PDA

View Full Version : Which Grindhouse entry is the best?


rhett
04-07-2007, 05:17 PM
Okay, so now that you've seen 'em, which is your favorite: Rodriguez's PLANET TERROR or Tarantino's DEATH PROOF.

Semerrill
04-07-2007, 05:29 PM
Death proof all the way

DeathDealer
04-07-2007, 06:24 PM
Planet Terror no doubt.

Death Proof is easily Tarantino's weakest film.

allmessedup
04-07-2007, 06:33 PM
PLANET TERROR---DEATH PROOF started out good but the last half just totally fell apart. I agree, probably the worst thing he's done.

reddye5
04-07-2007, 10:23 PM
PT = yay!
DP = booo!

onebyone
04-07-2007, 10:29 PM
Planet Terror rocked my world, and Death Proof had me looking at my watch. It's by far my least favorite QT project. Disappointing.

MorallySound
04-07-2007, 10:46 PM
Death Proof.

Noto
04-07-2007, 10:54 PM
I had amazing fun with both. Death Proof was by far my favorite, and truly echoed the GH vibe to me.

geeare
04-07-2007, 11:23 PM
While PT was the most entertaining to watch I still found DP to be classik Tarrantino. Cheers to both but PT gets my vote.

Actually the trailers were probably the best past of the whole experience.

shape22
04-08-2007, 12:45 AM
I wasn't bowled over by either one. But I enjoyed Planet Terror much more. It zipped along and overflowed with the spirit of the old B movies that inspired it. Death Proof had some good moments. But the pace was glacial and the few great scenes weren't worth slogging the interminable wait. Watching it I couldn't help thinking how much I usually love to hear QTs characters talk. Not this time. For lack of a better term (and intending no offense to anyone), these characters endlessly spout generic, self-absorbed, mindless chick banter that didn't captivate me in the least. What a bummer. To me this was the least Tarantino-like of all his films. And the pace was totally inappropriate for a "grindhouse" film. Just my opinion of course.

zompirejoe
04-08-2007, 01:22 AM
liked them both a lot, but it is Death Proof for me. the trailers were my favorite part of the whole production though.

Number Six
04-08-2007, 05:31 AM
I went with Planet Terror. Not that I at all disliked Tarantino's effort. I just had more fun watching PT. Had I been in charge, DP would have run first, and it definitely would've had more old print damage. Except for the one "missing reel" gag, which was in the most predictable spot ever, and the "live" sound usage in the car ride toward to beginning, it felt like a brand-spanking-new movie. Few scratches, no missing frames to cut up the scenes, no discolorations. It all felt too...polished...for a grindhouse movie. Even if RR's half wasn't 100% honest in its choice of genre, it was a hell of a lot more honest to the overall viewing experience.

Noto
04-08-2007, 06:16 AM
Give me a copy of Wizard of OZ. I'll scratch up the print real nicely for you and strip it of a reel and add some frame pops. Would it be a Grindhouse film then?

I think it's silly to complain about a lack of a gimmick in one movie versus another. The whole reason to adding these devices is in homage to how a bumped around print would look. It doesn't mean that they were all that these theatres would show, and certainly not how all prints looked. I'm not going to condemn Death Proof for not having scratches. Especially since, if you went out and purchased a damaged film, you would find that most of the print scratches are usually at the beginning and end of the film.

Again, I don't hold it against Planet Terror for including them. It's fun, but it isn't necessary either. The scratches don't "get me in the mood" for Grindhouse.

Kolpitz
04-08-2007, 06:39 AM
If I have to choose, it's Death Proof for me.

Planet Terror was a really fun splatter flick that reminded me of old John Carpenter meets old Peter Jackson. It certainly looked like a grindhouse movie with all the print damage but in the end it felt like a tribute film, not a genuine grindhouse film, along the lines of Cabin Fever or Slither. Like those two films, PT was a love letter to a by-gone era of filmmaking but it still felt like a movie made today. Grindhouse films were made on shoestring budgets and they never would've been able to afford PT's cast or its unrelenting stunts / action or it's top notch gore. And, they certainly couldn't have afforded quality digital effects (and, yes, I understand that they didn't exist back then). That being said, this film was still a blast and a half. The gore was inventive and the characters were all really interesting and quirky. I loved every second of it.

