• Most new users don't bother reading our rules. Here's the one that is ignored almost immediately upon signup: DO NOT ASK FOR FANEDIT LINKS PUBLICLY. First, read the FAQ. Seriously. What you want is there. You can also send a message to the editor. If that doesn't work THEN post in the Trade & Request forum. Anywhere else and it will be deleted and an infraction will be issued.
  • If this is your first time here please read our FAQ and Rules pages. They have some useful information that will get us all off on the right foot, especially our Own the Source rule. If you do not understand any of these rules send a private message to one of our staff for further details.
  • Please read our Rules & Guidelines

Death Proof

FatherMerrin

Well-known member
Faneditor
Cover Artist
Messages
910
Reaction score
2
Trophy Points
33
I recently watched the Unrated Versions of Planet Terror & Death Proof (with the trailers too). I was gonna review both of them as a Grindhouse piece but I've got a slight confession to make. I kinda fell asleep through a little bit of Planet Terror so I wont review it, as I think it's only fair to review films when you're fully conscious throughout.

There will be spoliers in this review.

Anyway, I loved the first half of the movie. I liked Tarantino's girly talk & their story. I thought the acting was strong and I thought their ending was pretty good. I was confused during the first half as a lot of critics accused Tarantino of being self indulgent in this movie & I didn't see why that was.

That was until the second half started.

It was the same set up again. A group of girls in a car, girly talk then Stunt Man Mike. I very quickly began to dislike the 2nd half for many reasons.

1, The 2nd half generally speaking is just the same as the 1st half, just with a different (better) ending. Thus rendering the entire 1st half of the movie pointless.
2, The characters in the 1st half were better developed than the 2nd half characters. I cared what happened to the girls in the 1st half, wasn't bothered at all about the girls in the 2nd half.
3, This is the first time I was uncomfortable with the language in a Tarantino movie. Hearing the girls in the 2nd half calling each other Nigger really didn't feel right to me. Not sure why, all I know is when the word was used in this film I felt uncomfortable & considering I love the TV program The Wire I'm pretty sure it's not because I'm a prude. Maybe the fact it was women talking like that which made me uncomfortable. So I'm not a prude but I am sexist lol.
4, The acting was weak in the 2nd half.
SPOILER!!!
5, IMO the film is morally flawed. I know this film is in the tradition of Grindhouse, X Rated, Video Nasty type films, but I still think it's flawed. This is because I don't think the killing of Stunt Man Mike was justified for the girls in the 2nd half. Sure the guy attacked them, but not one of the girls had a scratch on them afterwoulds, even the the girl who flew off the car was unmarked!!! So when they killed him it didn't feel like they had given him a taste of his own medicine it felt like they were murderers rather than girls getting revenge. In the 2nd half of the film if one of the girls had been killed from SMM's attack, then killing him would of been fine, but like I said that wasn't the case. I mean in Kill Bill The Bride was betrayed, shot in the head, left for dead, lost her baby & routinely raped. As a result she had a moral right to kill, not so in Death Proof.

I know you're probably thinking, "Well he did kill the girls in the 1st half". True, but the girls in the 2nd half didn't know that, it's a totally separate story. I actually felt sorry for Stunt Man Mike by the end of the film, which I'm sure wasn't Tarantino's intention.

Personally, I think the 1st half should of been a 30min opener Psycho style. Then 30mins of getting to know the 2nd group of girls & the last 30mins of the girls getting revenge on SMM for killing their friend. Sadly no edit is gonna give me that.

3/10
 

TMBTM

Well-known member
Faneditor
Messages
5,907
Reaction score
16
Trophy Points
83
SPOILERS:

1, The 2nd half generally speaking is just the same as the 1st half, just with a different (better) ending. Thus rendering the entire 1st half of the movie pointless.
It sets who is Stuntman Mike. And make you care about the girls.
Maybe a bit too long, indeed. But I liked it.

2, The characters in the 1st half were better developed than the 2nd half characters. I cared what happened to the girls in the 1st half, wasn't bothered at all about the girls in the 2nd half.
Yes, you care for them... and BANG! QT kills them all!
A la Tipi hendren in Psycho, as you said. Pretty cool!
(EDIT: actualy it's janet leigh... thanks, Uncanny Antman. Shame on me.)
You tell yourself: "No! It can't be!". Not many movies provides such moments IMO.
Also, their death was very shocking BECAUSE of the amount of talking before. It makes you realise that every party can be your last party even if the evening started like a random evening: all that talking FOR NOTHING! You can talk all you want, you die in the end!
It makes me both laugh and scared.

