Death Proof

Terribly restrained and, mainly in the first half, boring. It was real torture sitting through the first group of girls and, until stuntman Mike (the great Kurt Russell) comes on set, nothing happens. And normally Tarantino knows how to create an atmosphere. The mysterious music and the shot of the car hidden in the darkness is much more powerful than the car revving. A change comes with the nice conversation between father (sheriff) and his first-born son (deputy), which is definitely the best of all the dialog scenes (in terms of screenplay). The second group of girls has clearly more charisma (headed by Rosario Dawson) and more fun. The icing on the cake is the final car chase which is absolute genius and breathtaking. That’s why it’s a shame that the self-centered screenwriter Tarantino has to spoil all of director Tarantino’s good work. But maybe after this kick in the ass Mr. T. will pull himself together and start work on Inglourious Basterds, because it really is high time. (09/05/2007)

Death Proof is a cool flick full of boring girl talk and AMAZING, visceral car chases and stunts. I would expect more in the dialogue department from my beloved Tarantino; however, he (once again) pleasantly surprised me with the dynamic action of the car scenes. Kurt Russell is great and the director’s inside jokes for those familiar with his work are even better (the two policemen, the ring tone of Abernathy’s cell phone, Kurt winking at the camera, etc.) Maybe, however, Quentin should have followed Russ Meyer’s example and cast some bustier ladies so that the movie would be the “perfect” representative of the feminist exploitation genre. Let’s see what the 110-minute version will bring, but because of the dumb dialogue, I’m not willing to forgive, so I’m sticking with three stars. P.S.: Rosario Dawson is very pretty. (07/08/2007)

I have no idea why this movie is so long. Why dilute a solid story (that doesn't start until the middle of the movie) with a completely unnecessary, nearly one hour prolog? Especially since after the prolog there is a “reboot’ and we start again. In the first part, we have to watch uninteresting characters, embarrassing cameos, and wannabe cool dialogs that even the hardworking Kurt Russell can’t save. The second half is basically the same, but it works mainly thanks to the likable ladies and Tarantino dialogs. The final car chase has the right atmosphere and edge to it. Technically and stylistically, it’s perfect to the smallest detail from Quentin, but that was to be expected. It is clear that he has not only seen a lot of movies, but that he can do more than just imitate, unlike Rodriguez. In particular, the idea of advancing the plot through the use of a missing film reel is ingenious and much better executed than in Planet Terror. Overall, however, I think the Grindhouse project would only benefit from both parts being shortened. Especially in the case of Tarantino's part, which is significantly better in terms of filmmaking and style, but surprisingly lags behind his colleague's more straightforward piece in terms of entertainment. (06/29/2007)

Just like with Kill Bill, I have to say that this kind of filmmaking completely misses the mark for me, albeit for somewhat different reasons than Tarantino's previous film. As surprising as it is that a film by a cult pop culture director is set in the blue field, it is rather proof of the absolutely exceptional position that Quentin Tarantino currently holds in the film world. While Kill Bill was a brilliantly and precisely shot trash, with gallons of blood, dynamic action, beautiful women, and a few memorable lines, and the interest and favor of film fans was no surprise, Death Proof is the least audience-friendly film, and it doesn't make any effort to win the favor of the audience, and the director made it for his own pleasure and the pleasure of the same nutcases as him. Death Proof is a tribute to a certain trash subgenre, where Tarantino, unlike the Coen brothers, doesn't play with genre principles but tries to achieve the maximum condensation and extraction of the genre essence. It is a strongly non-narrative film, where style is everything. In fact, the plot can be successfully summarized in four lines. The characters don't really have personalities and are rather types that are supposed to fit into a certain genre box. I've read something similar in small-run alternative lesbian-feminist comics from the 70s. The men who appear in the film are almost exclusively weaklings who beg for attention and sexual satisfaction from dominant women, who are characterized by strong vulgar language and are so cool that after a while it becomes boring or irritating due to the excessive stylization. The villain, according to this concept, has a macho appearance, but beneath the tough facade, he is incredibly weak and cowardly... I think the ability to captivate the average viewer is minimal, and so the current reviews are evidence that if Tarantino were to shoot a 90-minute recording of a washing machine drum spinning, there would undoubtedly be comments from users saying that at first glance they were hesitant and only understood Tarantino's creative genius in full extent after the second viewing. It doesn't make sense to judge Death Proof as a good or bad film, because Tarantino knows his craft and that is not the problem. But it is so self-centered that it is almost inedible from my point of view. Overall impression: 25%. (10/17/2009)

Tarantino simply cannot be denied, no matter what he does. The film doesn't lack anything I've come to expect from it - top-notch dialogue (Kurt Russell + whoever, the girls talking about why having a gun is better than "some knife"), winks at the seasoned viewer, lots of fun and a dense atmosphere that has little to do with humor. The finale was breathtaking on the big screen. I applauded the ending! (01/16/2008)