On the other hand, you have Death Proof. The biggest difference between PT and DP that you notice almost instantly is that Tarantino's effort is obviously shot on glorious 35mm. It's grainy and already looks like a movie shot in the 70's, even before Tarantino's minimal use of print damage effects. If the film weren't obviously set in modern times (use of cell phones), with modern actors, you'd be hard-pressed to know it was a modern film, in my opinion. Tarantino doesn't use a lot of damage effects because, frankly, he doesn't need them. His movie already looks like a grindhouse film and, even better, it also feels like one. Rodriguez used more of these effects to hide the fact that his film is too slick looking. Still, Tarantino's dialogue (I disagree with the naysayers on this one) and his camerwork are also a bit out of grindhouse films' league but not as much as Rodriguez's. I was enthralled from beginning to end. I've been listening to the soundtrack nonstop the past two days and I'm on a 70's car chase craze. I'm all about Vanishing Point and the original Gone in 60 Seconds right now.

However, in the end, Grindhouse isn't two separate films thrown together. It's a double feature that was always meant to be a double feature. I feel that the two films compliment each other perfectly. The fact that they're so different but somewhat similar at the same time is what makes the film work so amazingly. Two lesser filmmakers probably would've slapped together two films that were virtual carbon copies of each other. Rodriguez and Tarantino are too good for this and they know how to make a great double feature. The final touch of the trailers makes the greatest single film "experience" I've had in many a year.

PT is a great tribute to exploitation films. DP is a great exploitation film.

Number Six
04-08-2007, 09:50 AM
Give me a copy of Wizard of OZ. I'll scratch up the print real nicely for you and strip it of a reel and add some frame pops. Would it be a Grindhouse film then?

I think it's silly to complain about a lack of a gimmick in one movie versus another. The whole reason to adding these devices is in homage to how a bumped around print would look. It doesn't mean that they were all that these theatres would show, and certainly not how all prints looked.

But this was an era of film distribution where not many prints were struck, varying from a handful to a few handful. I'm willing to bet that of the patrons who saw these movies on 42nd Street or southern drive-ins or wherever (back in the day, of course), not many actually got to see pristine elements. I'd wager most people saw beat up, sorry looking, worn out prints that were a good 10-15 sec. shorter than intended due to a) projectionists stealing a few frames of the good bits for their collections, b) genuine print damage thanks to some form of technical issue (be it brain-wrap , projector head malfunction, etc.), or c) mishandling of the film in general. And don't even get me started on the failed reproduction of delay between the missing frames of video and the optical/magnetic (as, obviously, theaters didn't have the digital option back then) audio track. Even RR failed at this. I point it out only to show that his presentation wasn't perfect either.

Also, [I]I think it's silly to say that I'm "silly" for having an opinion. Next time, I'll run it past you via PM before posting. :p

I'm not going to condemn Death Proof for not having scratches. Especially since, if you went out and purchased a damaged film, you would find that most of the print scratches are usually at the beginning and end of the reels.

Fixed. :D

Again, I don't hold it against Planet Terror for including them. It's fun, but it isn't necessary either. The scratches don't "get me in the mood" for Grindhouse.

That's why I said I "had more fun watching PT." Nothing more, nothing less.

mcchrist
04-08-2007, 10:04 AM
My problem with it is that PT looks like a mega-million dollar film that's been crapped up. Face it, if a movie like that were made, it would have had studio backing and the prints would not have been as fucked up. Just like with, say, Escape From NY, we would have had nice looking copies all the way back to VHS, Beta, Laservision days. I didn't buy it, it looked contrived and felt contrived.

Anyway, I'm not one to praise Tarantino, but Death Proof is fantastic. It definitely felt like 70's American Art Cinema that was invading Hollywood, and ipso-facto, the grindhouses at the time.

Noto
04-08-2007, 03:37 PM
I'd wager most people saw beat up, sorry looking, worn out prints that were a good 10-15 sec. shorter than intended due [...] Even RR failed at this. I point it out only to show that his presentation wasn't perfect either.

And many people did see them when it looked good. (Well, as pristine as projection could be handled in the era.) Not every film was ran to the point of being crap. A good majority of them weren't even run for more than a week. Don't get me wrong, I get what your saying, but I think it's silly for that being the reason to condemn the film. Scratches shouldn't have anything to do with the enjoyment of the film. Hell, there's already some talk that they might be removed entirely on the DVD(s). It's pretty well known that the "missing" reels will be placed back in (the lapdance was used in the trailer). So for a presentation that's supposed to be varied (not every print across the country would have the same scratches in a real grindhouse film) Why would you want to base judgment on a film based upon how scratched up it was?

Also, I think it's silly to say that I'm "silly" for having an opinion. Next time, I'll run it past you via PM before posting. :p

Please do. I'm more than happy to help people out. It's what I do.

That's why I said I "had more fun watching PT." Nothing more, nothing less.