3, This is the first time I was uncomfortable with the language in a Tarantino movie. Hearing the girls in the 2nd half calling each other Nigger really didn't feel right to me. Not sure why, all I know is when the word was used in this film I felt uncomfortable & considering I love the TV program The Wire I'm pretty sure it's not because I'm a prude. Maybe the fact it was women talking like that which made me uncomfortable. So I'm not a prude but I am sexist lol.
Can't debate on that matter. I understand though.

4, The acting was weak in the 2nd half.
I would not say weak... but I agree the acting was more impressive in the first act.
Maybe it's because the dialogue are a bit better (?) I don't remember well.

5, IMO the film is morally flawed. I know this film is in the tradition of Grindhouse, X Rated, Video Nasty type films, but I still think it's flawed. This is because I don't think the killing of Stunt Man Mike was justified for the girls in the 2nd half. Sure the guy attacked them, but not one of the girls had a scratch on them afterwoulds, even the the girl who flew off the car was unmarked!!! So when they killed him it didn't feel like they had given him a taste of his own medicine it felt like they were murderers rather than girls getting revenge. In the 2nd half of the film if one of the girls had been killed from SMM's attack, then killing him would of been fine, but like I said that wasn't the case. I mean in Kill Bill The Bride was betrayed, shot in the head, left for dead, lost her baby & routinely raped. As a result she had a moral right to kill, not so in Death Proof.

I know you're probably thinking, "Well he did kill the girls in the 1st half". True, but the girls in the 2nd half didn't know that, it's a totally separate story. I actually felt sorry for Stunt Man Mike by the end of the film, which I'm sure wasn't Tarantino's intention.
I understand, but the girls of the second act were described as a little bit dangerous themselves (stuntwomen, have a gun etc). The girls of the first act were more like "cerebral party girls".
So to me the "moral" of the story would be:
All women are not blond little bird in a cage and Stuntman Mike finaly found girls crazier than him! Don't piss off women thinking they will do nothing back at you, because some of them might be as fucked up as you, and one day you'll know your pain! :razz:
It was satisfying to me to see poor Kurt Russel crying (like a woman...) and being molested to death!

Not the best Tarantino, and I uderstand some of the arguments of people who don't like it.
But I truely spent a good time at the theater (only watched the full version, the grindhouse two features version never was on the big screen in france...) and I proudly own the DVD.

Side note:
Tarantino and the girls are drinking "Chartreuse" in the first act.
It is an alcool only made by french monks in the Chartreuse mountain near where I live, and is very good.
Not to mention that everyone in the theater were laughing and claping their hands for Quentin at that moment!
 

TMBTM

Well-known member
Faneditor
Messages
5,907
Reaction score
16
Trophy Points
83
Uncanny Antman said:
TMBTM said:
A la Tipi hendren in Psycho, as you said. Pretty cool!
That was Janet Leigh, not Tippi Hedren. :)
DAMN!
Now I crawl in a hole, full of shame...

EDIT: No, wait, it was Anne Heche! :p
 

Uncanny Antman

Well-known member
Faneditor
Messages
2,800
Reaction score
4
Trophy Points
48
TMBTM said:
EDIT: No, wait, it was Anne Heche! :p
Oh, now you gone and done it. No reference to that accursed remake shall be countenanced! :-D
 

FatherMerrin

Well-known member
Faneditor
Cover Artist
Messages
910
Reaction score
2
Trophy Points
33
TMBTM said:
It sets who is Stuntman Mike. And make you care about the girls.
Maybe a bit too long, indeed. But I liked it.

hmmmm. I suppose the STMM stuff is true. But considering the ending of the 1st half did it really need to be longer than the 2nd half? Besides the 1st half was pretty much all about the girls, there wasn't that much about SMM.

TMBTM said:
Yes, you care for them... and BANG! QT kills them all!
A la Tipi hendren in Psycho, as you said. Pretty cool!
You tell yourself: "No! It can't be!". Not many movies provides such moments IMO.
Also, their death was very shocking BECAUSE of the amount of talking before. It makes you realise that every party can be your last party even if the evening started like a random evening: all that talking FOR NOTHING! You can talk all you want, you die in the end!
It makes me both laugh and scared.

