|
Death Proof [2007] | ![Death Proof [2007]](http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51dRi5OpK2L._SL160_.jpg)
 enlarge
| Artist: Quentin Tarantino
Director: Quentin Tarantino
Actors: Kurt Russell, Rosario Dawson, Vanessa Ferlito, Jordan Ladd, Rose Mcgowan
Studio: Momentum Pictures Home Ent
Category: DVD
List Price: £17.99
Buy New: £5.66
You Save: £12.33 (69%)
New (26) Used (7) from £4.99
Rating:  85 reviews
Format: Pal
Rating: Suitable for 18 years and over
Region: 2
Number Of Discs: 2
Running Time: 109 Minutes
Shipping Weight (lbs): 0.3
Dimensions (in): 7.4 x 5.4 x 0.6
EAN: 5060116722253
ASIN: B000W9RX9K
Release Date: January 14, 2008
Availability: Usually dispatched within 1-2 business days
Condition: Brand New - Swift dispatch from UK mainland
| |
| Similar Items:
|
| Editorial Reviews:
Amazon.co.uk Review
Loud, fast, and proudly out of control, Grindhouse is a tribute to the low-budget exploitation movies that lurked at drive-ins and inner city theaters in the '60s and early '70s. Writers/directors Quentin Tarantino (Kill Bill) and Robert Rodriguez (Sin City) cooked up this three-hour double feature as a way to pay homage to these films, and the end result manages to evoke the down-and-dirty vibe of the original films for an audience that may be too young to remember them. Tarantino's Death Proof is the mellower of the two, relatively speaking; it's wordier (as to be expected) and rife with pulp/comic book posturing and eminently quotable dialogue. It also features a terrific lead performance by Kurt Russell as a homicidal stunt man whose weapon of choice is a souped-up car. Tarantino's affection for his own dialogue slows down the action at times, but he does provide showy roles for a host of likable actresses, including Rosario Dawson, Mary Elizabeth Winstead, Rose McGowan, Sydney Poitier, and newcomer Zoe Bell, who was Uma Thurman's stunt double in Kill Bill. Detractors may decry the rampant violence and latch onto a sexist undertone in Tarantino's feature, but for those viewers who grew up watching these types of films in either theaters or on VHS, such elements will be probably be more of a virtue than a detrimental factor. --Paul Gaita
|
| Customer Reviews:
 Owning this movie is owning a part of movie history!, September 27, 2007
Jenny J.J.I. (That Lives in Northern Nevada)
17 out of 31 found this review helpful
This flick was pretty good. Quentin Tarantino could of written this story behind a paper coaster if he wanted to. This story of a stuntman and his fetish for auto-erotica seem just that, split as it is into two separate but corresponding stories. The first half sees four girls getting drunk and dirty at a filthy old bar in town, where they meet the sinister Stuntman Mike (Russell). The latter half sees Mike in pursuit of four new female targets, consisting of Abbie (Dawson), Lee (Mary-Elizabeth Winstead), Kim (Tracey Thoms) and stunt girl Zoe (Bell, playing herself). In both stories, Mike uses his "death proof" car to hunt the girls down and get his rocks off.
The scratched film certainly looks the part of a B Film, while audio is badly synched, scenes are spliced together in a slapdash fashion and the camera work is shaky. It's a charming and well-meaning idea, but this amateur effect only applies to the first half of the movie. The second half, shot in glorious Technicolor (except for a Kill Bill-esque slip into black and white), is immaculately shot and acted, Tarantino circling the camera around his girls in a seven minute uninterrupted take like a consummate pro. So is this a grind house movie or not? Intentional inconsistency is no excuse.
Despite his aping of B-movie directors like Roger Corman, "Death Proof" is still very much a Quentin Tarantino film; characters spend what seems like an eternity discussing moot points in that inimitable pop culture patter of his; people and themes pop up from Tarantino adventures been and gone; the requisite lingering foot shot makes an early appearance. Only Russell, in full-on Insano mode, leaves a lasting impression as Stuntman Mike, stealing the entire movie from under the noses of his eight female co-stars, none of whom particularly argue their case well.
