Death Proof (2007) User Reviews (789)

Tarantino's B-movie: a spectacular ride!

[MaxBorg89 · 8/10 · 7 June 2007]

It all started as an homage to old exploitation cinema and double feature screenings. It was meant to be one of the most shamelessly entertaining films of the year. Sadly, after flopping in the US, Grindhouse has been chopped in two, with Quentin Tarantino's segment, Death Proof, being the first to be released on its own after competing at the Cannes Film Festival. It is not presented in its Grindhouse version, which included scratches, dirt, missing reels and other visual aging techniques; instead, we get the full cut, containing additional information regarding certain plot points and a few "juicy" bits that were left out first time around (a hot lap dance being the best new scene). And while it certainly would be fun to see the entire double-bill in all its glory (hopefully it will get a worldwide DVD release), I must say I really enjoyed QT's half as a separate picture.

As this is intended to be Tarantino's answer to '60s and '70s B-movies, the plot of Death Proof is extremely simple: there is a psychopath, named Stuntman Mike (Kurt Russell), who enjoys killing women with his car, a virtually indestructible vehicle ("This car is 100% death proof. Only to get the benefit of it, honey, you REALLY need to be sitting in my seat!"). Whenever he arrives in a new town he selects a group of girls and sets his perverse plan into motion. And unless he runs into someone who is as crazy or drives as well as him, there is no way to stop him.

Those expecting QT's usual stream of film references will be disappointed: apart from a hilarious restaurant scene that sort of spoofs the opening of Reservoir Dogs and a couple of nods to similarly themed horror flicks (and, of course, the casting of Russell, which is a deliberate homage to John Carpenter), the director is not interested in exposing his absolute knowledge of this kind of cinema. This time, he delivers a straightforward genre movie, albeit with his trademark tough women at the center. The trailer promised a wildly fun B-movie, and that's exactly what Death Proof is: a movie like they don't make anymore, old-fashioned, irony-free and exciting as hell.

However, this does not mean Tarantino has set his visual or verbal obsessions aside: the dialogue is as imaginative and surreal as it has always been, and there are enough shots of bare female feet to keep fans happy. Naturally, being this a QT flick, those feet belong to a quality cast: the only real star in the film (apart from the villain, that is) is Rosario Dawson, but she is part of a talented ensemble, which includes Vanessa Ferlito (CSI: NY), Rose McGowan (Scream) and stunt-woman Zoe Bell (who doubled for Uma Thurman in Kill Bill). The mention of honor, though, goes to Russell, who finally has the opportunity to go all bad again, and boy, does he go bad: even when he is pretending to be a friendly chap who offers you a ride home, he exudes a sense of menace that doesn't leave until the end of the picture. Also worth praise are Michael Parks, reprising his role of foul-mouthed sheriff Earl McGraw (of From Dusk till Dawn and Kill Bill fame) and tying the two halves of the film together, and Tarantino himself, popping up as smug, ridiculously likable bartender Warren. The latter is particularly charming because, unlike other times (From Dusk's Richie Gekko is a good example), QT does not try to prove he can act (although he pulled off a remarkable job in Alias). He's just there for the sheer fun, like everyone else.

Pure, unadulterated fun and excitement: that's the key to appreciating Death Proof. Do not expect a smart, unusual take on an overused genre, like the director has done in the past: this time around, he sticks to the rules, delivering a loud, silly, sexy, violent piece of Entertainment with a capital "e". It may not be the best film of 2007, but it sure as hell is one of the most purely enjoyable.

It's okay in my book.

[Al_The_Strange · 7/10 · 20 October 2013]

In 2007, Quentin Tarantino and Robert Rodriguez joined forces to create the Grindhouse film experience: a double feature intended to emulate the thrilling grittiness and distinctive roughness of 1970s exploitation cinema.

Tarantino's contribution to the Grindhouse project is Death Proof: a weird combination of car-chase action and serial-killer terror. If nothing else, Death Proof does everything that Tarantino loves doing. It has characters who act really cool, always talking with sharp wit and dirty language. It has wild camera work, including some slick black-and-white shots and shots intentionally damaged to give everything a rough, old-fashioned texture. It has an abundance of oldies rock 'n roll, it has oodles of references to other films (including some references to Tarantino's own Pulp Fiction and Kill Bill). It even has dozens of foot-fetish shots, with barefoot characters strutting around, shoving their feet into the camera. And, of course, there's also plenty of pulpy blood and violence to satisfy.

The film has its share of cool parts and sharp dialogue. The last act is most worthwhile for its phenomenal car chase scene. It lasts for a good twenty minutes or so, featuring a pair of great muscle cars, ripping up the roads before ripping each other up. It's all intended to replicate the look, feel, and excitement of old-fashioned car chase films, such as Vanishing Point (which is referenced in the film, and the film even uses the same car).

