I want a Zoe.

The pictures that Stuntman Mike threw on the ground were of Jungle Julia and the girls from that night, not from earlier. The second act was getting revenge on Mike for the deaths of previous girls, not him getting revenge on women for getting his ass wooped (and killed) for fucking with the wrong chicks. The two films have a few references to one another, with the idea that Death Proof came first, but I think that's as far as it goes.

And who says Michael Parks characters has to have a chronological time line? Can't he just float from film to film, possibly dying more than once?

Well he has only died once, in From Dusk Til Dawn, If he continues to live, theres no reason not think that its not before. The question though, if Death Proof came first, what happened to Son #1

I do like the many references the movie(s) brought: Acuna Boys, Big Kahuna Burger, Red Apple Cigarettes...

I do like to point out that many people were like "WTF?" when they saw Sydney Poitier's name (Julia) in the credits as one of the "women," thinking it was her dad, Sidney Poitier.

Also... what was the ACTUAL title of Death Proof? The one they ripped out and inserted a generic DEATH PROOF title card, lol.

I guess I just don't think every recurring character in the history of film has a strict timeline when they travel from universe to universe.

I dunno who Michael Parks is, and don't see how he could possibly mean anything to the order.

And the title that flashes is Thunderbolt, I'm pretty sure.

Thanks kypade!

Ah, Thunderbolt. Thanks!

Michael Parks plays Sheriff Earl McGraw (Dakota's dad in Grind House)

People..... the second half didnt happen first.

1. He still had the scar, stop with this argument
2. It said in the f'in movie the second part happened 14 months later
3. They even had him grow a beard to represent the passing of time
4. He got his damn skull bashed in, that doesnt leave a scar, that leaves a brain popping out the back of your head

Well, remember the diner scene in Dogs? If you didnt particually enjoy it there, it's 100x worse in Death Proof. I enjoy the slow burn nature of Tarantino's films and the lengthy amount of conversation they have, because in one way or another they're interesting, clever, and funny. The second half of Death Proof is none of those things.

I was never bored or worn out by Death Proof for the second, but I walked out of Planet Terror on second viewing. Say what you will about the script (I thought the dialogue worked better in some scenes in Death Proof then a lot of scenes in Kill Bill), but I don't see how you'd blame the actresses if you liked Planet Terror - Rose McGowan's acting was incredibly wooden.

I think it was because of the dislike of the two stuntwoman. I mean they left their friend with that one hick and god knows what he would have done to her in the hopes of hijacking the guys car. I dont think the dialogue in the diner really builds up symphaty for the characters especially the two stuntwoman. All that was really revealed that was important to the scene is that one lady carrying a gun around her and we know that they love stunt car chases

Death Proof revolved around chatty women, Planet Terror didnt revolve around Rose McGowan's acting or anyone else's in particual either.

I dont know, maybe Death Proof works better stand alone then after watching an incredibly fun zombie flick. Planet Terror is the sex and Death Proof is the annoying girl that talks alot after you're finished, you dont wanna hear her talk anymore, you just wanna go to sleep.

I enjoyed the first batch of women, but man the two stuntwomen were a bunch of yentas. Especially the nappy headed ho, with the fuck this mother fuck that, every other word from her mouth was fuck, it just didnt sound right. She felt like a REALLY bad homage to Sam Jackson as Jules.

I dont remember where I heard this but it's incredibly true, I was waiting for the black girl to pull out some fried chicken and corn bread, it was such a stereotypical character and even if it was the intent that Tarantino had, it's still in bad taste and annoying.

One and three are not important, and you're right about 1 - that argument has been dropped. Four is the most obvious problem, and if it's true, then yeah, of course that was the films end. I just personally didn't see anything concrete enough to convince me on my first viewing. As for number two, it says in the SCRIPT that it happens fourteen months later - does it say this in the movie too?