If you can forgive its flaws (both intentional and unintentional) and just go along for the ride, then "Death Proof" is tremendous fun once it kicks into gear. It seems like it takes forever to introduce Stuntman Mike but once Russell moseys into frame, it's game on. The crash in the first half easily ranks as one of Tarantino's most impressive set-pieces (so good you'll be glad it's replayed four times) and the stunt work from Bell in the second half is genuinely gripping: it'll have you digging your thumbs into your armrests. However, if you're looking for something a little meatier than what's essentially a drive-in movie, then this isn't it. As part of something bigger, a more grandiose statement, it absolutely works. Without the context of Grindhouse, however, "Death Proof" comes across as little more than an exercise in vanity on behalf of the director, destined to be of interest only to die-hard fans who remember the kind of movies being parodied in the first place. Bring on "Planet Terror" to me baby!
Tarantino Works His Magic Again! October 1, 2007
Beatrix Kiddo (Bournemouth, Dorset)
13 out of 22 found this review helpful
Ok, let's get one thing straight - Death Proof is certainly not a mainstream film and will not appeal to everyone, but if you are a fan of Tarantino's previous work, you will love it. It is definitely a little self-indulgent and typically Tarantino with it's stylistic direction and adrenaline fulled accompanying soundtrack, but if you appreciate all the little touches and enjoy watching out for the in-jokes (which are a'plenty), you will love Death Proof. Enjoy.
 Over-hyped and tedious November 13, 2007
Adrian Weale (London)
11 out of 19 found this review helpful
Despite the best efforts of the cast, the reality is that this is a poorly written, poorly directed film which is almost unbearably slow at times. The plot is very simple: Kurt Russell is a sociopathic stuntman who gets off by killing women in deliberately engineered car crashes. In the first half of the film, he wipes out one group of girls; in the second half, he fails to do so to a second group. Tarantino fails because he focuses more or less exclusively on the women who are in danger but as Russell is a sociopath and the threat to them effectively comes out of nowhere, much of this set-up is irrelevant to the plot and simply serves to spin the film out.
On the positive side, the car chase in the second half is exciting; and Zoe Bell's debut as an actress (rather than stuntwoman) is surprisingly good. Even so, I couldn't summon the energy to watch it a second time. This movie will not enhance Tarantino's reputation.
 Twisted Tarantino January 21, 2008
Stevie G
11 out of 17 found this review helpful
Deathproof has received some negative press and pretty much flopped at the box office. Completely undeserved.
Whether youll like this film depends on whether you find the dialogue in Tarantinos films a work of genius or boring and self indulgent. Because there is a lot of it here. And its much less relevant to the plot as Pulp Fiction was.
The fact most characters are changed at the halfway point may not be to everyones taste either. And the grindhouse effect sometimes makes it look like a dodgy copy. But it makes the film unique, especially after a few watches.
By far the best thing about Death Proof is Stuntman Mike, played excellently by Kurt Russell. One last thing, the car chase finale is absolutely superb.
Probably the most misunderstood film of this decade. March 5, 2008
Jonathan James Romley (Dublin, Ireland)
11 out of 17 found this review helpful
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), Nam's Angels (1970), 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 (either to beef up the content, or to attempt to repair actual damage to the print) 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 facade of severely deteriorating film stock. It's not sloppy filmmaking, but rather, a purposeful appropriation of sloppy filmmaking 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 (the original, not that Angelina Jolie bull-sh*t) 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 filmmaking 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 filmmaking.
|
|
|
|
Copyright Thalasar Ventures | |
![Death Proof [2007]](http://pics.ebaystatic.com/aw/pics/navbar/eBayLogoTM.gif)