The problem is, however, is that when the film isn't cool, it's totally uncool. In between the big standout scenes, the film drags a lot. A lot of time is spent on the characters hanging out at bars and restaurants, chatting inanely, and often times without progressing the plot all that much. These scenes still have a few standout scenes (such as the saucy lapdance scene), but a lot of it comes off as pointless.

The story is also pretty weird and mixed. It's essentially split in half, with some scenes set in the past and some set in the present. It's all intended to focus on the main villain stalking two different sets of victims, and the film takes its (damn) time to set things up for the big car wreck scenes. It also takes its time to dive deeply into the characters. Unfortunately, the pacing takes a huge hit in doing so, and the film overall feels uneven.

Fortunately, the film remains cool and slick, with fantastic photography and editing. Scenes set in the past have been scratched-up and damaged on purpose to replicate that old-fashioned 1970s film look, and it is pretty wild that way. Acting is quite appealing from the cast; especially from Kurt Russell, playing the bad guy for a change, and he is strikingly effective as Stuntman Mike. Writing is very sharp and witty, although not always effective. This production uses some very cool and distinctive sets, props, costumes, and cars. Music is really neat too.

The film is pure Tarantino, and I can't help but to think that the man must have had too much fun making this picture, because it encompasses all of his signature trademarks. Unfortunately, it's also quite a mixed experience that's not always palatable. Fans should check it out and see what they think, and it's recommended as part of the Grindhouse double-feature experience, but otherwise it's best left as a rental if you're interested.

3.5/5 (Entertainment: Average | Story: Pretty Good | Film: Good)

Way too talky, even for a Tarantino

[Vartiainen · 7/10 · 11 March 2019]

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.

Probably the most misunderstood film of this decade

[ThreeSadTigers · 12 March 2008]

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.

Quentin Tarantino at his Best and Worst

[DaveDiggler · 6/10 · 2 May 2008]

Only a Tarantino film can give you the feeling of pure boredom and electric intensity all at the same time. Both can come of simple conversation and over-the-top action. "Death Proof" is the quintessential Tarantino film, where he has long, drawn out conversations that are constantly interrupted yet free flowing and very natural as the characters talk about everyday things (pop culture) and use quirky old sayings. Tarantino is easily the greatest writer you could think of for pure dialogue and even though that's his greatest asset, it's also his biggest flaw. The film is cut into two halves and the first half is excellent. The ending is great (in both halves), but man, did that middle nearly put you to sleep or what?!?! It's not that it was incredibly boring material. The problem was: This was two similar movies smashed into one, with a ton of common parallels, Stuntman Mike (Kurt Russell), being the main figure. The second half doubles back on the first half; ultimately repeating itself. The women are powerful. They can control men because men are pigs and only think with their little heads as the women in charge tease them with their sexuality. Even though the girls aren't whores, they surely push the limits because when they don't put out, they'll get a guys respect- a common theme with both the first half and the second coming from eight different women who all think the same. The standout female performance came from Vanessa Ferlito (Arlene) who brought a certain flare to the screen that made the viewer care for her more than anyone else. She nailed this performance and carried the first half along with Russell.

The dialogue (and there is a ton of it) is, as usual, captivating at the start. "Death Proof" is a faller, not a riser, but the action packed ending is strong enough to give this fair remarks. This is a common issue with Tarantino. "Kill Bill Vol. 2" may have had the longest, most drawn out ending this side of "The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly," and the worst part is that we know exactly what's going to happen, because, like most Tarantino films, the women usually come out on top. The first half of the film is flawless. The conversation is perfect. The mysteriousness of Stuntman Mike- who has a thing for car crashes and testing the "death proof" slogan that goes along with his "scary" car- is great and the best part is that we never know where the movie is going to end (Or at least this story). Kurt Russell actually gave a very strong performance. His look was great and when he imitates John Wayne that should crack everyone up even if they don't know what John Wayne sounded like. The ending to the first half of the movie is great and the look of the picture is incredible as Tarantino pays homage to the 70s style look. You have random cutaways, intentionally poor editing where the conversation will skip, double back, and some parts will completely cut away (During a lap dance, too) at what feels like an inopportune time, but that's what makes it so great. The texture and overall look is dazzling right from the very first shot of one of the girls feet rockin' away- to a modernized Scorsese styled, catchy beat- on the dashboard against a light blue sky. Tarantino, stylistically, has a style all his own and this was great to see.