You said quite a bit more than that. And remember, Number Six, "A still tongue makes a happy life." :D

shithead
04-09-2007, 04:44 AM
Planet Terror, Tarantino's was good though.

RyanPC
04-09-2007, 07:05 AM
Death Proof did have quite a few amazing moments, but it was far too talky and dragged way too much in the middle, and that sort of brought down the whole movie a bit. Planet Terror was absolutely perfect in my eyes. Hell, the main credits alone were worth the price of admission!

DEATH PROOF started out good but the last half just totally fell apart. I agree, probably the worst thing he's done.

Naw... the worst he's done is "The Man From Hollywood", his segment in Four Rooms. That was just fucking AWFUL and, surprisingly, the worst segment in a movie that I otherwise didn't think was so bad.

Wez4555
04-09-2007, 05:13 PM
i voted for planet terror because I'm a whore for good zombie movies. death proof wasn't too shabby either.

Workshed
04-09-2007, 05:23 PM
I went into Grindhouse ready to laugh and cringe, and Planet Terror delivered. I liked Death Proof, but I need to see it again. I knew I loved Planet Terror right off the bat.

satans-sadists
04-09-2007, 05:40 PM
Loved both, but considered Death Proof to be the better of the two. Plan on going to the theatre for a second viewing soon, since unfortunately this won't be staying around for long due to the poor box office returns.

indiephantom
04-09-2007, 05:49 PM
"Death Proof", and having seen GRINDHOUSE twice now, the gap between the two has widened. I love them both, but DP is amazing.

DrHerbertWest
04-09-2007, 06:11 PM
For me, and this is not meant to disrespect people who love it, Death Proof was awfully awkward to watch. It starts out a little talky, starts to get really good, starts to get talky again, completely switch gears on character development and end on a note I never thought it would. Maybe it's just me. I enjoyed it, don't get me wrong... Kurt Russell is amazing, Quentin is a fabulous director, there was great cinematography and use of music... I just didn't get it, I suppose.

Planet Terror on the other hand is balls-to-the-wall zombie action. Loved every millisecond of that film.

Number Six
04-10-2007, 01:29 AM
So we agree to disagree on the print damage issue. No prob, Bob.

Don't get me wrong, I get what your saying, but I think it's silly for that being the reason to condemn the film.

Pop quiz time, kids. The subject: Reading comprehension. The question is: When did I ever comdemn Death Proof? A few hints, keeping in mind what we've read so far.

-My second sentence was "Not that I at all disliked Tarantino's effort."
-No where did I state that I would've liked Death Proof MORE had it looked worse-for-wear.
-No where did I state that I liked Death Proof LESS because it didn't look worse-for-wear.

Noto
04-10-2007, 02:12 AM
-No where did I state that I would've liked Death Proof MORE had it looked worse-for-wear.
-No where did I state that I liked Death Proof LESS because it didn't look worse-for-wear.

No, but you sure decided that you would like to scuff up the print more in order to make it a more authentic experience. In fact, the only real critique you offered up was in regards to the look of the film (with some general comment on the audio). Obviously, this distracted you (which is somewhat ironic when you think about it) and therefore upset the viewing experience.

Did you condemn it? No, you did not condemn the film, I overstated myself - I've never been one for subtlety. A glance at my previous posts, or anything I've ever written will illustrate that. Did you offer up anything outside of the gimmick to support your feeling? Not really, so that's what I based my thoughts on.

But #6, I really have no gripe here. I simply think the complaint is silly. In fact, I think it's more silly that my comment bothers you so.

allmessedup
04-10-2007, 02:41 AM
I forgot to say that I've never seen FOUR ROOMS, so okay, that might be worse.

I just hope I'm not forced to decide whether or not to purchase this on DVD in order to get the fake trailers, because I wouldn't buy DEATH PROOF on its own. Maybe used.

ThievingWinona
04-10-2007, 03:40 AM
Death Proof

indiephantom
04-10-2007, 03:48 AM
I'm one who love DEATH PROOF and for me it was the highlight of the film. I can understand those gripes of people who didn't, but I honestly feel that you may eventually grow to love this film. I've seen GRINDHOUSE twice now, and I was more bored by PLANET TERROR the second time around (not saying I didn't love it) but I feel DEATH PROOF is more complete, and the fact that it subverts our expectations a little with regards to "grindhouse" as a concept, only made it more thrilling. I just fucking love that film and I can't deny it.

allmessedup
04-10-2007, 04:28 AM
"Thrilling" is not a word I would use.