Funnily enough I agree 100% with this comment. I actually prefer the 1st half to the 2nd half. My problem is the 2nd half is pretty much the same as the 1st, only weaker & ill thought through. It's a shame the weakest half of the movie makes the strongest half of the movie pointless.

TMBTM said:
Can't debate on that matter. I understand though.
That's cool. It's purely a personal opinion. I wouldn't hold this view up as a corner stone for my reasons for disliking the movie. I just thought I'd share my view as it's the 1st Tarantino film to bother me like this.

TMBTM said:
I would not say weak... but I agree the acting was more impressive in the first act.
Maybe it's because the dialogue are a bit better (?) I don't remember well.
Possibly. I think having the stunt women act in the 2nd of the film was a mistake.

TMBTM said:
I understand, but the girls of the second act were described as a little bit dangerous themselves (stuntwomen, have a gun etc). The girls of the first act were more like "cerebral party girls".
So to me the "moral" of the story would be:
All women are not blond little bird in a cage and Stuntman Mike finaly found girls crazier than him! Don't piss off women thinking they will do nothing back at you, because some of them might be as fucked up as you, and one day you'll know your pain! :razz:
It was satisfying to me to see poor Kurt Russel crying (like a woman...) and being molested to death!
"a little bit dangerous" doesn't mean they're capable of murder. I know this film wasn't based in the real world so normal human reactions aren't to be expected. From a viewers point of view sure Stunt Man Mike got what he deserved, but I still think the 2nd half is seriously flawed. Also, it was the "Make Up" girl who said "Let's kill him" not the 2 Stunt Girls. I don't know much about the world of Make Up but I'm guessing being dangerous isn't a big part of it.

TMBTM said:
Not the best Tarantino, and I uderstand some of the arguments of people who don't like it.
But I truely spent a good time at the theater (only watched the full version, the grindhouse two features version never was on the big screen in france...) and I proudly own the DVD.

I wouldn't mind owning the shorter Grindhouse versions of the films originally shown in US cinemas with the Trailers. I know I've slagged this film off but I know if I was watching the Grindhouse version I'd be drinking through Planet Terror & pissed during Death Proof & wouldn't give a toss about all the things I've moaned about.

Are these movies ever going to DVD in their original Grindhouse versions?
 

Uncanny Antman

Well-known member
Faneditor
Messages
2,800
Reaction score
4
Trophy Points
48
FatherMerrin said:
Are these movies ever going to DVD in their original Grindhouse versions?
Japanese release already has it, US release is in the same box as the long Kill Bill. As in "Who the hell knows?". :)
 

Frantic Canadian

Well-known member
Faneditor
Messages
4,509
Reaction score
8
Trophy Points
48
FatherMerrin said:
5, IMO the film is morally flawed. I know this film is in the tradition of Grindhouse, X Rated, Video Nasty type films, but I still think it's flawed. This is because I don't think the killing of Stunt Man Mike was justified for the girls in the 2nd half. Sure the guy attacked them, but not one of the girls had a scratch on them afterwoulds, even the the girl who flew off the car was unmarked!!! So when they killed him it didn't feel like they had given him a taste of his own medicine it felt like they were murderers rather than girls getting revenge. In the 2nd half of the film if one of the girls had been killed from SMM's attack, then killing him would of been fine, but like I said that wasn't the case. I mean in Kill Bill The Bride was betrayed, shot in the head, left for dead, lost her baby & routinely raped. As a result she had a moral right to kill, not so in Death Proof.

I think it was justified 100%. The girls might not have had a single scratch on them, including Zoe Bell who was the woman who flew off the car, but Stuntman Mike was terrorizing them and he wouldn't stop. Just because it's not physical violence doesn't make it any less scary for the persons involved. They felt that their lives where in danger, and rightfully so, so they turned the tables on him and starting pursuing him. If they hadn't gotten the courage to go after him he would have kept going after them until he killed them all so in a situation like that I can honestly say that yes, I think they were justified in killing him. And like I said in another thread this was Tarantino's "women's revenge movie" so the ending should have been obvious from the start.

Uncanny Antman said:
Oh, now you gone and done it. No reference to that accursed remake shall be countenanced! :-D

I actually found the original Psycho very boring but I remember enjoying the remake. Which is kind of odd because it was supposed to be a shot-for-shot remake.
 

Uncanny Antman

Well-known member
Faneditor
Messages
2,800
Reaction score
4
Trophy Points
48
Frantic Canadian said:
If they hadn't gotten the courage to go after him he would have kept going after them until he killed them all[...]
Actually, Stuntman Mike was all finished. Told the girls, "Adios!" and was about to leave.

