Movie review - Death Proof

'I used to think Tarantino was pretty cool'

'Kill Bill was good, wasnt it?'

'Yeah, Pulp Fiction was a top movie too'

These are just some of the things you might find yourself saying if you are unlucky enough to sit through the agony of Death Proof. Perhaps ole man Quentin was being a bit clever with this title, because the audience will be amazed that THEY haven't died after the non-stop, excruciating agony of this movie.

Wow, it is really that bad.

I had seen the shorts for this movie on TV and I thought it looked ok - not great, but not horrible. Ole man Quentin has made some pretty awesome movies. Kill Bill and Pulp Fiction are both up there as some of my faves. However, I was sadly mistaken.

Kill Bill and Pulp Fiction show good character development and have twisting and turning plots delivered in (somewhat) unique and interesting ways. The over the top violence and swearing make for a bit of a fun ride, but ultimately it is the stories that make them great films. Pulp Fiction is a wildly twisted, tangled web of storylines and people, and the way it is cut - with the various characters getting their own chapters - keeps the storytelling interesting and surprising. The Kill Bill films use a classic revenge story, and also use chapters to dynamic effect.

The same features are sadly lacking in Death Proof.

The premise of Death Proof is that Stuntman Mike, played by Kurt 'I thought you were dead' Russell, stalks and terrorises groups of young women. There are two groups of victims, and each group is given their own section in the movie - with the second group being targeted 14 months after the first. Similarly to Kill Bill, the story is really about revenge, with the second group seeking vengeance on Mike for the unknown-to-them murders of the first group.

This story is not in itself bad. It makes for some creepy viewing as Stuntman Mike gets close to his targets and then moves in for the kill. It certainly came as a surprise to me when I realised that Mike was in fact a bad guy. I dont know if this was because the story was so great, or because I was missing the point.

The massive problem with this movie is that it is overloaded with meaningless, boring, inconsequential dialog. The first group of girls in particular - led by local radio announcer 'Jungle Julia' (played by Sydney Poitier) - are inherently unlikeable. Their very limited conversations cover off on drugs, the need to score, and talking about sex, all in a very low brow and uninteresting way. I dont think I am a 'high brow' person, but seriously these women were boring, boring, boring, and I just did not give a monkey's about what happened to them. So when Mike did the deed, I didn't feel any sympathy or sadness for them.

The second group of girls sees the introduction of Zoe Bell playing herself. Zoe was apparently the stand-in/stunt woman for Uma Thurman in Kill Bill. It is glaringly obvious that Ole Man Quentin has the hots for Ole Zoe. And it is the self-indulgent wankfest that follows that really breaks the camel's back for this film. Again, the dialog in the latter half of the film is trashy and boring, and Ole Man Quentin takes every opportunity to put Zoe on a pedestal. He also throws in all sorts of obscure movie references, as if to further impress on everyone that he has an encyclopedic knowledge of all cult and underground cinema. This does not impress.

Ultimately, after watching Death Proof I was left with the feeling that maybe Ole Man Quentin is not as good as I thought he was. The failings of this movie highlight some aspects of his previous work that I didnt really think about before. For instance, the non-stop idol worshipping of Zoe Bell really seems like the desperate, self-indulgent attempts of a rich, loser director to get his rocks off. Sound familiar? Well it is a lot like Kill Bill (and Pulp Fiction to an extent) really in this regard, but with Zoe filling in for Uma.

To be balanced, this film was not presented in the way it was originally intended. This was part of a double feature that paid tribute to 'grindhouse' cinema. Ole Man Quentin simply added extra time to this film and made it its own feature. Big mistake.

I think Margaret Pomeranz summed this up pretty well when she said: 'It's sort of like a male wet dream, you know, and where they're talking about, you know, the sex with the guy the night before, constantly. Every scene, every sequence goes on way too long. You want to slap him across the jaws and say, "Get your act together and cut all that bit out" '. I could not agree more, and will definitely think twice before investing my hard earned in another QT flick.

