Actually, I have to take that back - I've been reading about it, and it makes a LOT of sense, logically. It just turns it from a "The end" into a "making of" tale, and in either case the man is a maniac - whether we're seeing the end or beginning of a maniac doesn't much matter in the long run. I still like the idea of Stuntman Mike actually being not nearly as hard as he acts, like he just never ran into any competition before, and I do love the idea of the film ending with his death, but it definitely could work the other way too, and it definitely would not bother me much. I guess the scar (and photographs, if your theory is right) will probably be the proof one way or another, but yeah, either way it just makes me like the movie more. :o :O

Which, going back to someone's post earlier, I liked "more" than Planet Terror because, well, it's a better film. Planet Terror is a blast, a ton of fun and I really loved it, but I doubt I'd watch it outside the context of the double feature experience. Death Proof is a fine film on any level - it's got parts just as fun as Planet Terror (the end, namely) and plenty of build up and characters worth watching even when they're just in a car or eating or whatever. It's just a fascinating, well done film. :o

I dont know... in every one of Tarantino's films the random dialogue has always been aces, in this film it was just long, unfunny, and just not interesting at all. The first four girls felt natural, their conversations had a flow and it helped that it didnt go on for ages. The second batch just went on and on, it was as if it would never stop.

Tarantino to me proved no matter how great he himself thinks he is as a writer and how well he can understand women, he just doesnt have that great of a natch to write womens dialogue unless a strong female lead is breathing the lines (Pam Grier) or if the character in said case is alot more bad ass and a bit more manly in a sense (Uma)

Death Proof SHOULD be the better film and it started off as the better film, but to me, it just couldnt carry on the torch at the end.

Hm. I guess I'll see how it holds up this weekend, but I just never felt bored. It's not really funny, but I found most of the stuff with just dialog to be interesting and charming and just really liked every one. The only thing that got boring was the direction during the bar scene - girls, Mike, jukebox, repeat...that part was beat beat bland. But otherwise, I couldn't complain about much in either film. Oh well. :o :o :O

DHUN DHUN DHUN!!!

Wow Im not trusting another Loyal review again between the high love for Nach Libre,Oceans 12 and 300, its my total opposite
I can always depend on the great bradley

F u buddy, I usually agree with your reviews but never ever again, I have no faith in you.

A true RR fan (like myself) would like that movie.

Don't feel bad -- so many bullies on the playground.

Not really, but don't ever go to aintitcool.com. Just the thought gives me nightmares.

Death Proof was my favorite too. It's weird: a lot of people only like one or the other.

You're right. It's three films. Grindhouse, Death Proof and Planet Terror.

Mike did have the scar in the second half and according to the script, it takes place 14 months after the head-on collision that killed the girls.

The scar doesn't necessarily mean anything one way or another, though (since it could have happened long before either parts). And neither does the script, if it isn't also in the film.

Plus, and I think this is what the poster on page two was getting at when he mentioned the whole idea, apparently the radio mentions Jungle Julia's death early on in Planet Terror? That would almost certainly make the outbreak come within months of the end of the first half of Death Proof right? Which doesnt give much time for the second half to take place, (when does the end of Planet Terror take place? Doesn't it say like two years later or something?)

The theory as I see it:

spoilers, obviously, since I can't find the tag:

*If the Texas "accident" was his first murder, which it would probably have had to be, since the cops couldn't prove anything at all - if he had many accidents where girls died, like Jess said, they'd catch on and do /something/ - then his second murder would be this lame "run you off the road - I'm just fucking around with some girls" thing. Possibly without a death proofed car. That's a pretty dramatic difference.

But he could have had plenty of practice the other way...either toying with chicks, or even killing them...but without ever being at the scene because he never risked his life with a head on collision. So he does this for a while, stalking and playing with young vunerable groups of women until he runs across the stuntwomen. He starts the same, but before he can finish gets shot and realizes they're as crazy as him. He lives through the beating, the girls go do their thing, and he ends up hospiatlized for a while. Goes to Texas, with pictures of either the new girls (or the old ones, perhaps?) in hand to seek revenge. Goes all out with his car and with the murders, ends up in the hospital again but not as bad. Can't be proven guilty of anything because never had the accidents before. Never tied to a crime or death. Few days after this death, the radio mentions Julia's death and Planet Terror picks right up in line. Mike is either turned into a Zombie, or goes to kill more girls, or whatever.*

/spoilers.

