So is this what Quentin Tarantino's life is really like? Lots of hot white, black, Asian and hispanic chicks sitting around all day chatting about Vanishing Point and lap-dancing to obscure '70s soul classics? Or is this just what Quentin Tarantino thinks his life is like? Either way, I can't say I relate.It's probably unfair and misguided to treat Death Proof as a movie unto itself when Tarantino really intended it to be merely one half of the Grindhouse experience. But he did release it on its own and he did say that he thought it could hold up as a separate film. Tarantino has said a lot of things.
You see, I'm not a Robert Rodriguez fan in particular, and when I heard that Tarantino was collaborating with Rodriguez on his next project, I had the sneaking suspicion that this would be more of a "Rodriguez" film than a "Tarantino" film. Although the concept certainly sounded interesting, as soon as I learned that Miramax was planning to release the films separately on DVD, I figured I'd wait and rent Tarantino's half by itself. Tarantino is one of those directors whose filmography has been so universally strong that even a "genre" movie like Kill Bill is, I'd say, better than most Oscarbait dramas. I feel like if Tarantino releases a movie, I need to see it. But now I wonder if I really might have been better off catching the whole Grindhouse enchilada. Because Death Proof on its own is like a good half-hour idea stretched to two hours. I hear the Grindhouse version is 90 minutes, and hell, that's already 60 minutes too long.
I suppose he's earned the right to do a frivolous throwaway project. But David Lean and Stanley Kubrick never felt the need to do frivolous throwaway projects. I guess what I don't understand is this: if you had the talent, and the resources, and the built-in fanbase that Tarantino has, wouldn't you want to use your power to create something truly beautiful? He can do whatever he wants, of course, but the fact that he's decided to spend his time on something like Grindhouse makes me realize that Tarantino and I do not quite share same idea of cinema's role in human life.
Also, ever wonder what a Tarantino movie without any character development would be like? Here you go. Sure, Tarantino's other movies consist of long periods of dialogue, but I actually liked those characters. The characters in Death Proof are boring. Maybe that was the point. Maybe the girls were supposed to be unlikeable so that by the time Stuntman Mike tries to kill them, we're rooting for them to die. But I think you can have unsympathetic characters who are also interesting. I think Tarantino just half-assed it. That's the problem with Death Proof: it's not bad enough to be out-and-out bad, but it's not actually good either. Those crappy B-movies Tarantino loves so much didn't know they were bad. Here's a question for the world's most noted physicists: can a talented director make a movie that is intentionally bad?
There are a few keepers in here, such the amusingly improbable car crash, in which a tire manages to ride directly over a girl's face. But the movie needed at least five more scenes like that one to really live up to its potential. I'm not saying he's not allowed to make a few fun, side-project kind of movies here and there, but if Death Proof didn't have Quentin Tarantino's name on it, then whoa nelly.
"Film critic" rating: **
"Little Earl" rating: *
So wait, the version you saw was longer than 90 minutes?
ReplyDeleteWhen these movies were out, I thought they looked somewhat interesting, but in another way, I really didn't feel some overwhelming desire to see them.
Yeah, you and everybody else.
ReplyDeleteThe version of Death Proof that Tarantino released on DVD is thirty minutes longer than the version which appeared in theaters as the "second half" of Grindhouse.
"I suppose he's earned the right to do a frivolous throwaway project. But David Lean and Stanley Kubrick never felt the need to do frivolous throwaway projects. I guess what I don't understand is this: if you had the talent, and the resources, and the built-in fanbase that Tarantino has, wouldn't you want to use your power to create something truly beautiful? He can do whatever he wants, of course, but the fact that he's decided to spend his time on something like Grindhouse makes me realize that Tarantino and I do not quite share same idea of cinema's role in human life."
ReplyDeleteWhat are you talking about? Why does he have to 'earn the right' to release a movie like this? This is critic-speak, which you yourself make fun of LE. Grindhouse my alter your view of Tarantino due to the hyper-biographical approach to art you favor, but you didn't express this well in your review.
"Here's a question for the world's most noted physicists: can a talented director make a movie that is intentionally bad?"
