grindhouse

I should of watched this instead of The Reaping.

 

Great movie. What some people (including someone in this thread) doesn't understand is that these movies are SUPPOSED to be ridiculous. Rodriguez's Planet Terror is a homage to the b-zombie movies, while Tarentino's Death Proof is more a dedication to the more traditional dialouge-driven grindhouse flicks of old. Both work very well in their own ways.

If you're the type of person that takes their movies too seriously, and can't have fun with the corny, the ridiculous, and the outlandish, then don't see this movie. But if you can actually allow yourself to have a freakin' sense of humor, to just let go and enjoy yourself, you will absolutely love this double feature.


Planet Terror: 8.5/10
Death Proof: 8/10
Faux Advertisements: 10/10 (Don't LEAVE during the intermission; these are hilarious).

Total: 8.5/10

 

But the problem is - tarantino is taking it seriously. We all know he is. That guy has no sense of humor and thought Kill Bill was a good movie. (he wasn't alone)

 

Is this a porno flick?

 

Are you telling other people what they are thinking again?

 

The problem isn't a lack of humor; TONS of people find his movies (especially Pulp Fiction and Kill Bill) very funny.

No, the problem with Tarentino is that he likes to flaunt how intelligent and masterful he is with dialouge, and it can make the movies suffer. Kill Bill Vol. 1 and 2 suffered through it, and Death Proof suffers from it to an extreme. The dialouge is HEAVY in this movie, and is absolutely tedious at times.

Tarentino has always been his masterful command of dialouge and a sense of genuine style. Still is in Death Proof. The problem is when it is over-wrought with it, and causes more tedium then one should have to suffer through.

But there is absolute genius in his work, and that's the reason I can still enjoy a movie like Death Proof; there are aspects to it that show you why he is still such an enigma in Hollywood.

Tarentino's ego in his writing is his flaw. It's not a fatal one, and many film directors have far worse ones.

 

I think the problem is, he can't develop a standing plot to save his life therefore he tries to mix a bunch of nonsense together and hope pseudo bohemians around the globe will pretend to love his work - forcing themselves to do so.
Happens a lot. Sort of like elitist matrix fans that pretend the movie is far more interesting than it is, and accuse the people that saw through the nonsensical bs of 'not understanding it'.
Irks the crap out of me.

 

Well, I'm not one of those people who say "You must not be intelligent enough to understand _________", especially when it comes to art/movies/music. If anything, labeling people who prefer something as "Pseudo-bohemians" is just as pretentious as what I just said. You're allowed your opinion, and I agree to a degree. Tarentino's plots are never that original, and rely heavily on what I mentioned previously.

The question is, does a great, entertaining film NEED a greatly written plot? I'd argue that a novel would, of course, but a film? That opens a whole other can of worms, but I would usually argue that there are more films out there with questionable plots/great direction, than great plots/questionable direction. But, that's neither here nor there.

But, I stand by my statements. Go to Grindhouse, have some fun. I haven't felt as much fun at the movies in a long time, and I've seen plenty of "better" movies in that time. It's an experience, and a welcome one for many movie fans!