'Grindhouse' Reviewed by Nick Schager
Filed under: Action, Horror, Sci-Fi & Fantasy, New Releases, Theatrical Reviews, Critical Thought, Fandom, New in Theaters, The Weinstein Co., Quentin Tarantino
.jpg)
*A guest review today, from Nick Schager, of Slant Magazine
In a pop culture landscape as hungrily cannibalistic as today's, cinematic nostalgia and homage has lost much of its once enticing luster. The indulgent fun of referencing and rehashing the past has worn so thin that even VH1's gaggle of third-rate Best Week Ever and I Love the [Insert Decade] talking heads seem barely capable of mustering enthusiasm for the latest derogatory smack-down on their own industry brethren. The cultural infatuation with retro navel-gazing is now pronounced to the point that it brings into question whether the practice hasn't seriously debilitated our collective imaginations, which have become so narrowly focused that it sometimes feels as if half of our mainstream entertainment takes as its primary influence mainstream entertainment. It's an inward circle that -- at least in the cinematic arena -- proceeds with no clear direction and even less of a meaningful destination, with deconstruction often taking a back seat to regurgitation as countless filmmakers prove themselves stunted adolescents whose worldview is primarily confined to the movies and TV shows of their youths.
Which is a long-winded way of saying that my skepticism was high for Grindhouse, the nasty, sleazy love child of Robert Rodriguez and Quentin Tarantino that aims to recreate -- with every celluloid scratch, Missing Reel title card, cheesy theater advertisement and titillating coming attraction -- the experience of a '70s B-movie twin bill. A dutiful and reverential homage to their beloved exploitation flicks, Rodriguez and Tarantino's two-headed beast delivers separate full-length films, Rodriguez's Planet Terror and Tarantino's Death Proof, sandwiched together by hilarious phony trailers from Rob Zombie ("Werewolf Women of the SS"), Edgar Wright ("Don't!"), Eli Roth ("Thanksgiving") and Rodriguez himself ("Machete") that nearly outshine the main events. Theirs is a joint project of exacting replication, though the directors' intentions and execution are -- surprisingly, given the "All for one, and one for schlock" unity that infuses the endeavor -- far more divergent than one might expect. Rodriguez goes for full-blooded faithfulness, Tarantino goes for genre analysis and reconfiguration, and the results are, ultimately, about as coherent and fulfilling as a typical grindhouse double-feature.
The thrill of exploitation cinema came not just from its subversive, amoral extremism, but also from its furious, sexually-charged, who-gives-a-shit attitude. Such a mind-set was the byproduct of being made on the fringe by marginalized craftsman, and came through via its non-Shakespearean thespians' blunt performances and an aesthetic that radiated scraggly, no-nonsense cheapness. Grindhouse is gleefully dedicated to foisting three-hours-worth of unsavory grime on spick-and-span cineplexes. Yet as the creation of two celebrated and commercially successful directors working with star-studded casts and a heavyweight studio in their corner, its ethos -- unlike its venerated predecessors -- isn't one of outsider rebellion but of insider movie-geek goof-offery. Consequently, both films' attempts to push the envelope are hampered by a sense that the whole raunchy thing is, first and foremost, a joke intended to satiate fanboys' hunger for allusions to their favorite under-the-radar actors (look, there's Tom Savini getting torn apart by the undead!) and films (yay, subtle nods to Zombie!).
In terms of straight-up gonzo B-movie madness, Planet Terror is Grindhouse's victor, offering up a Texas-set zombie outbreak saga that's equal parts George Romero, Lucio Fulci and John Carpenter. Rodriguez mimics with such expertise that it's tough to resist his increasingly maniacal tale, which centers on the efforts of mysterious, tow truck-driving bandito Wray (Freddy Rodriguez) and his go-go-dancer ex-flame Cherry (Rose McGowan) as they struggle to survive hordes of monsters created by a noxious military chemical weapon. It's a premise that the Sin City director lustily dives head-first into, piling on so much gushing blood, gnarly gore, tongue-in-cheek humor (the finest recurring bit revolving around Cherry's dream of being a stand-up comedian) and visual gags (prolonged zooms, bad lighting, film stock damage) that his uninhibited zeal becomes infectious. At the point McGowan's deliciously seductive Cherry has her amputated leg replaced by a machine gun – which gets a thorough workout during an explosive finale -- the film comes close to achieving a giddy, trashy euphoria.
