootie bug Posts: 7595 From: Hollywood, CA USA Registered: Mar 2000 posted 04-18-2007 11:57 PM                  quote: Mike Heenan They also failed Roger Cormans #1 rule... always have a few breast shots per reel. I always thought it was Roman Polanski that had that rule... Example: "The Fearless Vampire Killers"...GREAT film!  |  IP: Logged Jennifer Pan THE JEN! Posts: 1219 From: Denver, Colorado Registered: Nov 2003 posted 04-19-2007 10:35 PM                        What annoyed me the most were the fake scratches. It was ok 30 seconds into it but after that I felt like I was at a dollar theater for 3 hours. The regular trailers before the actual presentation started out of frame and huge shadows on the right side and top of the screen. Annoyed me to no end! Even after several times that the workers would come in to check on the presentation it was never fixed! Yeah, I should have complained and kicked the crap out of whoever started the film but I wasn't in the mood to miss any parts of the movie. Or talk to some projectionist who was asleep in booth. (Yes, the movie started late as well.) Planet Terror: I was expecting it to be more humorous... indeed I do love my fair share of zombie movies... wait or was it aliens... or mutants... I dunno. I guess I some what enjoyed it. It didn't live up to the hype. Death Proof: From the look of things and from what I've heard people say... I figured this one was going to be worse. But I enjoyed this much more and there were several times I laughed out loud. Dialog seemed much more appealing to me than shooting mutant zombies. Plus the car chase scenes kept me on the end of my seat. Loved the ending. Planet Terror: 1/2 out of 5 Death Proof: out of 5  |  IP: Logged

All times are Central (GMT -6:00)

This topic comprises 4 pages: 1  2  3  4

Printer-friendly view of this topic

Hop To: Select a Forum: Category: Operations -------------------- Digital Cinema Forum Film Handlers' Forum Large Format Forum Ground Level Feature Info, Trailer Attachments & REAL Credit Offsets Category: Community -------------------- Film-Yak Film Handlers' Movie Reviews The Afterlife Bob Maar's Joke-A-Thon Category: Classified -------------------- Equipment and Supplies Wanted/For Sale Help Wanted/Seeking Employment Category: System -------------------- Software Beta Testing Forum

The Film-Tech Forums are designed for various members related to the cinema industry to express their opinions, viewpoints and testimonials on various products, services and events based upon speculation, personal knowledge and factual information through use, therefore all views represented here allow no liability upon the publishers of this web site and the owners of said views assume no liability for any ill will resulting from these postings. The posts made here are for educational as well as entertainment purposes and as such anyone viewing this portion of the website must accept these views as statements of the author of that opinion and agrees to release the authors from any and all liability.