In fairness, though, I watched TWO LANE BLACKTOP last night, and it seems like the movies he was emulating in making DEATH PROOF had very similar pacing--lots of scenes of nothing in particular and then occasionally something happening. I guess if I ever do buy it on DVD I'll just turn it off about halfway through.

onebyone
04-10-2007, 04:35 AM
If I had a quarter for every time I have heard:

1. Girls really talk like they do in Death Proof. Really. They do.
2. Death Proof is the only one that willl stand the test of time.

I would have a nice chunk of change saved up for the inevitable Army of double dips coming for this title.

ThievingWinona
04-10-2007, 05:32 AM
I'm one who love DEATH PROOF and for me it was the highlight of the film. I can understand those gripes of people who didn't, but I honestly feel that you may eventually grow to love this film. I've seen GRINDHOUSE twice now, and I was more bored by PLANET TERROR the second time around (not saying I didn't love it) but I feel DEATH PROOF is more complete, and the fact that it subverts our expectations a little with regards to "grindhouse" as a concept, only made it more thrilling. I just fucking love that film and I can't deny it.

I completely agree. Death Proof was a far superior film in my opinion. Rodriguez tried so hard to make a film that was cool and hip that he ironically created something that actual grindhouse films never could have. Too much CGI and overkill for me. Tarantino made a complete and total homage to what grindhouse films were and the highs in Death Proof are so far superior to anything in Planet Terror that it really isn't fair.

People were expecting Tarantino to go over-the-top, instead, he created a true replication of grindhouse cinema. The problem is that most people don't like grindhouse cinema! So naturally, Death Proof isn't going to click. Tarantino isn't stupid. He knew what he was doing and I think on a certain level it took a lot of balls to make Death Proof, knowing full well that audiences wouldn't react to it like the would Planet Terror. I think people's distaste for Death Proof is what makes Planet Terror look "better" by comparison, along with people's natural desire to have to compare the films on an entertainment level.

I'm not saying Planet Terror sucked or anything, I thought it was alright, but I agree with you in thinking Death Proof was the "better" film. I found myself zoning out multiple times during Planet Terror.

Number Six
04-10-2007, 09:51 AM
No, but you sure decided that you would like to scuff up the print more in order to make it a more authentic experience. In fact, the only real critique you offered up was in regards to the look of the film (with some general comment on the audio). Obviously, this distracted you (which is somewhat ironic when you think about it) and therefore upset the viewing experience.

Did you condemn it? No, you did not condemn the film, I overstated myself - I've never been one for subtlety. A glance at my previous posts, or anything I've ever written will illustrate that. Did you offer up anything outside of the gimmick to support your feeling? Not really, so that's what I based my thoughts on.

But #6, I really have no gripe here. I simply think the complaint is silly. In fact, I think it's more silly that my comment bothers you so.

"Bothers" me? That would be silly, were it true. :cool:

Need I another critique of Death Proof to justify why I would vote, on an internet message board, against it in a popularity contest? It's not like I'm a professional film reviewer. I had more fun watching one movie than another-and looking at the totals thus far, I'm not alone. I didn't bring up the print quality, nor the viewing order, to suggest that it would improve Death Proof as a film. Rather, how it would, IMO, improve *Grindhouse* as a film. I realize now, and acknowledge, that in my post-event buzz, I failed to make this point clearly. A pisser too, that missing a simple paragraph break has caused such a flap. As they say, "My bad."

Upon a second viewing, however, I did find that DP runs about 10 min. too long. (Maybe, subconsciously, I picked up on that the first time and used it as the basis for my vote. Unlikely, but not implausible. The subconscious can be weird.) The scene after the hospital with McGraw and Son, when the "new" girls (Dawson, Bell, et al.) are in the car...? Pointless. All it established was that two of them were stunt-women, which could've been addressed in two lines of dialog in the diner. Very typical Tarantino really, and I'm a huge fan of the guy. Except Jackie Brown; that movie's crap. But I'll stop now before I REALLY tick people off.

XOXO:banana:

Noto
04-10-2007, 01:38 PM
I realize now, and acknowledge, that in my post-event buzz, I failed to make this point clearly. A pisser too, that missing a simple paragraph break has caused such a flap. As they say, "My bad."

No worries. I like hearing the "Whys?" behind the "Whats." I'm glad I got you to elaborate.

Very typical Tarantino really, and I'm a huge fan of the guy. Except Jackie Brown; that movie's crap. But I'll stop now before I REALLY tick people off.

Yep. Them's are fightin' words. :D

Paff
04-10-2007, 05:03 PM
"ery typical Tarantino really, and I'm a huge fan of the guy. Except Jackie Brown; that movie's crap.

"crap"? No, I disagree. Flawed, definitely, but not crap.

