criterionforum.org

I'm really psyched about seeing the full cut of Planet Terror. I bought the Grindhouse book to find that not only did the Planet Terror script include many deleted scenes *and* the alternate scenes shot with Rodriguez's son, but there were many photos and pre-viz stills of these bits.

My only gripe was that the script in the book stated that the "missing reel" was written that way, even though some cast members and crew hinted it might exist. If the solicitations are indeed accurate and that middle sequence has been restored, then Terror has a great chance to survive on it's own outside the Grindhouse context. If that footage is not included, the reel gag is just going to drag the film down. I must admit, the 3rd time I saw the film it just wasn't as funny anymore and I found myself desiring to just see the real thing.

Anyway, I don't know how many others noticed, but the deleted material was pretty substantial for 14 or so minutes. There's an entire action scene with El Ray and the mini-bike inside the military base's docking bay, Cherry fighting soldiers there, a more subtle introduction for the Blocks as the gas spreads, more between El Ray and Cherry, more exposition explaining the bioweapon, more of a buildup to the attacks, more J.T., and especially more scenes at the Police Station - setting up Ray's phone call, his conflict with Hague, and the introduction of the deputies and Earl McGraw. And I'm not even covering the alternate scenes with the Block's son, the missing reel (whatever that turns out to be) or the stuff that's going to be restored or no longer blacked out to qualify for the R rating.

See what I mean? I am so psyched to see this movie again, especially if the full cut improves the movie overall.

The Guardian sighs over splitting the film.

Saw Death Proof tonite, or you might know it as Quentin Tarantino Presents I've Never Actually Listened To A Woman Talk. I obviously never saw the shorter Grindhouse cut, but unless it was about ten minutes long, it wasn't short enough. I'm all for dialog-driven movies and I'm all for female empowerment, but this film contains neither done well. I'll give the (surprisingly few!) car scenes and soundtrack their due, but that's complimenting the paint job on a Pinto.

domino harvey wrote:you might know it as Quentin Tarantino Presents I've Never Actually Listened To A Woman Talk.

That is the title I am using from now on and thank you my the latest Instant Message auto-reply.

I'm all for dialog-driven movies and I'm all for female empowerment, but this film contains neither done well.

As am I, but I was deeply disturbed by the treatment of the 'feminine' character and how the 'masculine' ones won the day by 'raping' the bad guy. Oh, and since my last rant about this, I made two interesting discoveries.

First, apparently I wasn't the only one to make this observation:

Dawson Upset with 'Death Proof' Rape Scene

Second, my lack of attention to who the Jasper character was caused me to miss how this was the same rapist who was going to sexually assault Beatrix Kiddo in Kill Bill. So yeah, fantastic, a real female empowerment story while I'm watching constantly sexually objectifying camerawork (regardless of the scene context) and the movie plays rape as a joke. GREAT.

And they left the hottest chick behind too!! Gulp!! What a sham.

Why is Planet Terror being released later than Death Proof?

Macintosh wrote:Why is Planet Terror being released later than Death Proof?

It's the safest way to provide equal market share for both titles when they share the same audience.

LeeB.Sims wrote:And they left the hottest chick behind too!! Gulp!! What a sham.

Yeah, I was upset over that as well.

Honestly, for a movie where he's trying to throw his idea of attractive women all over the screen, he should've had better taste. God they were they annoying too! I honestly wished they all died. Not a good thing to say usually, but for a movie that doesn't take death too seriously, I really didn't either.

It was hard for me to decide which group of girls deserved to die more, the first or the second. Judged on ugliness alone, clearly the second. Judged on annoyingness, it's really a toss-up.

....and we wonder why there aren't more women on this forum....

Antoine Doinel wrote:....and we wonder why there aren't more women on this forum....

There's women here? Your "more" implies there is at least one.

Well I never wondered...

Just saw the 90-minute version of Death Proof and while the film certainly has its pleasures, all of Tarantino's former story-telling abilities seem to have entirely failed him. I'm trying to think of a single plot thread or character that was in any way followed up on. As a constructed script, it's startlingly half-hearted. The narrative in Kill Bill was scarcely water-tight, but it looks like Graham Greene next to this. Lee being left with the hillbilly Dodge owner, Earl McGraw apparently on the track of Stuntman Mike, Jungle Julia's absent boyfriend, Eli Roth appearing and disappearing with no explanation; all completely without conclusion or real narrative merit. And these aren't niggling throwaway references either - they're all given due emphasis while they're on screen.