What holds Rodriguez's effort back from being an outright blast is the self-consciousness (and resultant toothlessness) that permeates all of Grindhouse, with the affectedness of every print blemish, excessively exploding head and corny one-liner undercutting the film's spirit of taboo-tweaking outrageousness. Still, Planet Terror benefits from its maker's ability to moderately subsume his CG-loving stylistic personality in service of slavish genre cliché devotion, a goal that Quentin Tarantino proves wholly uninterested in achieving with Death Proof. Beset by the Pulp Fiction auteur's trademark talkativeness, the second part of Grindhouse's twofer always keeps its "directed by Quentin Tarantino" pedigree front and center, spending the majority of its first half on scenes in which groups of girls engage in banal and insipid conversations about sex and movies. Shout-outs to obscure TV shows (Robert Urich's Vegas) and films (Vanishing Point, on numerous occasion) pepper the inane banter, which QT wants to use as a vehicle for eliciting empathy with his foxy ladies, but which instead merely diffuses most of the high-wire, anything-goes energy that the preceding Planet Terror and mock trailers had so robustly established.
Luckily, Death Proof has a few aces up its sleeve. The first is Kurt Russell, whose old-school charm and viciousness as Stuntman Mike -- a facially scarred sexual predator whose lethal weapon is his crash-car -- enlivens the film with macho electricity. The second is Tarantino's canny, ulterior modus operandi, as his synthesis of three distinct grindhouse genres -- the serial killer thriller, the dragster flick, and the cheerleader film -- is designed as both celebration and critique. Tarantino deliberately delivers misogynistic slasher-film goods at first, and then offers a corrective by turning the tables on vehicular rapist Stuntman Mike via a second foursome of hotties who, when not gabbing in a coffee shop (in a femme variation of Reservoir Dogs' intro), prove to be cheery ass-kickers intent on taking back the night. In its desire to comment on (rather than simply reiterate) its source material, Death Proof proves the cleverer of Grindhouse's entries. Unfortunately, that doesn't preclude it from also being the less exhilarating and amusing of the two, though if Tarantino doesn't match Rodriguez's avalanche of exploitation lunacy, he nonetheless at least finds in stuntwoman Zoë Bell -- a badass whose car hood daredevilry is awe-inspiring – an authentic, go-for-broke B-movie goddess for the 21st century.









Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
4-05-2007 @ 10:47AM
Ant said...
Is there no one left who can just sit back and enjoy a movie for what it is?
What a long winded, dreadful review. He must love to hear himself speak.
Reply
4-05-2007 @ 11:49AM
bgdc said...
Like the director of the second film, the reviewer has a voice. He uses it.
Sitting back and enjoying a film entails the director doing his job totally. Most films, that never happens as most directors aren't skilled enough to make wholly enjoyable movies. Certainly not anything of recent Tarantino or Rodriguez vintage can be described as quality or enjoyable. Sad that two guys who started so strongly now can't make anything decent. I'll wait for DVD on this stuff...I guess I'm not cool enough to get the idea of making films based on the cliches of crappy films.
Reply
4-05-2007 @ 12:55PM
Emily said...
I agree, really long winded review. I couldn't figure out what the final opinion was... Did you like the movie? Would you recommend the movie? That's why we're reading your review, so answer those questions clearly. Maybe even at the beginning or end of the review so it's easy to find.
Reply
4-05-2007 @ 1:09PM
Ryan Stewart said...
I totally disagree that the review was long-winded; I think it was thoughtful and considerate, and obviously the voice of someone who has thought a lot about what he wants to say. There's more to film criticism than 'thumbs up' or 'thumbs down.'
Reply
4-05-2007 @ 1:47PM
PLDM said...