The second half of the film brings in four more women that walk, talk, and act just like the four we seen in the first half. The film doubles back on itself and repeats the first half over again, just with different girls. The conversations are the same (all about sex), but there's one difference: "these girls will fight back." That will bring us to a wonderful stunt worked, high speed, well choreographed, and even better shot car chase that just doesn't want to end and I guess, in a way, that's okay. We deserve to indulge in a thrilling sequence for as long as it was after Tarantino toyed with our concentration and focus; dulling us with repetitive banter. Zoe Bell, the stunt women, had too many speaking parts. She's not a good actress where the first group of girls were much, much better and more engrossing. The last four girls weren't all that effective (Maybe because we seen it all before just minutes earlier). The final sequence will leave you laughing, not only because it's ridiculous, but how long it lasts and the camera work along with Russell' face is very funny. "Death Proof" was, for the most part, an enjoyable film, but this same old Tarantino song and dance is running on thin ice. Conversation, as always, in a Tarantino film is starting to take over more than ever for plot and the second half of "Death Proof" nearly ruins a nearly flawless first half. There's not much here in regards of plot and a lot of people are going to be getting sick of tired, pointless, going-no-where talk. It's time Tarantino reinvents himself.

Fantastic movie!

[sbcara · 9/10 · 21 April 2018]

You people are crazy who are giving this such a low review. This is cinema classic - fantastic, witty dialog, lots of humor, two amazing action scenes, one consisting of an outstanding car stunt that always gives me chills in the stomach, and a great "women's revenge" ending. I could watch this anywhere, any time and be thoroughly entertained. This movie has two distinct halves to it, and both are great. But you have to enjoy the buildup of we'll crafted dialogue. If all you want is mindless crap, don't watch a Tarantino movie.

Tarantino's weakest film is still pretty damn cool

[a_chinn · 7/10 · 21 October 2017]

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.

One of the most underrated films!

[Matt-Canalcon · 9/10 · 22 August 2015]

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!

Hold on, I gotta come up! I gotta take the world's biggest f*ckin' p*ss!"

[lastliberal-853-253708 · 7/10 · 10 November 2013]

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.

Remembrance cinema at its best!

[luke-346 · 10/10 · 14 January 2008]

This is an absolutely brilliant film and a film that I could watch over and over. Written and directed by Quentin Tarantino this film seems to have divided audiences like no other, it has been adored and despised in many quarters and there seems to be no middle ground for opinion. It is cited, by Tarantino himself, as being a remembrance to the B movies of the 60s and 70s through the guise of Grindhouse cinema. In order to fully appreciate what Tarantino has done then I would agree that you must be at least familiar (on some level) with the films of that genre and era and familiar with Grindhouse cinema and its workings. It is not an absolute necessity to be fully aware of this type of film-making but it helps if you want to completely appreciate this film.

Grindhouse cinema was never revered in its day and many have questioned its reprisal. For an audience to require adequate knowledge of such a minnow in cinema history is regarded by many critics as asking too much and is adduced as being a major factor in its downfall. This is due to the belief that Tarantino has made a film for too niche a market, and as a consequence it should be of no surprise that it flopped at the box office. This is something that I whole heartedly disagree with because, to the contrary, I believe that Tarantino has made his most selfish film to date, he has made something that he wanted to... that no studio dictated... no executive planned and no audience asked for, this film is 100 percent his and it just so happens that not that many people like it, all great directors make films that fit into this category.

A major critique of Death Proof has been that it contains a lot of dialogue, but I feel that this should be expected as it is a remembrance to Grindhouse cinema and these types of movies are notorious for the amount of talk they can contain and the amount of "build up" they might have and Tarantino himself is recognised as being a writer that emphasises the dialogue in his films. Modern cinema goers are likely to not have the patience for such an offering and thus dismiss its significance and become agitated at a lack of "action" and this is evident from some of the reviews on this website.

The film is about two separate sets of voluptuous women who are stalked by a stuntman called Mike that uses his death proof cars to execute the women. The essence of the story at the heart of Death Proof is that it's impeccably nostalgic as it insinuates to the very essence of cult, it is a forged story because of its countless renditions and numerous re-tellings by the way of novels, films and tales. Being familiar with such a story allows for an ease in understanding and following of narrative – a common attribute in cult films. The voluptuous women, or female characters, in the film are all so similar in appearance yet all so different in disposition, because the film is essentially split into two parts we witness the floundering of one set of female characters and the resurgence in dominance of another. The female empowerment in Death Proof is symbolic to a desire for masculinity which is so wonderfully conveyed by their attempt in "taming" the car (I shouldn't need to mention what the car is symbolic of). It's often perceived that in these films masculinity must be achieved in order to succeed, which in itself is a direct reference to the inspired B movies of Russ Meyer.