Not that I'm defending him, mind you. :)

I actually found the original Psycho very boring but I remember enjoying the remake.
You're dead to me. :eek:
 

Frantic Canadian

Well-known member
Faneditor
Messages
4,509
Reaction score
8
Trophy Points
48
Uncanny Antman said:
Frantic Canadian said:
If they hadn't gotten the courage to go after him he would have kept going after them until he killed them all[...]
Actually, Stuntman Mike was all finished. Told the girls, "Adios!" and was about to leave.

Not that I'm defending him, mind you. :) [/quote:3356vf6p]

It's been a while since I've watched it but iirc he stopped and got out of his car and said that he was just kidding around, just having a little fun. Then one of the girls shot him and he got back in his car and drove off, at which point they turned the tables on him. Now whether or not he was really going to leave could be argued but seeing what he did in the first part of the film and what he had now put this group of girls through I don't see him giving up until he'd killed his prey.

Uncanny Antman said:
I actually found the original Psycho very boring but I remember enjoying the remake.
You're dead to me. :eek:

Is it the fact that I found the original Psycho boring or that I enjoyed the remake that you can't fathom?
 

FatherMerrin

Well-known member
Faneditor
Cover Artist
Messages
910
Reaction score
2
Trophy Points
33
Frantic Canadian said:
Stuntman Mike was terrorizing them and he wouldn't stop.

I have to agree with Uncanny Antman on this, the fact of the matter was Stuntman Mike did stop once he thought the girl on the car had been killed. He said adios & drove off, hell he even got shot & drove off so I don't think he was gonna come back any time soon.

But Uncanny Antman is also right in saying there's no way to be sure that he wasn't gonna come back. But isn't that kinda the problem? The girls didn't know either. So basically they decided to kill the guy on the off chance of him coming back. That's a weak reason to kill someone.

This brings me back to Kill Bill. I pointed out why The Brides actions were justified, but even after she came out of the coma the odds were so stacked agaisn't her getting her revenge you can sympathize with her even more as the movie goes on.

This is not the case in Death Proof.

There were 3 of them and 1 of him. He was 1 stuntman they were 2 stuntwomen. He had no weapon but 1 of the girls had a metal pole & the other girl had a gun. It's hardly tit for tat is it.

Frantic Canadian said:
And like I said in another thread this was Tarantino's "women's revenge movie" so the ending should have been obvious from the start.

Of course the ending was obvious. Stuntman Mike was going to get killed by some girls. I just would of prefered the ending to have been better thought through.
 

Frantic Canadian

Well-known member
Faneditor
Messages
4,509
Reaction score
8
Trophy Points
48
Well I did say that it had been a while since I watched it last so my memory could be a little off.

FatherMerrin said:
But Uncanny Antman is also right in saying there's no way to be sure that he wasn't gonna come back. But isn't that kinda the problem? Neither did the characters know either, so what you're saying is they decided to kill the guy on the off chance of him coming back. That's a weak reason to kill someone.

Actually that was me that said that. Let me ask you something. If you were in the girls position and some guy in a car started chasing you and scaring the hell out of you to the point where you thought he was going to kill you, purely for his own enjoyment, wouldn't you want to get revenge on him too? I don't care that he turned around and left he was still terrorizing them and they felt that their lives were in danger so in a situation like that I think that they were totally justified in going after him.

FatherMerrin said:
There were 3 of them and 1 of him. He was 1 stuntman they were 2 stuntwomen. He had no weapon but 1 of the girls had a metal pole & the other girl had a gun. It's hardly tit for tat is it.

Again, I don't think that makes a difference. He obviously thought he had the upper hand and thought that he could scare the living shit out of these girls and get away with it so why does it make a difference how many of them there were? He didn't know that one of them had a gun until she shot him and Zoe Bell didn't pick up the pipe until they'd had enough so to him they were three unarmed, defenseless women. And iirc he didn't decide to give up and leave until he got shot. He had no problem chasing them and scaring the hell out of them when he thought they were just three defenseless women but as soon as he saw one of them had a gun he turned tail and ran.
 

FatherMerrin

Well-known member
Faneditor
Cover Artist
Messages
910
Reaction score
2
Trophy Points
33
Frantic Canadian said:
Actually that was me that said that. Let me ask you something. If you were in the girls position and some guy in a car started chasing you and scaring the hell out of you to the point where you thought he was going to kill you, purely for his own enjoyment, wouldn't you want to get revenge on him too?