Anyway, like I think I've said already (though maybe not here), most of what I'm saying is little more than devil's advocacy. I don't necessarily believe it yet myself. But I still haven't been convinced that it's impossible, and since I think that it makes for an even better film, I see no harm in discussing it. And I also think it's a lot more fun than an entire thread of "Planet Terror was amazing, Death Proof was boring", which is what pretty much 90 percent of the internet has been saying since last Friday.

QT hasn't made a great movie since Pulp Fiction & Reservoir Dogs -- as a matter of fact it's been pretty much a continuous gradual slide downwards...

RR is on a much less predictable quality path, with a long period of mediocrity after Desperado & From Dusk Til Dawn, but resurrected with Sin City and Grindhouse (remember, it is really RR's idea, his film, with QT in a guest director role)...

I would put them something like this:

RR

Sin City
El Mariachi
Planet Terror
Desperado
Once Upon A Time In Mexico
Spy Kids
Spy Kids II

QT

Jackie Brown
Kill Bill Volume II
Reservoir Dogs
Death Proof
Kill Bill Voume I
Pulp Fiction

The first five of QT could change day to day though. Pulp Fiction is odd man out, and I still like it, just not as much as the rest of the world. I need to rewatch it though, for sure.

Probably about 9:20ish?

and really, ranking Tarantino is useless...already looking at that list I want Vol. 1 higher and Vol. 2/Resevoir Dogs to be #1 and 2.

It's probably gonna be closer to 9:30-40, btw. Figure it starts at 7:40 with trailers, runs to 10:50 according to imdb's 190 minute runtime, and Death Proof felt about 70 minutes, 80 tops. Better safe than sorry, annat, but just an fyi. :O :o :O

Planet Terror didn't work for me. It had its moments, but it wasn't nearly fun enough for what it was trying to be. I was burned out on it by about the 3/4 mark.

Death Proof is a ride. As kind of a double feature in itself, it's unlike anything I've ever seen before. But I think its talkiness is a detriment; the never-ending dialogue did little for me.

I ultimately think neither film really works on a standalone basis. Planet Terror is too ridiculous and breaks no new ground, and Death Proof, at least on a Tarantino scale, is pretty slight.

As an experience it's unrivaled, and in a theater setting it is, admittedly, really fun. But, ultimately, neither director really does anything here good enough to deem this grindhouse experiment a true success.

In my opinion, of course.

I'll give it a B- or B. Something around there.

Well, that was fucking amazing. I liked Planet Terror slightly more than Death Proof, but they both were great. Kurt Russell has never been so good. And Rose McGowan is amazingly beautiful, even with a gun for a leg.

A

I agree with you. The one thing about Death Proof that bored me was the dinner talk with the girls at the beginning. I actually heard Tarantino talk about this; he said he liked having the talking scenes especially in dinners and cars as that is what people do. and Planet Terror just got to be alittle too much.

The only other complaint is that they missed 2 scenes. In Planet Terror, I wanted the backstory on El Wray and also why he couldn't use guns. And in Death Proof, they needed to brin back the damaged car to the seller and also see what happened to the cheerleader.

In regard to having them shown seperately and longer.

Planet Terror, bad idea, that was enough, no more needed.

Death Proof, maybe alittle more could be done especially if it focuses on Kurt Russell's character. Especially since there is extra time in that time-line and how did Kurt get that way.

Planet Terror I could see being split since there is a wider variety of characters with multiple backgrounds. Death Proof I wouldn't waste the time splitting because this has just too much dialogue that's already uninteresting as it is and the less we know about the stuntman the better. That's part of his appeal and mystique.

Its hard to grade this film as a whole so i'm going to grade it individually

Machete - A-
Plant Terror - A. Movie was fuckin amazing
Werewolf - D. Fuckin Stupid
Don't - C+. Decent
Thanksgiving - B+. Funny as Fuck
Death Proof - B. Easily Tarantino's worst film to date. I loved the first half, but the last 30-35 minutes sucked.

I enjoyed Planet Terror much more than Death Proof. The car chase in Proof was great, but the endless talking drove me mad with boredom.

C+