On a personal level I was happy to watch a film that accomplishes its stunt work without any CGI and re-live many of the films I dismissed too eagerly in my youth. Being a homage the film is littered with references, the most notable of which being the casting of Kurt Russell – a deliberate nod to the master of cult (and horror) John Carpenter (the shirt worn by Jack Burton, from Big Trouble In Little China, is visible on the wall in the bar), The Dodge Challenger driven by Stuntman Mike has the plate numbers OA5599, which correspond to the white Dodge Challenger from the heavily referenced film Vanishing Point. The film also contains lots of Tarantino-esquire moments, from the copious amount of foot shots to re-appearance of Sheriff Earl McGraw, and there are some moments of pure Tarantino ingenuity i.e. the four-shot death scene, the reversed hospital set, the lap dance, the shot of the car in the rain, Stuntman Mikes nod to the third person and the wonderfully constructed soundtrack. Upon seeing Death Proof I immediately watched it again as I felt it deserved it. Enjoy.

It's a bit of a mess, but like all car crashes, you can't help but stare at it.

[teh_mode · 7/10 · 14 October 2007]

Clunky editing, grainy filming, laughable stories, ultra-violence and exploitation in the guise of feminism and blacksploitation. Not the most appealing of conventions when it comes to the modern cinema audience. Perhaps this explains, to a certain extent, why the old drive-in formula of watching back-to-back trashy hardcore exploitation films was lost on American audiences. Grindhouse took a paltry $4.2 million on its opening weekend and has thus far failed to make back even half the double movie's budget. This despite most critics who went to see it having nothing but praise for Tarantino and chums. But apparently only seeing the numbers, Quentin and co-director Robert Rodriguez decided it would be best to split their respective stories apart, and release them as two movies in the UK, flying in the face of Grindhouse logic.

The first of these films, is Death Proof, Quentin Tarantino's homage to the likes of producer Roger Corman's Deathrace 2000 and director Jack Hill's Switchblade Sisters (1975), with Kurt Russell's Stuntman Mike having an unhealthy obsession with crashing into cars driven by young ladies. An appropriately stupid premise tailor-made for a grindhouse market. Why then does the film seem so incidental when attempting to recreate the vibe of a Corman-style trash fest? The long and short answer is that this isn't really a grindhouse film. It is a Tarantino film with the ghosts of so many bad old movies hovering over it. Yes you get the grainy film footage, and the purposefully poor editing that raise the chuckles they crave. But that quickly fades away, and Tarantino very quickly moves into familiarly talkative territory akin to hit men talking about European hamburgers or bank robbers musing about the veracity of Madonna's hit single "Like A Virgin". Although this is not entirely a bad thing, it is not inherently valid for this type of material. Tarantino can't help but overload his scenes with meaningless meandering, almost as if he has reached the point of aimless directorial swaggery. One scene, for instance, involves one of the girls buying a magazine at a gas station. A simple interaction that goes on forever it would seem, failing to tell us anything about the characters or indeed the plot. At least Pulp Fiction had meaning behind the mundanity of its own inhabitants. I did often wonder if much of this was down to Tarantino having to bulk up his film after splitting it from Planet Terror. It has the veneer of a movie in desperate need of a good editor, much in the same way that Kill Bill vol. 2 needed a good spit shine. And then we have the actual car scenes. Well barring the ultra-violent central car crash that splits the film's two female groups, and the climactic car chase (expertly executed) Death Proof is nothing more than a girls gone hiking film. Again, blame the editing, for an awful lot of this movie creates a hugely diverting story of girls pontificating the kind of popular interests that only Tarantino would make them do, such as a love for the film Vanishing Point or Dave, Dee, Dozy, Beaky, Mick & Titch. Is it stylish? Absolutely. No Tarantino film could ever bore you aesthetically, or indeed talk you to death with insipid dialogue. Even if it is uneven and ponderous, listening to these characters waffle on about nothing in particular is still executed smoothly and embodies that Tarantino air of coolness. Maybe the inevitable release of Grandhouse as a whole will win over my heart more. It's a bit of a mess, but like all car crashes, you can't help but stare at it.

I don't understand why, but this is the film of the year for me

[Fizzwizz · 10/10 · 4 November 2007]

I can't figure this out, and I sincerely apologise if this is a useless review but Tarantino has done it again.

I find it difficult to explain why this film hit the spot when so many others did not. Tarantino definitely has a handle on reality, and doesn't need to create artificial story lines and make believe monsters to thrill and intrigue his audience. This is a film that illustrates our everyday idiosyncrasies and shows us both the real, yet dark side of humanity, and shows us that real life is far more exciting and intriguing than fantasy.