I much preferred the first half of the film to the second - Tarantino hits on something to begin with, a really succesful melding of hangout film and horror picture, and the scenes round the late bar in Austin, with hints of something sinister lurking, are fantastic. After that, the set up for the second half of the film (which is much less assured than the first) is convoluted to the point of desperation. The car chase itself didn't do much for me - it's two cars nudging each other for 15 minutes at high speed on a long country road. I got a bit bored, to tell the truth. And Zoe Ball is hopelessly amateur. She doesn't seem to understand the sound of the dialogue is as important as the words themselves - it all gets blurted out without any of the cadence of the other actresses. It's a shame, because the dialogue is much closer to the everyday ease of Jackie Brown than the arch, over-articulate stuff-of-legend chatter in Kill Bill. As a whole, the film's passable but not much more than that.

I came across a DVD of the feature-length Death Proof for a great price, and having loved it in its truncated form in the theatre, and also having forgotten the complete version was recently released on DVD, I snatched it up in a second, and I watched it tonight. I guess I'm the lone fan on here, because I really think, in its own unique way, it's a spectacular piece of cinematic entertainment, and much, much better with the extra half hour.

Even beyond the visceral experience, this film moves me on a great number of levels. Aside from being as aesthetically and aurally dynamic as can be (at least most will agree with me on that...those music scenes, in particular, had me swooning), it's frequently very, very funny (and not just the ass-kicking ending...there are at least half a dozen huge laughs throughout, and several chuckles in between those), and I think he loves his characters and their attitudes.

The big chase at the end loses a lot of effect on DVD, but it's still mighty impressive, not to mention being the best scene of its kind I've ever seen. I love how overtly passionate Tarantino was in his commitment to create the ultimate old-fashioned car chase, and he really succeeded.

domino harvey wrote:you might know it as Quentin Tarantino Presents I've Never Actually Listened To A Woman Talk.

That is the title I am using from now on and thank you my the latest Instant Message auto-reply.

Okay. Am I really the only guy on these boards who can vouch to have hung out with several women whose personalities, mannerisms, language (body and verbal) and physicality strongly mirror the characters in this film? I mean, there's a lot of women like this out there, film writers just aren't typically interested in having them as the focus of a film. Tarantino's clearly hung out with a similar crowd, and probably have maintained friendships with a good many of these types for a decent portion of his life, and I think he's nailed them here.

Okay. Am I really the only guy on these boards who can vouch to have hung out with (and, in fact, enjoyed the company of) several women whose personalities, mannerisms, language (body and verbal) and physicality strongly mirror the characters in this film? I mean, there's a lot of women like this out there, film writers just aren't typically interested in having them as the focus of a film. Tarantino's clearly hung out with a similar crowd, and probably have maintained friendships with a good many of these types for a decent portion of his life, and I think he's nailed them here.

I have maintained many a friendship with women whose personalities and speech patterns are akin to the ladies in this film.

Unfortunately, Russ Meyer did it better more than 40 years ago.

The "Dave Dee, Dozy, Beaky, Mike and Tich section" still comes off a wretched diversion that wouldn't work for actors of either gender and I think that's what throws most people off about the dialogue. It isn't a matter of Tarantino not being able to write dialogue for women but more a matter of him wedging pedantic audiophile conversations into the usual minimalist archetypal B-movie narrative. I suppose that's his twist but it just doesn't work.

(I did actually like this movie, though, mostly on account of Jack Nitzsche and Zoe Bell)

Kudzu wrote:I have maintained many a friendship with women whose personalities and speech patterns are akin to the ladies in this film.

Good to hear; I do run into the ones I know every week, and to keep directly on topic, one saw Death Proof at my recommendation and really seemed to love it.

Unfortunately, Russ Meyer did it better more than 40 years ago.

This isn't the first place I've seen Russ Meyer referenced in regards to Death Proof, and I'm now very intrigued - I've had "Faster Pussycat, Kill! Kill!" recommended to me several times, so I guess I need to see it.

I'll happily second Jack Nitzsche and Zoe Bell. I also love the use of The Coasters' "Down in Mexico" and think that QT should use "Three Cool Cats" in his next film.

I kept thinking about the cute girl left behind all through the interminable car chase. I thought they would return and find she had the upper hand, or maybe he turned out to be a nice guy after all.... something.

Tarantino has so much talent its a shame he wastes it on such "so cool dude" jokey movies. It doesn't seem like he's much interested in getting past his juvenile cinema passions. As for the dialogue, its only value was listening to hot chicks spout fuck and motherfuck for a couple of hours, which does have its uses.