I know you are making a joke here, but I'll answer you anyway: Of course. But that's not what Tarantino did.
I will add that I appreciate Tarantino's inclusion of strong, intelligent female characters. The characters in Grindhouse seemed transparently to be Tarantino's idea of what strong, intelligent women are like rather than actual people. But at least he's trying.
Furthermore, what do you mean by saying, "even a "genre" movie like Kill Bill is...better than most Oscarbait dramas?" Weren't Kubrick's and Lean's movies genre movies? I'd rate Kill Bill as the equal of Tarantino's other films. Pulp Fiction's script is superior, but he had help with that.
ReplyDeleteWell God knows I wouldn't want to be guilty of "critic-speak" but it sounds like you understood exactly what I was trying to say so please elaborate on how I "failed to express" myself well.
ReplyDeleteI wouldn't hold Tarantino up to such a high standard if he didn't seem to hold his own work up to it himself. Maybe he could have made it clearer that Death Proof was not to be judged by Pulp Fiction/Kill Bill standards. He sort of did, actually, but then again he sort of didn't. I guess all I mean to say is that I wasn't too big on this one, Quentin, but keep it up, no hard feelings, etc.
I should also probably retire the word "genre" from my writing, since I feel like all the greatest "genre" movies are actually exceptions to the genre, which is what makes them stand apart! That's why I put "genre" in quotes in my post, because what "genre" is Kill Bill anyway?
You see, what I've always liked about Tarantino is that although I don't share his affection for B movies, I love HIS movies because he doesn't just make straightforward B movies. But for the first time, with Death Proof, he's basically just made a straightforward B movie (not entirely, but much more so than even Kill Bill). So like I said, he can do whatever he wants, but given the career he's built up for himself and the value he's encouraged people to attach to his name (I think Tarantino favors the same "hyper-biographical approach" I apparently do), I would have expected more.
Personally I thought Death Proof was boring, unimaginative, and silly. I actually thought Rodrigeuz did a better job at his side of Grindhouse. He definitely played up the B movie angle much better than Tarantino did.
ReplyDeleteI also appreciate strong female characters in movies and TV since they are so few and far between, but Tarantino's women felt forced. I think he wrote the parts as if men were going to play all the characters, but cast women in the roles instead. It just felt wrong.
By the way, to say that this is Tarantino's only throw away film is a gross understatement. He produces tons of crappy films. You can't tell me, as producer, the Great Tarantino doesn't have even a little say about what goes into a film.
Are you saying that (let's hear it for IMDB):
ReplyDeleteDaltry Calhoun
Freedom's Fury
Killshot
Hell Ride
Machete
are crappy movies? How dare you!
Anyway, I'd say my expectations are higher for a film Tarantino writes and directs than for a film he just produces.
"I also appreciate strong female characters in movies and TV since they are so few and far between, but Tarantino's women felt forced. I think he wrote the parts as if men were going to play all the characters, but cast women in the roles instead. It just felt wrong."
ReplyDeleteI couldn't agree with this statement more.
I wish I had more to say, but the level of film criticism here is over my head. What exactly is a 'hyper-biographical approach'?
You'll have to ask Yoggoth on that one, although since I apparently favor it I should probably know. Also, I thought you hadn't seen this yet, so how can you agree with Ninquelote?
ReplyDeleteI thought Ninquelote was referring to female characters in Tarantino films in general. I haven't seen Death Proof but I can't imagine the women are any different than the women in Kill Bill.
ReplyDeleteThank you for the support, zrbo. In that particular comment I was mainly referring to Death Proof, but I can see how you could apply that reasoning to other Tarantino films. Although I would have to say that it is much worse in the case of Death Proof.
ReplyDeleteBy the way LE, how could you forget Hostel I and II. Real winners there.
Oh, I just made that term up zrbo. LE appreciates the work of an artist over their entire career. He doesn't even like to listen to music until the band/artist that produced it is dead or past their prime. That way he knows how the music fits in to the story arch. Thus, he believes that Tarantino releasing a bad movie reduces the quality of his other movies because it shows that he does not take cinema seriously.
ReplyDelete