Death Proof (2007)

Only a Tarantino film can give you the feeling of pure boredom and electric intensity all at the same time. Both can come of simple conversation and over-the-top action. "Death Proof" is the quintessential Tarantino film, where he has long, drawn out conversations that are constantly interrupted yet free flowing and very natural as the characters talk about everyday things (pop culture) and use quirky old sayings. Tarantino is easily the greatest writer you could think of for pure dialogue and even though that's his greatest asset, it's also his biggest flaw. The film is cut into two halves and the first half is excellent. The ending is great (in both halves), but man, did that middle nearly put you to sleep or what?!?! It's not that it was incredibly boring material. The problem was: This was two similar movies smashed into one, with a ton of common parallels, Stuntman Mike (Kurt Russell), being the main figure. The second half doubles back on the first half; ultimately repeating itself. The women are powerful. They can control men because men are pigs and only think with their little heads as the women in charge tease them with their sexuality. Even though the girls aren't whores, they surely push the limits because when they don't put out, they'll get a guys respect- a common theme with both the first half and the second coming from eight different women who all think the same. The standout female performance came from Vanessa Ferlito (Arlene) who brought a certain flare to the screen that made the viewer care for her more than anyone else. She nailed this performance and carried the first half along with Russell.

The dialogue (and there is a ton of it) is, as usual, captivating at the start. "Death Proof" is a faller, not a riser, but the action packed ending is strong enough to give this fair remarks. This is a common issue with Tarantino. "Kill Bill Vol. 2" may have had the longest, most drawn out ending this side of "The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly," and the worst part is that we know exactly what's going to happen, because, like most Tarantino films, the women usually come out on top. The first half of the film is flawless. The conversation is perfect. The mysteriousness of Stuntman Mike- who has a thing for car crashes and testing the "death proof" slogan that goes along with his "scary" car- is great and the best part is that we never know where the movie is going to end (Or at least this story). Kurt Russell actually gave a very strong performance. His look was great and when he imitates John Wayne that should crack everyone up even if they don't know what John Wayne sounded like. The ending to the first half of the movie is great and the look of the picture is incredible as Tarantino pays homage to the 70s style look. You have random cutaways, intentionally poor editing where the conversation will skip, double back, and some parts will completely cut away (During a lap dance, too) at what feels like an inopportune time, but that's what makes it so great. The texture and overall look is dazzling right from the very first shot of one of the girls feet rockin' away- to a modernized Scorsese styled, catchy beat- on the dashboard against a light blue sky. Tarantino, stylistically, has a style all his own and this was great to see.

The second half of the film brings in four more women that walk, talk, and act just like the four we seen in the first half. The film doubles back on itself and repeats the first half

Fmovies: I can't figure this out, and I sincerely apologise if this is a useless review but Tarantino has done it again.

I find it difficult to explain why this film hit the spot when so many others did not. Tarantino definitely has a handle on reality, and doesn't need to create artificial story lines and make believe monsters to thrill and intrigue his audience. This is a film that illustrates our everyday idiosyncrasies and shows us both the real, yet dark side of humanity, and shows us that real life is far more exciting and intriguing than fantasy.

The dialogue between characters was funny, real, and interesting. Bringing together a variety of different characters (eg cheerleader, successful celebrity, ghetto girlie etc), he illustrates the common traits of the human psychology that we all pretend don't exist. Most other films take us into unrealistic fantasy, Tarantino knows reality is far more exciting!

Kurt Russell surpassed himself. He's been absent for too long, and his part in Death Proof leaves me wanting to see more from him. His acting was superb and I hope this film relights his career and we see more from him soon.

I definitely saw touches of Pulp Fiction in this film, but in a subtly different way.

Cinematography was awesome, and the use of weird and wonderful camera techniques made this film more than just interesting.

When it comes to films I'm a tough critic, I'm disappointed far more than I'm surprised so giving a 10 out of 10 for me is very unusual.

This is a clever, interesting, and unusual film that will appeal to serious lovers of movies. Tarantino is both a movie scholar and genius. I bow before you Quentin and hope desperately to see more like this.

Many thanks ... Shaun

This is an absolutely brilliant film and a film that I could watch over and over. Written and directed by Quentin Tarantino this film seems to have divided audiences like no other, it has been adored and despised in many quarters and there seems to be no middle ground for opinion. It is cited, by Tarantino himself, as being a remembrance to the B movies of the 60s and 70s through the guise of Grindhouse cinema. In order to fully appreciate what Tarantino has done then I would agree that you must be at least familiar (on some level) with the films of that genre and era and familiar with Grindhouse cinema and its workings. It is not an absolute necessity to be fully aware of this type of film-making but it helps if you want to completely appreciate this film.

