Death Proof Blu-ray Review

Deadlier in high-definition...

What follows is the original IGN review of Quentin Tarantino's Grindhouse contribution, Death Proof. While this is a review of the slightly more extended version for the film's singular DVD release -- absent is its Planet Terror counterpart -- the additional content only slightly impacts the overall quality, so check back after the jump for our thoughts on just how well Death Proof rides solo.

In Death Proof, a young DJ named Jungle Julia (Sydney Tamiia Poitier) and her two pals Shanna (Jordan Ladd) and Arlene (Vanessa Ferlito) find themselves on a collision course with a charming stranger named Stuntman Mike (Kurt Russell) when they take to the streets of Austin for a night on the town. Later, the tables are turned when Mike finds another group of girls to follow -- actress Lee (Mary Elizabeth Winstead), make-up artist Abernathy (Rosario Dawson), and stuntwomen Zoe (Zoe Bell) and Kim (Tracie Thoms) -- and they show him that muscle cars and dangerous driving are not merely the exclusive province of stuntmen and tough guys.

Tarantino effects multiple tributes with one story, combining the best of '70s car movies like Vanishing Point and Gone in 60 Seconds with stalker serial-killer prototypes like Black Christmas. So seamless is the combination that the exhilaration and fear elicited are oftentimes simultaneous and indistinguishable from one another. But his enthusiasm for updating these formulas feels too developed by half. He wants to pay homage to the flicks that made him scream and giggle as a child, but seems reluctant to relinquish his usual filmmaking techniques (i.e. long sequences of witty, yet ultimately "meaningless to the plot" banter).

During Death Proof's opening scenes, one sees the influence of those old movies making an almost cursory appearance, and then trailing off. Editorial continuity is tinkered and toyed with, while the "story" drags with the inertia of a slasher movie waiting to get into high gear. This isn't a criticism, merely an observation; many of the best horror films in history employ this delayed introduction to make the violence more jarring, and to lull the audience into a sense of false complacency.

But the difference between Tarantino and his predecessors is that they were not wordsmiths trying to create superior or even passingly memorable characters. Rather, they were exploiting sex and violence for the purpose of turning a quick profit. One's moral or aesthetic judgment of such practices aside, Tarantino's responsibility, so to speak, is to live up to that structure as a storyteller and to render a tale that truly fits into the paradigm of a slasher movie. Instead, audiences are treated to not one but two extended buildups to action/violence scenes which feel redundant, or at the very least unnecessary, creating impatience rather than anticipation as the film winds slowly towards its seemingly inevitable conclusion.

For example, the beginning of the film shows Julia and Co. as they drive to a bar, drink at a bar, hang out outside a bar, and then drive home from the bar. (I won't spoil the payoff of these scenes, but it's worth the wait.) This is exactly what so many horror movies do, leaving the audience to soak up the character details and discover how much they resemble and sympathize with their modestly dramatic travails (in this case, most of which involve boys and text messaging). Later, Lee, Abernathy and Co. do more or less the same thing, but we've already sat through the girl conversations about boys, the excessive profanity and the lead-up to this spectacular punch line. There are different characters, but no new developments that demand repetition of so much pointless dialogue.

Mind you, I've spent four days contemplating every line and every conversation from the film that I can remember, and will concede that Tarantino no doubt has a very real and clear purpose for including all of them. But two considerations must be made: 1) How long is the film already, so how much more footage does it need? 2) What purpose does all of this additional discourse serve in the story? Every single one of Tarantino's films except for Reservoir Dogs suffers from a surplus of dialogue because the filmmaker is simply too in love with his use of language to get out of his own way and tell the actual story. Here, where his influence should be parsed down, Tarantino exposes his penchant for self-indulgence by allowing his characters to chit-chat until you've almost completely lost interest in what the punch line could possibly be.

That said, the action itself is some of the most amazing stuff put on film in recent years. Zoe Bell, best known as Uma Thurman's stunt double in Kill Bill, straps herself to the hood of a car and offers a vicarious thrill ride at 100 miles per hour. After riding the car for kicks, she finds herself in a particularly tenuous position when Mike challenges her and the other girls to a deadly game of chicken. The most amazing element of this -- particularly for a director who is usually very cerebral and meticulous -- is that none of these stunts were accomplished with CGI or other trickery. The messy splendor of a bang-up car chase makes for one of the most exhilarating sequences you're likely to see on DVD this year.

blog comments powered by Disqus
Become a fan of IGN