The dialogue between characters was funny, real, and interesting. Bringing together a variety of different characters (eg cheerleader, successful celebrity, ghetto girlie etc), he illustrates the common traits of the human psychology that we all pretend don't exist. Most other films take us into unrealistic fantasy, Tarantino knows reality is far more exciting!

Kurt Russell surpassed himself. He's been absent for too long, and his part in Death Proof leaves me wanting to see more from him. His acting was superb and I hope this film relights his career and we see more from him soon.

I definitely saw touches of Pulp Fiction in this film, but in a subtly different way.

Cinematography was awesome, and the use of weird and wonderful camera techniques made this film more than just interesting.

When it comes to films I'm a tough critic, I'm disappointed far more than I'm surprised so giving a 10 out of 10 for me is very unusual.

This is a clever, interesting, and unusual film that will appeal to serious lovers of movies. Tarantino is both a movie scholar and genius. I bow before you Quentin and hope desperately to see more like this.

Many thanks ... Shaun

Misunderstood

[demzzj · 7/10 · 11 July 2021]

Death proof is a film that tries to replicate and parody car exploitation films from days now gone.

It attempts to show two isolated incidents, one of a group who fall victim to the supposedly death proof car, and one of a group who choose to fight back. The films main real issue is that the first group of characters managed to be much more interesting than the second. Death proofs second group isn't bad per say, just not as interesting. Especially since they get much more time develop. The first crew is shown going about there day and hanging out in a bar. The second group gets some dialogue, we learn one of them has a gun, then we abandon one of those characters and enter a fun yet predictable climax.

I think you can enjoy this film without knowledge of what it tries to parody, but it immediately becomes a much better and more rewatchable film when you have insight. I give this film a 6/10.

Talk, talk, talk, talk, talk. Crash. Talk, talk, talk, talk, talk. Chase.

[BA_Harrison · 4/10 · 25 October 2007]

One half of the Rodriguez/Tarantino collaboration Grindhouse, kindly padded out to feature length for us non-American viewers, Death Proof features Kurt Russell as Stuntman Mike, a deranged driver who likes to deliberately cause fatal crashes. But when he picks on a car which just happens to include a couple of Hollywood stunt women amongst its passengers, the tables are turned and poor old Mike gets a taste of his own medicine. An homage to the violent, gritty, un-PC action flicks of the 70s, Death Proof comes complete with dodgy editing and scratchy film stock, in an attempt to deliver that authentic 'grindhouse' vibe.

Okay Quentin, I get it! You're a cool bloke. You like cool music, cool films and cool people. But why do you feel like you have to constantly prove to us how cool you are by repeatedly referencing all your cool cinematic influences in unrealistic conversations between unrealistic characters, whilst your cool soundtrack endlessly plays in the background (which is always littered with visual references from your goddamn favourite cool films)?

The experience is so bloody boring: 45 minutes of nothing but chit-chat (complete with your oh-so tiresome references to Kahuna burgers and Red Apple cigarettes), followed by a decent car crash (that shows what you are capable of when you're not trying so hard to be cool), then more chin-wagging (mention foot massage one more time, Quentin. I dare you. No, I double dare you!), even more movie references (don't you understand that when you have your actresses wax lyrical about B-movies and fast cars, thus creating a fantasy world where gorgeous women actually share YOUR passions, it comes across as rather sad?), and, finally, a well executed car chase capped with an extremely crap ending.

I have a sneaking suspicion that, as part of the original Grindhouse double bill (with Rodriguez's Planet Terror and some faux trailers for other trashy movies), a shorter version of Death Proof (with less jibber jabber) would have worked slightly better. But since the rest of the world (outside of the U.S.) has been denied the chance of seeing this version, all I can do is judge the cut I have seen. And it is not good.

Homage to 70s B-movies

[jfgibson73 · 7/10 · 7 September 2021]

I enjoyed this movie. I don't mind all the dialog. I'm not really into car chases, but the stunts were impressive. Most of the movie is girls hanging out. The first half of the movie, they hang out in a bar. The second part, they are driving around. Kurt Russell plays a murderer who kills people by driving into them with his special car. He kills the first group of girls, but the second group beat him down.

A Nutshell Review: Death Proof

[DICK STEEL · 8/10 · 21 June 2007]

After the relative success of his homage to kung fu with his Kill Bill movies, Quentin Tarantino turned his sights to the 70s exploitation movies with Grindhouse: Death Proof. However, for us outside the US, we do not get the Grindhouse double bill with Robert Rodriguez's Planet Terror and a host of easter egg styled trailers, but rather we get the longer cut of both movies. Many have said that Planet Terror proved to be superior to Death Proof, but without watching the other, I thought Tarantino's offering was pretty decent stuff.

