Grindhouse Presents, Death Proof

Posted on September 8, 2007 by E
Filed Under Reviews |

Yes, that’s what the separation of the supposed-to-be-glorious experiment that was Grindhouse is called on DVD. Which would make this the fifth film by Quentin Tarantino and his most resounding flop.

With good reason.

There are a few things a knowledgeable person expects out of a Tarantino movie other than talking (check), visuals of feet and references to foot massages (check), references to other movies (check), by the director and not (check), sex-laced conversation (check) and eye-popping visuals (check).

Seeing as I checked the entire list, what caused this movie to fail so badly? Or did it fail at all?

For all effective purposes, it did. Its stated box office is nowhere near its stated budget so we will assume that the Grindhouse project was not the artistic and cinematic success it was supposed to be. For several reasons.

(I’ve only watched the Death Proof segment so my comments are limited to that half of the film, which seems okay since it is now a separate, nearly two-hour-long film on DVD.)

The talking goes on and on and on and on…and nobody says a single goddamned interesting thing. No ‘Royale with Cheese,’ no ‘Zed’s Dead’ no exploring the meaning of Like A Virgin so really, nothing at all. “Do I scare you?” just does not measure up.

I also read somewhere that Mickey Rourke, Sylvester Stallone and Ving Rhames were approached to play Stuntman Mike before Kurt Russell got the part. Bad move. Snake Plissken don’t have what this movie needs. No sir, no way. When he laughs I’m reminded of bad Bollywood (where does that list begin) and when he grimaces…yeah let’s just say I was not intimidated.

For another thing, the girls were just not doing it for me. Way too much talking by Sydney Poitier and not enough rump shaking. And let’s face it, Vanessa Ferlito ain’t no Salma Hayek so that lap dance had about as much heat as a hot water bottle buried in the snow. Rosario Dawson was hampered by a ridiculous haircut and a skirt/pants hybrid that I did not understand. That girl’s only ever looked properly fetching in one movie and this one wasn’t it. So about the only girl worth laying eyes on is Mary Elizabeth Winstead and she barely has anything to do other than look sorta slutty in a cheerleader’s outfit.

So negative on the dialogue and the scenery…what about the action?

The car chases and crashes are pretty good. I’m not sure that they are the best ever committed to film like Hyperbole Tarantino wanted but I did tense up during the final face-off between Stuntman Mike and his prey.

To distil everything I’ve felt after watching the movie – the film is not unwatchable. Even though I was sleepy I stayed up and involved enough to note that too much of it was there simply because the reference guru needed to link back to another one of his favourites from way back when. I guess that would make Tarantino a SEO-optimised link-baiting webpage. The man throws too much into one product for no good reason other than to show off how much he knows.

Though I’ve never seen a grindhouse double feature before (and I didn’t last night – anyone at The Weinstein Co. listening?) I can tell this is not one half of the kind of material screened there. The tone rang false, the gimmickry with the scratching and dirtying of the picture came off as exactly that – gimmickry for the sake of putting on the grungy glitz.

Rumours have been swirling around the backstreets of Hollywood for a very long time that Tarantino has lost it. Unless he can pull a rabbit out of his toupee in double quick time, this film is going to be Exhibit A in that particular case and a conviction should arrive in very short order.

You’ve been warned.

   

Comments

Leave a Reply