1, Of course I'd want revenge. But, we're talking about a movie not real life, so it makes no difference what I would or wouldn't of done.
2, Also we're talking about a Tarantino film, so extreme violence is to be expected, but I also expected a well thought out story.
3, I'm not saying the girls shouldn't of sought revenge. I'm just saying their response was out of proportion to what happened to them. I mean that Kiwi girl who flew off the car & she thought it was funny. The other 2 thought she was dead & then she pops up chirpy as you like saying "I'm OK", laughing without a scratch on her.

Frantic Canadian said:
I don't care that he turned around and left he was still terrorizing them and they felt that their lives were in danger so in a situation like that I think that they were totally justified in going after him.
If he had turned around & left how can he still be terrorizing them when he's not there anymore?

FatherMerrin said:
There were 3 of them and 1 of him. He was 1 stuntman they were 2 stuntwomen. He had no weapon but 1 of the girls had a metal pole & the other girl had a gun. It's hardly tit for tat is it.

Frantic Canadian said:
Again, I don't think that makes a difference.
Of course it makes a difference. The odds are so stacked agaisn't him at that point you end up feeling sorry for the guy even though he attacked them in the first place. By the end of the film you're left with 3 Psychos attacking 1 Psycho not 3 girls getting revenge.

Frantic Canadian said:
He obviously thought he had the upper hand and thought that he could scare the living shit out of these girls and get away with it so why does it make a difference how many of them there were?
Scary the living shit out of someone doesn't then give them the right to kill you, it's not a proportionate respose.

Frantic Canadian said:
He didn't know that one of them had a gun until she shot him and Zoe Bell didn't pick up the pipe until they'd had enough so to him they were three unarmed, defenseless women. And iirc he didn't decide to give up and leave until he got shot. He had no problem chasing them and scaring the hell out of them when he thought they were just three defenseless women but as soon as he saw one of them had a gun he turned tail and ran.
The fact remains 1 man scared 3 girls who came out of the situation completely unharmed & 1 of them thought it was funny. Their response was to shoot him, attack him with a pole & then then beat him to death. If one of them had been injured or even broke a nail I wouldn't have an issue with the end.

But hey I'm glad you liked it. I'd still like to see the original Grindhouse versions of the films. Apparently Germany is getting it in December, but it's only 2 Discs unlike the Jap 6 Disc Version.

http://www.amazon.de/gp/product/B0019JI ... d_i=301128

I'm guessing it's the Original Grindhouse versions.
 

elbarto1

Well-known member
Faneditor
Cover Artist
Messages
3,629
Reaction score
1
Trophy Points
53
I think looking for a "well thought out script" and "believable ending" in a film who's #1 purpose was to mirror 70's exploitation flicks is asking a little much and possibly even missing the intent.

I cant speak for the director but I'll bet its meant to be over the top and excessive and even borderline stupid to better emulate the films of the 70's grindhouse genre.

Now, I am not a big fan of this film either (my least favorite QT film) but to nitpick these details is just missing the point IMO. do they make the film better, no. But when you set out to make a specific film you are then limited by the confines of the genre. if the film was smarter and had a better script It wouldnt be grindhouse, it would be just another modern day Tarantino film. I would even speculate that its appeal is partially due to its (intentional) flaws in these areas.

No disrespect intended toward anyone's views and opinons, just my .02 :)
 

FatherMerrin

Well-known member
Faneditor
Cover Artist
Messages
910
Reaction score
2
Trophy Points
33
I'm willing to go along with that elbarto1.

I know Grindhouse movies aren't smart & thought through, so maybe expecting DP to be well thought out is unfair.

I think my gripe with this film also lies with the fact Tarantino's flicks seem to getter dumber as he gets older. To go from Resivour Dogs & Pulp Fiction to films like Kill Bill & Death Proof feels like a deterioration in the man's writing. (I have yet to see Inglorious Bastereds so the jury is still out on that idea)

I don't know whether Tarantino's DP ending was intended to keep in the tradition of Grindhouse or whether it's just poor writing.

All I do know is I didn't like it on an emotional level, which I think is more important than the issues I have with it on logical level. I mean we all love films that have plot holes, but we're willing to overlook them cause those films makes us feel good.