Perhaps his detractors loathed how he made references to and probably paid homage to his own movies and signature style. This spelt E-G-O, and doesn't go down well, with its plenty of foot fetish shots, reminiscent of foot massages, and if you pay attention enough, you'd spot and hear about the Big Kahuna burgers, familiar tunes over the ringtones, yellow and black striped colour schemes, the alpha female type chicks, and loads and loads of vulgarity laced dialogue just about everything under the sun, with characters mouthing off in cars or around a dining table. That about sums up stuff from Reservoir Dogs all the way to Kill Bill.

But Death Proof is a different animal altogether. Being his own cinematographer, QT has full control over the shots that he makes, and injects plenty of sleaze into his story - buxomy, leggy girls in tight tees and perky butts peeking out of hot pants, flaunting their power of sexuality in alpha-female styled attitudes. It's actually two different segments in one movie, each being quite different from the other in terms of themes, and style.

The first half introduced us to characters like Arlene (Venessa Ferlito), Shanna (Jordan Ladd), Jungle Julia (Syndey Poitier) and Pam (Rose McGowan), who end up in a bar doing their own thing (read: plenty of dialogue and flirting with the camera). We get introduced quite slowly to the psycho Stuntman Mike (Kurt Russell, with Snake Plissken styled scar), who while on one hand befriends the girls, but on the other hand, we are just waiting for the action to begin. Being a stuntman, his car is "death proof", meaning it's rigged like stunt cars that provide protection for its driver, and nothing else. And if you're twiddling your thumbs for some action to take over, then be prepared to wait a bit.

You see, despite what you think Death Proof might be, it's nothing about the action, not at least until the driver takes the wheel. And when QT lets it rip, out comes the blood and gore, exploitation style. Given the fake jump cuts, bad editing and scratchy film stock, it becomes near impossible to find out just which parts were censored for the local M18 version. It does seem to make sense still and flow well, but you can probably bet your last dollar that some bits were removed. On the other hand, we have stuff like the lap dance kept intact, which was omitted from the double bill Grindhouse. Win some and lose some.

The second half of the movie is a different story altogether. For the most parts, the 70s style gets junked, maybe because it got tiring, or it's too tedious to replicate the cheesy special effects over to this story arc, where the hunter becomes the hunted. There's plenty of action, but could I say it's somewhat repetitive and lacks that oomph, until the final moments where you probably might go "that's awesomely cool". Other than that, it's more of the same, with more eye candy courtesy of Mary Elizabeth Winstead (Sky High, Final Destination 3), Rosario Dawson, Tracie Thorns and Zoe Bell, with plenty more QT styled dialogue of pop irrelevance.

While stylistically the movie might want to try and resemble low budgeted 70s exploitation movie, Death Proof juxtaposes certain current day elements into itself, making it somewhat messy with gizmos like cell phones and portable music players. What put a smile on my face though (besides the beautiful ladies of course), is Kurt Russell's two-faced Stuntman Mike performance. He can be nonchalant one minute, oozing indifference, and in the next, he can be so silently deranged you'd rather choose to leap from the vehicle, if you had a means to that is. Or he can be the classic road rage driver, before realizing he has bitten off more than he could chew. It's been some time having Russell on the big screen, and I thought he did fine, despite not being QT's first choice for the role.

Ultimately, just one warning about the movie - expect plenty of dialogue, and I mean plenty, with characters talking about sexuality and about people who never appear on screen, and if you can't stand irrelevance, then steer clear. The action comes on in limited spurts, so if that's what you're after, then savour every moment when the gear shifts into overdrive. The loopy soundtrack too is a bonus, and adds some authentic exploitative flavour. QT did not manage to outdo himself, but still managed to capture the correct spirit in those films he wants to emulate. If Rodriguez's installment is as they say far superior than QT's , then I'd say bring on Planet Terror already!

A B-Movie Style Full of Action, Violence and Nice Girls

[claudio_carvalho · 7/10 · 31 October 2010]

In the City of Austin, Texas, the girlfriends Jungle Julia Lucai (Sydney Tamiia Poitier), Arlene (Vanessa Ferlito), Shanna (Jordan Ladd) and Lanna Frank (Monica Staggs) reunite in a bar to drink booze, smoke pot and make out with their boyfriends before traveling alone to Lake LBJ to spend the weekend together. They meet the former Hollywood stunt Stuntman Mike (Kurt Russell) that gives a ride to Pam (Rose McGowan) in his "death-proof" stunt car. Sooner Pam discovers that Stuntman Mike is a psychopath and he kills the girls provoking a deadly accident with his car. Fourteen months later, the infamous Stuntman Mike appears in Lebanon, Tennessee, stalking a group of women that works in cinema industry. Abernathy "Abbie" (Rosario Dawson) that works with make-up; the stuntwomen Zoë Bell and Kim (Tracie Thoms) and B-actress and model Lee (Mary Elizabeth Winstead) are chased by the maniac, but the girls are tough and decide to fight back.