I think the whole idea of reviewing a film such as Grindhouse for a popculture-oreintated source such as an online movie blog a flawed concept. Whilst being one of my few multile daily online visits, I don't look to Cineatical for a be-all and end-all view and critique on the social and media-centric impact of a film. This is a fine review that points out all the strengths, weaknesses, and points to know about the film, and that makes it, in my opinion, a damn good article.
You wanting to know if a film's any good? Go see it. You wanting a more indepth look into the academia of Grindhouse (now there's something I thought I'd never say), go take a film and popular culture course. Blah.
Reply
4-05-2007 @ 4:37PM
Michael Passe said...
I've read several reviews for "Grindhouse," and this one was the most thoughtful at least. But has anyone noticed the irony here? Those grindhouse flicks were drive-in junk food that no one went to "see" without a date; they were so awful that your only response was to start making out. Back in the 70s, I always thought, "no one is actually WATCHING this crap." But I guess I was wrong. Maybe these directors were the guys parked way up in the front, the ones who couldn't get dates. Anyway, if you are looking for the true grindhouse experience, but your local drive-in closed 25 years ago, you may have a hard time re-creating it at the local mall. If you want to try, I suggest everyone start making out right there in the cineplex, and guys, really try to get her to go all the way. The TRUE experience also requires an ice chest full of (canned) beer, a tinny speaker, and a bag of cheap Mexican pot. Leave well before the movie's over, and throw up on your car for good measure as you leave the parking lot. If you make it home, and you wake up feeling hung over and sort of empty, just remember - those flicks were nothing more than background noise for adolescent lust, the intensity of which you can never re-create.
Reply
4-05-2007 @ 6:58PM
John said...
The film is supposed to be a "leave your brain at the door" lurid,campy,cheap thrill ride. So the reviewer's hypercritical dissection of "Grindhouse" just seems wrong.
And Bdgc, getting the idea of watching films that pay homage to the Grindhouse genre by using all the old cliches is based not on your relative "coolness" but on the notion that you "got the idea" behind the original 70's movies and enjoyed them for what they were.
Reply
4-06-2007 @ 2:26AM
snoopylemans said...
this review took all the fun out of what is an incredibly fun an enthusiastic film.
and -- he didn't even have the balls to say he didn't like it.
if he DID like it, it's awfully, awfully hard to tell... yawn.
Reply
4-07-2007 @ 10:38AM
Jim Kosmicki said...
This is what Cinematical needs MORE of -- real critical analysis. I see this in my classroom every day -- my students think that criticism is "thumbs up, thumbs down." NO -- critical analysis is trying to determine what the creators intended and then determining how well they did or didn't do it. it's not just a yes/no vote. At least not if you are looking at it from an aesthetic view. I find it somewhat disheartening that the commentors above can't tell what the overall view on this movie is -- it tells me that their reading skills are limited to simple scanning of the text, not actually parsing out what it means.
it's pretty clear to me that the overall view on this review is that it's worth seeing, but that it's not quite everything that it was intended to be. and it's VERY fair to do this sort of critical analysis when Tarantino & Rodriguez have been in print and on video everywhere for months talking about how they wanted to "honor" these older style of movies. If they're going to throw down the claim, good critics are honor-bound to deal with how well they met that challenge.
Reply
4-10-2007 @ 12:15AM
Dennis Cozzalio said...
I absolutely agree with Jim Kosmicki here. Nick's review is very well written and approaches the movie with respect and thought as well as a critical eye. I don't necessarily agree with some of Nick's conclusions, but agreeement is wholly beside the point.
Trotting out the old "can't we just enjoy a movie for what it is" complaint is not only arrogantly anti-thought, but denies the obvious fact that that's exactly what Nick is doing here, and that's exactly what the movie itself invites us to do.
And when someone says something like, "Did you like the movie? Would you recommend the movie? That's why we're reading your review, so answer those questions clearly. Maybe even at the beginning or end of the review so it's easy to find," it just makes me depressed. Jim's got it right: the information is there, but the writer is being held to task for someone else's inability to read.
Nice piece, Nick. I liked the movie better than you did, but I'm glad you're out there thinking about what you see.
Reply