Yet threads on Tarantino and his films go for 17 pages, go figure!

Kudzu wrote:The "Dave Dee, Dozy, Beaky, Mike and Tich section" still comes off a wretched diversion that wouldn't work for actors of either gender and I think that's what throws most people off about the dialogue. It isn't a matter of Tarantino not being able to write dialogue for women but more a matter of him wedging pedantic audiophile conversations into the usual minimalist archetypal B-movie narrative. I suppose that's his twist but it just doesn't work.

A matter of individual taste, no? This is precisely what I find interesting about Tarantino's films. I've had my fill of archetypal B-movie narratives where all the genre conventions are scrupulously observed.

I am reminded, for some reason, of the summer of '77. Friends and I went to a showing of Friedkin's Sorcerer, which we thoroughly enjoyed (we were unaware at the time it was a remake). A few nights later we saw Annie Hall, which we also liked, but I remember leaving the theater thinking, "Man, the characters in that were so life-like, not like the types in Sorcerer at all." Of course, Annie Hall's characters are every bit the abstractions that Sorcerer's are, but I was probably responding to Allen's use of quotidian English and characters who were channeling the zeitgeist. If I'd been a genius I would have extended my line of thought to: "What would happen if you put Allen's characters in Friedkin's situations?"

Thirty years later, this isn't exactly what Tarantino is doing, but it's similar. In Pulp Fiction, to cite one example, he takes the template from Kubrick's The Killing and overlays it onto characters who resemble video store clerks. The effect created was fresh in 1994 and still seems good today. Mixing "real life" with movie genres is an interesting experiment, and Mr. T has yet to exhaust all the possible variations. I, for one, am happy to see the method run its course.

Jack Phillips wrote:In Pulp Fiction, to cite one example, he takes the template from Kubrick's The Killing and overlays it onto characters who resemble video store clerks. The effect created was fresh in 1994 and still seems good today.

How are you 100% sure that was his idea?

If your question is about QT's conscious intentions, I am in no position to know, and am not presuming to speak of those. If you are suggesting that Roger Avary deserves some or all of the credit for the idea, that may very well be true.

Jack Phillips wrote:If you are suggesting that Roger Avary deserves some or all of the credit for the idea, that may very well be true.

Yeah, that's what I was implying. The problem is trying to draw auteur theories from the filmography of someone who is disingenious about the origins of those ideas, especially in collaboration. There's simply no way anyone can attribute those concepts to Tarantino without providing the context or research that supports an argument they were solely his to begin with (or even his creation at all). Not only does this problem surface with Pulp Fiction, but his involvement on the screenplays for True Romance, Natural Born Killers and From Dusk Till Dawn as well.

Btw, I just read Tarantino and Rodriguez's thoughts on why Grindhouse bombed in Empire. Tarantino has no clue what went wrong, but Rodriguez is on the right track. Judging by how personal Tarantino took Grindhouse's failure in the U.S., I can't imagine what Death Proof's failure in the UK has done.

DrewReiber wrote:

Jack Phillips wrote:If you are suggesting that Roger Avary deserves some or all of the credit for the idea, that may very well be true.

Yeah, that's what I was implying. The problem is trying to draw auteur theories from the filmography of someone who is disingenious about the origins of those ideas, especially in collaboration. There's simply no way anyone can attribute those concepts to Tarantino without providing the context or research that supports an argument they were solely his to begin with (or even his creation at all). Not only does this problem surface with Pulp Fiction, but his involvement on the screenplays for True Romance, Natural Born Killers and From Dusk Till Dawn as well.

I take your point, but I'm not overly concerned about fixing credit where it's due (a worthy enough enterprise, but I leave that to others). I am merely using "Tarantino" as a term of convenience to talk about a body of work that is, in some sense at least, continuous. In much the same way, I might speak of Welles's cinema when discussing ideas that originated with Gregg Toland.

DrewReiber wrote:

Jack Phillips wrote:If you are suggesting that Roger Avary deserves some or all of the credit for the idea, that may very well be true.

Yeah, that's what I was implying. The problem is trying to draw auteur theories from the filmography of someone who is disingenuous about the origins of those ideas, especially in collaboration. There's simply no way anyone can attribute those concepts to Tarantino without providing the context or research that supports an argument they were solely his to begin with (or even his creation at all). Not only does this problem surface with Pulp Fiction, but his involvement on the screenplays for True Romance, Natural Born Killers and From Dusk Till Dawn as well.

Do you happen to have a link to their thoughts on it? I'd be interested to read that.