Grindhouse - A prova di morte

As a complete film, I'm not sure this one quite comes off, but in terms of being a love letter to grindhouse cinema, it's filled with wonderful touches throughout that make it an absolute treat for fans of 1970s exploitation flicks (which I came to love in the 80s on VHS). Touches that I loved in "Death Proof" were the faux scratched up print, the costumes that looked both contemporary and period, the missing scenes, the film's title change ("Quentin Tarantino's Thunder Bolt" that appears on screen for a split second), bad rack focusing, the film title font choice, the subtle reference to other classics like "Gone in 60 Seconds" in the film's opening title sequence or references to cheerleader and muscle car movies or to voyeuristic giallo films or even dialogue references to classics like "Vanishing Point" or "Big Wednesday," and then there's the casting of Kurt Russell, which that in and of itself is enough to evoke nostalgia from 80s Gen-Xers who should be thrilled to see Russell getting to play a badass once again. The story is one of the film's weak points, which is unusual for a Tarantino film. The story follows two separate sets of beautiful women being stalked by serial killer Stuntman Mike (Russell) and his Death Proof car, but maybe the implausible story and gaps in logic are part of Tarantino's homage to exploitation cinema. Another complaint is that some of the dialogue, particularly in the first half of the film, although entertaining didn't seem to serve either the story or character development, which Tarantino usually does so well. But again, Tarantino may just have been riffing and having fun with this freewheeling film. But for all it's flaws, this is still a highly entertaining film and it's impossible not to enjoy the badass showdown between Stuntman Mike and the second set of women, who happen to include amazing stuntwoman Zoe Bell. This film should have made Zoe Bell an action star, but that may not have happened since there are so few female action roles in Hollywood. Tarantino really knocks it out of the park with the film's final chase and action sequences, which are greatly aided by Tarantino's excellent choice of music (though the music choices throughout the film are great). If you had any misguided belief that this was a throwaway film on Tarantino's part, he again proves himself as a true "cinema guy" and does deliver some moments of pure cinema (moments that could not be captured in books, animation, comics, or any medium outside of film). Besides any scene with Russell, I think my favorite moment of the film is was when Zoe Bell is on the hood of the Dodge Charger and Tarantino has the camera go into close-up on Rosario Dawson's face, who is at first terrified by Bell on the hood and then slowly comes to the realization that Bell is loving it, as Dawson breaks out into a smile. It's a great performance by Dawson, but Tarantino's slow zoom and patience to hold on Dawson are just brilliant. Like most Tarantino films, this one features a deliciously eclectic cast, that besides Russell and Bell includes Rosario Dawson, Rose McGowan, Jordan Ladd, the underrated Mary Elizabeth Winstead, Eli Roth, Michael Parks as Earl McGraw and James Parks as Edgar McGraw, Marley Shelton, and Nicky Katt. Although this film is likely Tarantino's weakest film, it's still a solid film and well worth watching.

Death Proof, directed by Quentin Tarantino, is the other half of the Grindhouse double exploitation experience. The other half being Robert Rodriguez's Planet Terror. In it an aged stunt driver, played by Kurt Russel, stalks different groups of women in his souped-up muscle car, getting sick kicks out of their terror.

And, as stated, it is an intentional, old school exploitation film, so expect a lot of stereotypes, gore scenes, sexualization of women, drinking and smoking, and just all around extreme tastes. Think of what Tarantino usually does and then remove the slightest of filters he usually utilizes. And, if you like the style, this is definitely a film worth checking out.

That being said, it is curiously slow for an exploitation film. Tarantino is known for his lengthy, bizarre dialogue scenes, and nowhere is that more apparent than here. Granted, they are very good dialogues and these are all interesting characters, played by talented actors, but they're still as long as hunger years. Tone it down a bit, Quentin. We don't necessarily have to know the whole life story of every single character on the screen. Just saying.

But, it's not like I was bored. More morbidly fascinated by their length. And luckily the few action scenes the film has are really good. They're just as over the top, practically made and beautiful in their goriness as we've come to expect from Tarantino. No complaints there.

Death Proof is most probably the weakest film Quentin Tarantino has ever made. But, to paraphrase his own words, if this is the worst he's ever made, he's good. He's very good.

This film was an homage to the grind house flicks of the past. It's crowning achievement was the inclusion of some of the baddest gals on film, and one of the hottest.

Vanessa Ferlito as Arlene, who I would watch sitting in a chair for an hour anytime. It was well worth it to see that lap dance. Ferlito was clearly the star of this film.

Then there were the badass girls: Tracie Thoms as Kim and Rosario Dawson as Abernathy. I could watch them ride around in a car for an hour anytime.

It was the last third of the film where the action was ramped with some fantastic stunt work by badass Zoe Bell and, of course, the coup de grâce, Abernathy's boot in Stuntman Mike's (Kurt Russell) face. Heavenly.

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 cult Japanese cinema; from the works of highly individual filmmakers like Seijun Suzuki, Kinji Fukasaku and Takashi Miike, to cult performers like Sony Chiba. Death Proof attempts to do something similar with the likes of the American revisionist road movie, the B-cinema of Roger Corman and the femsploitation subgenre of films like The Big Bird Cage (1972), Caged Heat (1975), Day of the Woman (1978) and Ms. 45 (1981); a coolly ironic series of films in which wronged women take bloody revenge in an often elaborate and over the top style, chiefly intended to give a feminist slant to the still rampant degradation and misogyny prevalent in the exploitation genre.

Other reference points are more obvious as they're mentioned explicitly in the film; notably car chase cinema such as Vanishing Point (1971), Two-Lane Blacktop (1971), Dirty Mary, Crazy Larry (1974), Gone in 60 Seconds (1974) and even Spielberg's Duel (1971). Some have complained that the film fails on account of its lack of action and emphasis on dialog and technique, but this seems churlish when you think of the films being referenced; with Vanishing Point featuring a number of cryptic, desert-set sequences in which characters talk and talk and talk, while Two-Lane Blacktop punctuates its scenes of hard driving and drag-racing with much in the way of meandering small-talk. Then we have the fact that films like Reservoir Dogs - which takes place almost entirely within a single setting - and Jackie Brown - which places emphasis entirely on character - use dialog to not only create the characters but to also tell the story.

Regardless of this, Death Proof is meant as a piece of entertainment. There's no real desire here for Tarantino to prove what kind of filmmaker he is because he's already done that with the number of great films that came before. Sure, it can be seen as self-indulgent, but surely those of us familiar with the style of film-making being referenced here will revel in this particular kind of extravagance, loving everything from the continually inane female banter to the awesome scenes of high speed carnage. If you're not a fan cult cinema or exploitation cinema or indeed a devotee of Tarantino's work then this film really isn't going to impress you. There's no shame in that. Some films are made for a niche audience, destined to be a cult in their own right. However, for those who get it, Death Proof has the potential to be a truly exhilarating, one-off piece of film-making.