Death Proof just doesn't make me feel good.
 

elbarto1

Well-known member
Faneditor
Cover Artist
Messages
3,629
Reaction score
1
Trophy Points
53
I feel the same way, the film has its moments but its a chore to get to them. this is a good enough film for me to own but one I will rarely re-watch.

I agree that T's writing has been on the decline but how many times can you conjure up the same wit and have it play as fresh and original? I feel Jackie Brown is very underrated as its basically a spiritual successor to PF (IMO) and I tend to enjoy it more and more as the years pass.

I also havent seen IB yet and will probably wait for the DVD but I hope its better than DP.
 

Frantic Canadian

Well-known member
Faneditor
Messages
4,509
Reaction score
8
Trophy Points
48
FatherMerrin said:
1, Of course I'd want revenge. But, we're talking about a movie not real life, so it makes no difference what I would or wouldn't of done.

Then you can't blame the girls for going after him.

FatherMerrin said:
2, Also we're talking about a Tarantino film, so extreme violence is to be expected, but I also expected a well thought out story.

Like elbarto1 has already stated this is an homage to the grindhouse era of filmmaking and I don't know how many, if any, exploitation films you've seen but story is never really at the top of the list of things to do. These movies are made quick and on the cheap and that's what Tarantino was going for with Death Proof.

FatherMerrin said:
3, I'm not saying the girls shouldn't of sought revenge. I'm just saying their response was out of proportion to what happened to them. I mean that Kiwi girl who flew off the car & she thought it was funny. The other 2 thought she was dead & then she pops up chirpy as you like saying "I'm OK", laughing without a scratch on her.

Yes, but when she was on the hood of the car holding on for dear life she was scared.

Father Merrin said:
If he had turned around & left how can he still be terrorizing them when he's not there anymore?

I meant that up until the point where he stopped and got out of his car he had been terrorizing them. The only reason he left was because he got shot.

FatherMerrin said:
Of course it makes a difference. The odds are so stacked agaisn't him at that point you end up feeling sorry for the guy even though he attacked them in the first place. By the end of the film you're left with 3 Psychos attacking 1 Psycho not 3 girls getting revenge.

I'm sorry but I didn't feel sorry for the guy, in fact I was cheering on the girls. He thought they were three helpless women that he could scare the hell out of but he didn't expect them to put their fear aside and turn the tables on him. The girls were not psychos they were just 3 women who had had enough of this guy's bullshit and decided to give him a taste of his own medicine. Would you feel any different if he had raped these women first?

FatherMerrin said:
Scaring the living shit out of someone doesn't then give them the right to kill you, it's not a proportionate respose.

Put yourself in their shoes. If you were in that car with the women wouldn't you want a little more satisfaction than chasing the guy and bumping into his car? The moral of the movie was that looks can be deceiving. Not every woman is as helpless as you may think and you better watch out who you piss off because it can back and bite you in the ass.

FatherMerrin said:
The fact remains 1 man scared 3 girls who came out of the situation completely unharmed & 1 of them thought it was funny. Their response was to shoot him, attack him with a pole & then then beat him to death. If one of them had been injured or even broke a nail I wouldn't have an issue with the end.

Just because they weren't physically harmed doesn't mean that they came out of the situation unhinged. Emotional terrorism is just as bad as physical terrorism.

FatherMerrin said:
I think my gripe with this film also lies with the fact Tarantino's flicks seem to getter dumber as he gets older. To go from Resivour Dogs & Pulp Fiction to films like Kill Bill & Death Proof feels like a deterioration in the man's writing. (I have yet to see Inglorious Bastereds so the jury is still out on that idea)

His films aren't getting dumber it's just that now that he's an established director he can take chances and make the kind of films that he grew up watching and by doing so paying homage to his favorite genres.
 

elbarto1

Well-known member
Faneditor
Cover Artist
Messages
3,629
Reaction score
1
Trophy Points
53
IMO -
Tarantinos goal was to have the audience cheering for the women and the big payoff was the kill.
the audience saw what SMM had done to the other women and we get the feeling he has done this type of thing before. we see him stalking the 2nd group of women in the parking lot and he has more pictures of them, etc.

I took it as he had every intention of killing group 2 but underestimated them having a gun and being willing/able to fight back. isnt this how most serial killers are eventually caught, by underestimating their victims?

did group 2 have the right to kill SMM based on their experience alone? probably not - but the audience accepted it because we knew SMM's past and felt his fear/beating/death was deserved.

besides, without SMM getting his brutal comeuppance we'd have a seriously weak film IMO.
 
Top Bottom