Grindhouse cinema was never revered in its day and many have questioned its reprisal. For an audience to require adequate knowledge of such a minnow in cinema history is regarded by many critics as asking too much and is adduced as being a major factor in its downfall. This is due to the belief that Tarantino has made a film for too niche a market, and as a consequence it should be of no surprise that it flopped at the box office. This is something that I whole heartedly disagree with because, to the contrary, I believe that Tarantino has made his most selfish film to date, he has made something that he wanted to... that no studio dictated... no executive planned and no audience asked for, this film is 100 percent his and it just so happens that not that many people like it, all great directors make films that fit into this category.

A major critique of Death Proof has been that it contains a lot of dialogue, but I feel that this should be expected as it is a remembrance to Grindhouse cinema and these types of movies are notorious for the amount of talk they can contain and the amount of "build up" they might have and Tarantino himself is recognised as being a writer that emphasises the dialogue in his films. Modern cinema goers are likely to not have the patience for such an offering and thus dismiss its significance and become agitated at a lack of "action" and this is evident from some of the reviews on this website.

The film is about two separate sets of voluptuous women who are stalked by a stuntman called Mike that uses his death proof cars to execute the women. The essence of the story at the heart of Death Proof is that it's impeccably nostalgic as it insinuates to the very essence of cult, it is a forged story because of its countless renditions and numerous re-tellings by the way of novels, films and tales. Being familiar with such a story allows for an ease in understanding and following of narrative – a common attribute in cult films. The voluptuous women, or female characters, in the film are all so similar in appearance yet all so different in disposition, because the film is essentially split into two parts we witness the floundering of one set of female characters and the resurgence in dominance of another. The female empowerment in Death Proof is symbolic to a desire for masculinity which is so wonderfully conveyed by their attempt in "taming" the car (I shouldn't need to mention what the car is symbolic of). It's often perceived that in these films masculinity must be achieved in order to succeed, which in itself is a direct reference to the inspired B movies of Russ Meyer.

On a personal level I was happy to watch a film that accomplishes its stunt work without any CGI and re-live many

Death Proof fmovies. It all started as an homage to old exploitation cinema and double feature screenings. It was meant to be one of the most shamelessly entertaining films of the year. Sadly, after flopping in the US, Grindhouse has been chopped in two, with Quentin Tarantino's segment, Death Proof, being the first to be released on its own after competing at the Cannes Film Festival. It is not presented in its Grindhouse version, which included scratches, dirt, missing reels and other visual aging techniques; instead, we get the full cut, containing additional information regarding certain plot points and a few "juicy" bits that were left out first time around (a hot lap dance being the best new scene). And while it certainly would be fun to see the entire double-bill in all its glory (hopefully it will get a worldwide DVD release), I must say I really enjoyed QT's half as a separate picture.

As this is intended to be Tarantino's answer to '60s and '70s B-movies, the plot of Death Proof is extremely simple: there is a psychopath, named Stuntman Mike (Kurt Russell), who enjoys killing women with his car, a virtually indestructible vehicle ("This car is 100% death proof. Only to get the benefit of it, honey, you REALLY need to be sitting in my seat!"). Whenever he arrives in a new town he selects a group of girls and sets his perverse plan into motion. And unless he runs into someone who is as crazy or drives as well as him, there is no way to stop him.

Those expecting QT's usual stream of film references will be disappointed: apart from a hilarious restaurant scene that sort of spoofs the opening of Reservoir Dogs and a couple of nods to similarly themed horror flicks (and, of course, the casting of Russell, which is a deliberate homage to John Carpenter), the director is not interested in exposing his absolute knowledge of this kind of cinema. This time, he delivers a straightforward genre movie, albeit with his trademark tough women at the center. The trailer promised a wildly fun B-movie, and that's exactly what Death Proof is: a movie like they don't make anymore, old-fashioned, irony-free and exciting as hell.