"Death Proof" is an entertaining film of Quentin Tarantino that follows the style of B-movies and is full of action, violence and nice girls. There are references to many other movies, through dialogs, posters and billboards, but the greatest one is to "Vanishing Point". The choreography of the car races and accidents are amazing and the stuntwoman Zoë Bell is stunning. I was expecting to see what has happened to Lee that was left alone with the owner of the white car and his reaction after seeing the car totally wrecked, but the films has an abrupt end and forgets these characters. My vote is seven.

Title (Brazil): "À Prova de Morte" ("Death Proof")

Start your engines.

[aciessi · 9/10 · 21 May 2021]

Holy hell is Death Proof a great movie. 1/2 of the Rodriguez/Tarantino experimental theatrical experience "Grindhouse", Quentin Tarantino is tasked with making a film in the genre of the very kind that he used to watch with his mother in the early 70's. A dirty, sleazy, scummy midnight flick. This is his wheelhouse. He's right where he wants to be here. These movies were exploding off the screen with extreme violence and steaming sexuality. How can Quentin go wrong? He honestly doesn't. In a sense, this is a precursor to Once Upon a Time in Hollywood. The first half of Death Proof is virtually perfect. We get well established with Stuntman Mike and the girls that he targets to kill with his stunt car. It's a red hot hangout movie. Kurt Russel arguably gives his best performance as Stuntman Mike. He's charming and seductive, while at the same time, terrifying. When the film moves over to Lebanon, Tennessee, we meet Stuntman Mike's match. That is, a group of badass stunt women, on loan from Hollywood. This is where the film enters shaky territory. The grimy, 16mm patina that dominated the first half disappears, and looks more in line with Tarantino in his post-Kill Bill era. I wish, stylistically, it wasn't that inconsistent. Also, the scene in the diner goes on for way too long. But all of that is forgiven when we are treated to the epic car chase sequence that closes out the film. Whatever faults that the second half has, forget about it. This scene takes you for a brutal ride. I didn't want it to end. For that matter, neither did I want the film to end.

Slasher-Exploitation-Muscle Car Triple Threat

[zooeyglass70 · 7/10 · 24 February 2023]

QT said he wanted to make a slasher film his way, which (I feel) inevitably morphed into displaying his love of the types of movies he (and, being 6 years younger, I) grew up watching in the pre-cable days where all they seemed to show on the weekends were these exploitation/muscle car movies of the 1970s.

The homage to all three genres is done well enough, though the slow burn leading to the action is not as compelling as to the dialogue as QT has done in other movies (others have noted this as well).

I frankly enjoyed this more than The Hateful Eight and I found the ending particularly satisfying.

Proof of Genius

[bryanus · 10/10 · 15 November 2009]

This movie shows that Tarantino can make a "normal" situation into a completely surreal artistic commentary. The part that reminded me that Tarantino was a genius was when Kurt Russell is taking a picture of some of the women, and even though you never see Russell in that scene, his exuberance is so palpable as to be inspiring. While I found 'Planet Terror' (the second part of this double feature) to be interesting, I found this part to be a standout; if not for the fact that it did not need special effects or "science fiction" to lend it its charm. And even still, I think that this movie stands as one of the best cinematic examples in film history. This movie should be studied by any serious student of contemporary (and every other category of..) film history. Completely memorable. A masterpiece.

One of the worst movies ever!

[aargyrou · 10 April 2008]

For a whole entire year I'd been excited to see Death Proof. But let me tell you something, this ain't no insane action movie that everybody had expected it to be. The whole film was a bunch of girls talking about girl stuff. And what an upset Madman Mike was. He was supposed to be the ultimate villain, well at least I thought. He ain't no bad man, he's begging three girls not to kick his ass, and at the end he gets the crap beaten out of him. I tried and tried to make myself like Death Proof but I couldn't. I preferred Mr. Nanny to this garbage. I don't recommend this film to anybody. Even the car chase scene was disappointing, it was supposed to be some epic car chase, but it wasn't nothing I ain't seen in the Fast and the Furious movies. It was truly a big disappointment. Watching this is no different than watching 4 episodes of The Hills. If your a big Tarantino fan like I am I recommend you avoid this movie

Slasher on wheels.