So here is a possible time line of both Grindhouse and other movies by QT and RR. i made it up according to one recurring character. They might just like to use the same character. I don't know. The character Earl Mcgraw played by Michael Parks was in all of these movies:


Kill Bill ---------> Death Proof ---------> Planet Terror ----------> From Dusk Till Dawn

They probably just like to use the same name but different character. But he does play a Texas Ranger in all of them. I just realized it today. I thought it was pretty cool.

Ugh, it's pissing me off how much im thinking about Death Proof. I'll probably have to see it again.

You're telling me...I've been reading about it and arguing the misordered theory for what seems like hours. I still haven't convinced myself, but I've definitely done a 180 on the idea and really really like it. I can't wait to see it again personally, to decide if it holds up under scrutiny. :o

Yep. So now my question is, as someone who likes Jackie Brown, Kill Bill and Pulp Fiction (but not Dogs sadly) is it worth sitting through Planet Terror to see Death Proof?

Heres something interesting from what I read on the boards. Stuntman Mike had booze in his car in the second act where he drank up and poured it over his wound. In the first act, the blonde lady questioned him why he would go to a bar and not order alcohol, Mike gave an evasive answer about alcohol. Why would he start drinking in the second act? I can totally see him giving up on the bottle after the Zoe gang beat down. It looked like he was doing rookie mistakes in the second act

Ok.... Hold up here.... So you guys are saying that the second part of Death Proof actually happened first? Thats how he got the scar and why he seemed so evil? That does make sense, but (Spoilers) that last kick they gave him looked like it crushed his skull in? right? (end Spoilers). Could someone please explain this to me... PLEASE!

I think you guys are taking the whole "RIP Jungle Julia" thing in Planet Terror too seriously. It was probably just meant to be a cute little wink wink to the audience, not a hint at a highly convoluted twist in the narrative.

Both films definitely feel like they're directed by RR and QT. If you can stomach RR's most indulgent film, you'll probably love QT's most indulgent. I say give it a try but if they're going to be divided into two films, just wait a few weeks to see if it happens.

SPOilers, obviously:


**Probably. but that doesn't change the fact that it IS there and they obviously take place in the same world, so why can't it also be part of the narrative? And it's not /that/ convoluted...it's just a different way of looking at stuff. Plus, there's plenty of other problems it could solve - the drinking thing (which could just be a matter of in the first part he didn't want to be drunk at the hospital, as he'd get hit for their deaths no matter what then). If Christian was right about the foto being the cheerleader chick (and he's not alone in thinking it is), it would make sense that the first half was a sort of revenge for the second half. It definitely explains the shift in Mike's tone better than just "no one had ever fought back" - which does work, don't get me wrong...but imagine if in the second half he never planned to kill em. Just gets off on fucking with innocent girls. It would make sense that he'd say something like "it's been fun" or whatever he said. Yknow? I think most people will read the film straightforwardly, as I did too. But whoever came up with this theory, I think, hit it...it really seems works for me, at least after one viewing. And i think it makes for an even more interesting film.

RonBurgundy - that's the thought, except he must have gotten in the scar before either film happened. As for your question, still Spoilers following, but the theory requires that he doesn't die during the beating. Yeah, it LOOKS like he dies or gets a crushed scull or whatever, but I personally couldn't tell much clearly from that shot. Maybe when I see it again I'll be back in that camp for sure, but if it isn't a sure thing one way or another (if they don't pull a gun and put a bullet in his brain), it seems like it's at least left open, no? But don't worry, you aren't missing anything...that's exactly what you're supposed to think walking away.


/spoilers

Ah, shes all right, but couldn't she wear contacts, the whole dam movie she was squinting, that was one of the very few things that irritated me

Shes like shaped like a truck driver and a biker especially when she was surfing the car

Umm... he drank up so he wouldn't feel the pain...

Also, about the scar... I'm fairly certain I saw it in the second act as well as the first act... You're all just insane

Uh, Benny posted a picture of the scar visible in the 2nd act. TOO LATE!

Oh and Roid, I think Mike metioned to Pam (?) that he was a teetotaler (sp?).

I wouldnt be suprised if the 2nd part of Death Proof happened first, Since when does Quentin's films stay in chronological order?