However, this does not mean Tarantino has set his visual or verbal obsessions aside: the dialogue is as imaginative and surreal as it has always been, and there are enough shots of bare female feet to keep fans happy. Naturally, being this a QT flick, those feet belong to a quality cast: the only real star in the film (apart from the villain, that is) is Rosario Dawson, but she is part of a talented ensemble, which includes Vanessa Ferlito (CSI: NY), Rose McGowan (Scream) and stunt-woman Zoe Bell (who doubled for Uma Thurman in Kill Bill). The mention of honor, though, goes to Russell, who finally has the opportunity to go all bad again, and boy, does he go bad: even when he is pretending to be a friendly chap who offers you a ride home, he exudes a sense of menace that doesn't leave until the end of the picture. Also worth praise are Michael Parks, reprising his role of foul-mouthed sheriff Earl McGraw (of From Dusk till Dawn and Kill Bill fame) and tying the two halves of the film together, and Tarantino himself, popping up as smug, ridiculously likable bartender Warren. The latter is particularly charming because, unlike other times (From Dusk's Richie Gekko is a good example), QT does not try to prove he can act (although he pulled off a remarkable job in Alias). He's just there for the sheer fun, like everyone else.

Pure, unadulterated fun

I honestly think Death Proof is one of the most underrated films at the time I'm writing this (2015). A lot of people on this board seem to complain about the dialogue or the delivery of some of the actors. I personally think this movie has a lot of punch with a strong car chase sequence, very good actors, well-written script....and a perfect soundtrack!

I really like how the first part of the movie is a classic slasher/horror movie and the second part is a great throwback to "car movies".

Death Proof came out in 2007 and I remember watching this movie with my friend and having a really good time. I watched the movie another time a few years later and really enjoyed it to for other reasons, especially the classic car chase sequence.

Now it's 2015, I've just watched Death Proof for a third time and it's still a blast to watch. The music is perfect, the movie is very funny, and I love the performance from Kurt Russell, Sydney Poitier (Jungle Julia) and all the other supporting characters.

R.I.P. Sally Menke, I really love her work on this movie...not only for the great grindhouse "jump cuts" but also for one of my favorite scene halfway through the movie that I won't mention and the awesome 11-min well edited car chase.

I gave the movie a strong 9/10 and I hope this movie will have a better reputation 5-10 years from now. Great work from Quentin Tarantino!

Given the vast majority of major criticisms levelled at this film, it would appear that a large percentage of the audience has completely missed the joke, or simply, didn't find it at all amusing. With Death Proof (2007), Tarantino creates such a loving homage to a notoriously cult cinematic sub-culture that many people seem unaware of how to approach it or even how to appreciate the sheer fact that the film purposely goes out of its way to ape the style of late 60's and early 70's exploitation cinema in look, feel and content. The film isn't meant to be taken entirely seriously, but rather, is a parody and/or pastiche of the kind of films that the vast majority of mainstream audiences simply wouldn't want to see. I'm talking about films such as Two-Thousand Maniacs (1964), Ride the Whirlwind (1965), Manos: The Hands of Fate (1966), Satan's Sadists (1968), The Big Bird Cage (1971), Boxcar Bertha (1972), Fight for Your Life (1977) or Satan's Cheerleaders (1977); low-budget films made with often-non-professional actors, little in the way of conventional film logic, and highly controversial in terms of plot, theme and content.

It also sets out to pastiche the "grindhouse" cinema phenomena, with the original idea of two films being shown as a double feature at drive-in movie theatres from state to state, with both films often being re-cut and re-edited, not by the filmmakers, but by the theatre owners themselves. This is evident in the amusing switch in title; with the film opening with the caption 'Quentin Tarantino's Thunderbolt', before awkwardly cutting to an obviously out of place title card with 'Death Proof' crudely emblazoned across the screen. This is also the explanation for the purposeful mistakes in continuity, the sloppy editing and the switch between colour and black and white, as well as the façade of severely deteriorating film stock. It's not sloppy film-making, but rather, a purposeful appropriation of sloppy film-making geared towards appealing to the kind of obsessive movie aficionado who gets the references and can appreciate the joke that Tarantino is attempting to pull.

With this in mind, it seems hard to understand what people are complaining about. Do audiences actual expect this film to keep them enthralled and entertained when the vast majority of them would balk at experiencing many of the low-budget, semi-obscure films that influenced it? Hardly! The accusation here that "nothing happens" is fascicle. The fact that there is film running through the camera is proof enough that something is happening, with the hilariously bland dialog deconstructing the film in much the same way as the purposely amateurish composition, editing and sound all intended to fracture the cinematic language in the same way that Godard did; by reminding the audience that this is the film and the point of the film is to experience the sights and sounds that unfold before us. Added to this the colourful iconography, the music, the characters, the girls in tight t-shirts, the for once entirely justified performance from the man himself, all reminding us that this is a joyous, darkly comic romp in which the point is not "why?" but "why not?".

The effect is reminiscent of Kill Bill (2003), which at times felt superficial or perhaps even too knowing for its own good, but still demonstrated to us the filmmaker's great use of tone, texture, colour and movement, as well as turning many people on to a whole new world of