[HumanoidOfFlesh · 7/10 · 11 December 2007]

Stuntman Mike played by always reliable Kurt Russel gets his kicks by stalking groups of foxy chicks and ending their lives at speed with his 'death proofed' vintage automobile.Cut to 14 months later,a different state,a different set of targets and an altogether different approach.This time round the girls are tough and fiercely independent.Unfortunately this second segment is more anemic than the first one.However the last twenty minutes are worth checking out for the fans of tire squealing and burnt rubber.The final car chase is simply incredible and adrenaline filled.In the prolonged chase sequence through deserted roads Tarantino expertly captures the raw cinema of the 70s."Planet Terror" is more fast-paced and a lot more gorier,but who cares."Death Proof" will bring the smile on the face of any self-respecting road movie enthusiast.

Not for everyone, yet fantastic if you get it.

[chewbaccacharlie · 10/10 · 24 September 2018]

Tarantino's supposedly "weakest" movie Death Proof has mixed opinions and reviews from audiences and critics alike. But personally, there's something very poetic to the Death Proof movie that not a lot of people see.

This movie, being a tribute to the exploitation era of cinema has a lot more to say that meets the eye. It presents the theme of Missing your own previous time. The fact that presence is constantly changing and you can never travel back in time. Stuntman Mike is the most important character in the film as his story and motivation is incredibly unique. He misses the old days and his job and lifestyle has been rendered useless, Mike desperately tries to cling on to his past. This may easily be a self-insert for Tarantino himself.

This isn't a complete tribute to Exploitation cinema, for the female characters that appear in the film are completely different to the ones audiences view in older movies. There are clear differences, proving Quentin didn't just watch a few Exploitation movies, take some notes and just make a movie out of it. He had interesting things to say about the "death of cinema" and having progressive, unique and interesting female characters compared to the ones feautured in the movies he was parodying. These women aren't objects or eye candy, they're characters you care for and become interested in. Whenever they're sexualised it's out of satire and mocking the strange nature of Exploitation cinema.

Trash-Talk-Fest

[LeonLouisRicci · 7/10 · 20 October 2013]

The Director's Self-Indulgence is His Major Weakness. Here He seems to Exploit it or Maybe it just seems that way. It's hard to tell. Could be Self-Parody but is more Likely Self-Importance. But that's OK. Let the Man Go. He is an Unbridled Talent with so much Internal Energy that if not Released could Implode and cause the Atmosphere to Ignite like the Initial Fear of the Atomic-Bomb.

What We have here is a Talk-Fest of the First Order. Talking Trash in an Homage to Trashy Movies might just be some sort of Genius. Or not. It is Masterful Masturbation. Stroking the Thing He likes Best. The Seventies.

Chicks, Babes, and Bimbos coming together to Kick-Ass, take no Prisoners, and show a lot of Skin and Attitude. Throw in some Muscle-Machinery, here read Gear-Head Cars. It's all Revved Up with some Audience Friendly Violence and Chases that are Desperately Needed after those Elongated Girl-Gab Scenes that may have some Males in the Audience forgetting about those Chic-Sal-Val Clothes and T&A and Legs, and Shrieking with Displeasure.

This is Low-Budget Tarantino Slumming when He doesn't have to for the Sheer Pleasure and Fun of it all. He sure Looks like He is having a Blast. Whether You do or Not is Depending.

blah, blah..blah... freaking BLAH!

[madiganman · 1/10 · 3 October 2007]

Am I the only one that thinks Quentin Tarantino's 'Death Proof' is a piece of junk?

The first hour of the movie consists of four women chatting away in a bar about the party tonight and how the boyfriend of one of them who's a radio personality is like TOTALLY spaced on her birthday and blah, blah.. blah... freaking BLAH! Then they get killed by a mysterious guy called Stuntman Mike (Kurt Russell). That's when the action begins.....and lasts for like 5 whole minutes! Then cut to few months later where another group of women chatting of the type that makes most men's eyes roll up into their skulls. Sorry, ladies but I'm sure you know what I'm talking about. I know that when my wife has a bunch of her friends over I have to either leave the house or retreat into my den, otherwise it's like having bamboo shoved under my fingernails.

Now eventually... eventually as in 45 long..... torturous..... b-o-r-i-n-g minutes later, Kurt Russell finally shows up again to wreak havoc on this set of women. Unfortunately by this time I was so mad at having had to sit through so much mind numbing dialog that I couldn't even enjoy the car chase and what followed. No payoff could have been big enough for having been subjected to about a full hour of excruciating boredom except for maybe, the credits to roll. I don't know what the heck happened to Tarantino, but if felt like he was channeling Oprah or "The View" through some sort of trailer park filter. It was, in a word: bizarre. Another 5 minutes of car chase action. Then the movie ends.

This movie is supposed to be a spoof on the 70's B-grade camp movies. However it turned out to be one of the most boring movies I've seen in my life!