Not to turn this into a Jackie Brown defense thread, but it's a movie that has grown on me over time (and believe me, I thought it was TOTAL crap when I saw it on X-mas day 1997, so I see where you're coming from). My biggest complaint about JB is having the climactic scene (the final money exchange in the mall) happen with more than 45 minutes remaining in the movie! And it really drags to a halt in those final 45 minutes.

Yet I can also see why QT did that, as he much more successfully pulled off the same tactic in Pulp Fiction. The confrontation between Pumpkin/Ringo and Jules is tense, but not exactly action packed. And it ends on a slow note, not an exciting pay-off. Yet it somehow works. I think he tried to do the same thing with JB with lesser results.

The way to look at Jackie Brown is two-fold. For one, it's a typical Tarantino exploration of the day-to-day lives of petty criminals. Instead of exposition where they "plan the job" or talk tough, you have discussions of aging, poor lifestyle choices, CDs vs. vinyl, etc. He's always wanted to put a human face on his criminals, and Jackie Brown probably does it the best.

Secondly, and more important, the film is an extrapolation of the blaxploitation classics of the 70s. While many "urban" contemporary crime films are also influenced by those films, they keep a young cast. Quentin wanted to know, what happens to these people (Coffy, Foxy Brown, etc), 20 years later??? And it turns out, some (Ordell) are still trying to make a buck in the crime business that has passed them by. He's also exploiting the criminal youth by marking up his gun prices on the "popular" weapons.
And if someone from that era were to "go straight", what kind of job could they realistically get? No education, no work experience that you could put on a resume. So Jackie is relegated to being a stewardess on a second-rate airline.

It's a fascinating character study that drags on a bit too long, but is still a worthy film.

satans-sadists
04-10-2007, 05:43 PM
If I had a quarter for every time I have heard:

1. Girls really talk like they do in Death Proof. Really. They do.
2. Death Proof is the only one that willl stand the test of time.

I would have a nice chunk of change saved up for the inevitable Army of double dips coming for this title.

$4.75 is what it amounts to. I'm an accountant. Trust me.

onebyone
04-10-2007, 10:32 PM
$4.75 is what it amounts to. I'm an accountant. Trust me.

Damn you accountants are buzz kills. I forgot about taxes.

KillerCannabis
04-23-2007, 06:12 PM
Planet Terror for me. It had everything I love in films and Death Proff was way too talky. Don't get me wrong, I love me some Tarantino and his dialogue but only when he has the actors to pull it off. This time he most certainly did not.

othervoice1
04-30-2007, 12:54 AM
As stated in another thread regarding this movie today- I liked Death Proof a little more than Planet Terror- now I could change my mind on a second viewing cuz Planet Terror had a lot of great cheese action- but for now Death proof over Planet Terror- but I loved the whole thing

zombi3
04-30-2007, 11:34 PM
Planet Terror for me.:fire:

nekropimp
05-01-2007, 06:44 AM
I love them both equally...but for different reasons.
But the one I couldn't stop thinking about...and still can't...is DEATH PROOF.

maskull
09-03-2007, 05:12 AM
Finally saw this one. Loved both movies but I so adored Death Proof! It wasn't what I was expecting at all but it turned out so much better. I had no problem with the dialog scenes, in fact they entertained me to no end, but I seriously found myself laughing and cheering all through the final chase scene. Damn that was cool!! I could see myself watching Death Proof a whole bunch more times.

Planet Terror was cool and Rose was her usual awesome (I knew there was I reason I love her), but it didn't click with me as much...except for the ending. ...and pretty much any scene with Rose in. Damn that ending was swell.

Why does QT think he can act?

RyanPC
10-18-2007, 09:24 PM
After watching Planet Terror again last night, I decided that Death Proof is the better of the two. Planet Terror has some amazing scenes and the main credits sequence is still (to me) one of the best main credit sequences there is, but I'm finding that these days I enjoy the dialogue and story of Death Proof more. It's been said before, and now I have to agree: Death Proof has longevity, while Planet Terror is just a mindless, fun ride that loses steam after multiple viewings.

Hellbilly
10-21-2007, 06:26 PM
Doesn't happen very often but I just wanted to watch Planet Terror twice in a row, because it kicked all sorts of ass.
After Tarantino put me to sleep with Death Blah Rodriguez showed me what Grindhouse is all about. Thank you Robert!

Drama Queen Die
10-21-2007, 06:47 PM
I liked them both, but see myself watching Death Proof more often.

nullman
10-22-2007, 06:14 AM
Planet Terror was really fun. Death Shit about put me to sleep. If I wanted to watch 4 bitches blab I'd tune to lifetime.