Avoid it at all costs

Would I buy it on DVD: No way, not even for a buck

Movie Review - Rogue

So I havent seen too many Aussie films this year. There have been a few good Aussie films in recent times, such as Wolf Creek and Jindabyne. There have also been some this year that I have not yet seen, but that look good, like Noise, and Club Land. But, I havent been out to see any yet.

Rogue, which is a thriller/horror/attack of the killer crocs film, will be the first. You have to love a good psychotic animal movie. There arent enough of them are there? Walking in, my expectations were not high, I was just happy to kick back and enjoy whatever came along.

Rogue ended up being a pretty good affair. Nothing great, but entertaining enough. There are plenty of familiar faces in the cast, including Radha Mitchell, Steven Curry, and John Jarrett. All play their parts very well. The characters in this movie are the only really believeable part of it, and this gives support to the feelings of despair and angst that arise when our heroes are being hunted by the ravenous beast.

The story and the action were good, following the typical scary movie formula: 'no, dont do that, no, not there, WHY DONT YOU JUST RUN!!!!'. Because the characters are believeable, I found myself quickly drawn into the story, wanting them to make it, wanting them to survive, willing them to run. This is not Oscar winning stuff, but there have been plenty of horror movies where you just dont care about the protagonists. This is not the case in Rogue.

The story basically follows an American writer who is in town to get material for his holiday writing. He joins a river tour, which goes wrong after they spot a flare in a remote location and try to investigate. They run aground on a tiny bank in the river and soon learn that a giant rogue croc is on the prowl. The party then tries in vein to escape before high tide, and a number of them are picked off by the hungry reptile.

The set-up and the plot provide plently of material for the tense moments in the film. While the story is not particularly believeable, it is good fun, and it is scary. There are some particularly hairy moments where our hero finds himself face to face with the beast in its underground den. Eventually some members of the party make their way to safety, but it goes without saying that their numbers are severly depleted.

The special effects in the film did, at times, lead to some raised eyebrows. There arent a lot of them, and the director made good use of 'fear of the unknown' to build suspense. They develop a lot of tension without needing to show anything much. We know there is something out there, but we dont know what, or where, or when it will attack. This is a very effective technique, which both leads to great suspense, but also avoids overuse of the special effects. Some of the effects were pretty funny. But I guess that is what you get when you are trying to create an enormously oversized croc.

Overall it was a good movie. I enjoyed it, but dont think I would watch it over and over again.

Would I buy it on DVD? Maybe, but not for more than $10

What to buy?

Well, after much umming and ahhing I made a decision.

Elements and Ultra.

A&G I think is too expensive for what it is, and co-signers i didnt really like the look of much. Plus I have set a target now of trying to get all the Kouzmanoff co-signers cards, so that could be fun and interesting.

So, stay tuned for a couple of box breaks coming up soon....

bad religion and strung out 7 Nov 07

Went to see bad religion and strung out at the hordern

Second or third time I have seen Strung Out, after seeing them at Livid in 2003, and then again at the Gaelic Club a year or two ago. But it was the first time I have seen Bad Religion, and I am not sure when was the last time they were in Australia , but I wonder if they will ever come again. So, it was a must see show.

I have to say straight up that Strung Out were disappointing again. I am really starting to think they are more of a studio band than anything else. On record they are tight as, and the vocals are included in this. Live, the band is also tight as, but the vocals are really, really bad. I gave them the benefit of the doubt after seeing them before, thinking that perhaps it was the end of a tour, and his voiced was overworked, but after three times I can now say that I am unimporessed. They are such a good studio band, but no good live for me. They did play a good mix of stuff, old and new, but the vocals ruined it for me.

Bad Religion on the other hand were absolutley fantastic. They played stacks of new stuff, and plenty of older stuff too. This gig made me realise that I really need to get into the old stuff more. I know some of the bigger songs, but they played a lot that i dont know. The songs that I did know were awesome. The sound quality, vocal harmonies and drumming were all first class, and the crowd was right into it. All in all it was an awesome bloody show, and I will be there for sure if we are lucky enough for them to come back again. Hopefully the next show wont be on a Wednesday.