Movies

Is Tarantino’s Death Proof Truly His Worst Movie? Shocking Truth!

BBG News

You know, I just realized something: I sure do talk a lot about Quentin Tarantino on this website.

I’ve previously discussed his most notable film, “Pulp Fiction,” as well as the reasons why “The Hateful Eight” doesn’t receive the recognition it deserves. I also shared my preference for “Kill Bill Vol. 2” over its counterpart and delved into discussions about “Django Unchained” and his debut work, “Reservoir Dogs.” Interestingly enough, there are three Quentin Tarantino films that I haven’t yet mentioned – “Jackie Brown,” “Inglourious Basterds,” and the more recent one, “Once Upon a Time… in Hollywood.

By the way, I haven’t mentioned his least favorite film, “Death Proof.” It’s commonly known as Quentin Tarantino’s “worst” movie, isn’t it? In our list of all his movies, we ranked it at the bottom. But is it truly his worst? Let’s discuss that instead.

I Hesitate To Use The Word “Worst” For Any Quentin Tarantino Movie

In the previously discussed article that ranks Quentin Tarantino’s films, my coworker Eric Eisenberg placed Death Proof at the lowest position on the list. However, he clarified that this doesn’t mean it’s a poor film: “Although Death Proof holds the bottom spot in this ranking, let me be clear – it’s an outstanding movie. It just so happens to be Tarantino’s least impressive work.

Completely on board with your viewpoint. To put it simply, I can’t bring myself to label any Tarantino film as his “worst,” given that I believe they all have merit; even the ones considered less impressive. Yes, I understand this might seem like an evasion. However, if I were to declare Pulp Fiction as his “best” work, then logically there should be a “worst,” right? But here’s the thing: only those who adhere to extremes deal in absolutes, and I don’t consider myself one of them.

Indeed, it seems I find myself in a position where I must clarify my thoughts on the matter, correct? Let’s begin by discussing what doesn’t resonate with me in “Death Proof”: The rhythm of the film is my main concern.

In essence, I am not fully satisfied with the flow and speed at which events unfold.

To put it simply, in my analysis of Reservoir Dogs as a flawless debut, I delve into Tarantino’s clever conversations, a skill he typically excels at. However, in the case of Death Proof, the dialogue drags on excessively, making me groan during my initial viewing and question aloud when Kurt Russell might appear.

During a second watch, it seems the film stretches out more than before. The delay in “Stuntman” Mike’s (Kurt Russell) appearance, his brutal actions towards characters, and the introduction of new personas slows down the narrative so much that at times, it lacks the signature Tarantino feel. Compared to films like Django Unchained or Once Upon a Time… in Hollywood, it falls short in terms of pace, satisfaction, and intrigue. However, there are bright sides!

Now, let’s focus on the positive aspects!

The cinematography is stunning, with each frame capturing the gritty, raw essence of the 1970s. The performances by Kurt Russell as “Stuntman” Mike and Emile Hirsch as Richard Speck are particularly noteworthy, delivering chilling portrayals that leave a lasting impact. Additionally, the soundtrack is another highlight, with tracks perfectly complementing the on-screen action. Overall, while it may not meet the high standards of some Tarantino fans, Death Proof still offers a unique viewing experience with its compelling characters and immersive atmosphere.

For Example, Can We Please Talk About What A Creepy Presence Kurt Russell Plays In This Film?

In the theater, my somewhat bothersome question about when Kurt Russell would appear in the movie elicited a few chuckles, but it seemed like I wasn’t the only one feeling that way since I noticed some audience members yawning and rubbing their eyes during the film Death Proof.

Admittedly, I had watched an entire movie called “Planet Terror” followed by some amusing mock trailers. Initially, “Death Proof” was intended to be the second film in a double feature known as “Grindhouse”. However, despite this setup, the movie itself turned out to be incredibly dull.

The film remains ordinary until Kurt Russell appears. Indeed, there’s hardly anything he does incorrectly. As soon as “Stuntman” Mike, a rather unsettling character, enters the plot, the movie gains momentum swiftly. His arrival is signaled by a free lap dance scene that sends a shiver down your spine. It seems the characters’ unease around him adds to the effectiveness of his portrayal, as they generally view him with suspicion.

In the movie, it’s advantageous because the dialogue-heavy scenes transform abruptly into a suspenseful horror feel, making the initial kill by Mike particularly exciting. However, the conversation among other characters later on causes the film to lose some of its momentum. But when Kurt Russell appears on screen, it’s always engaging.

I Also Really Dig Just How Grindhouse This Movie Actually Feels

Previously, I noted that the movie titled “Death Proof” was actually the second part of a double-feature released in 2007 under the name Grindhouse, following “Planet Terror“. And it’s true that the film has that authentic grindhouse vibe, which is exactly what Quentin Tarantino aimed for. This is because grindhouse movies, also called exploitation films, typically include lengthy conversations to fill up screen time.

In simpler terms, certain notable grindhouse movies, such as “The Texas Chainsaw Massacre” and “Cannibal Holocaust,” managed to raise the bar for the genre by using fewer dialogues. However, many less impressive grindhouse films leaned heavily on dialogue. I believe Quentin Tarantino was following a similar approach in his work.

It’s clear that Death Proof was successful! To be fair, Quentin Tarantino is undeniably a bigger name than Robert Rodriguez, who in my opinion, deserves equal praise. However, I believe it would have been better for Death Proof to release before Planet Terror, as I think the reception of Death Proof might have been more favorable if it wasn’t following the seemingly more intriguing Planet Terror. But that’s just me rewriting history a bit.

Viewing “Death Proof” on its own is advantageous for Tarantino fans, given its compact 86-minute length compared to the extensive 191-minute double feature. This shorter version serves as an entertaining tribute to the grindhouse films of the ’70s, which is a definite plus. It effectively delivers on this concept!

Plus, That Car Chase Scene At The End Is Second To None

Many grindhouse films offer a satisfying reward for viewers. Although you may need to endure long stretches of dull scenes, the ultimate payoff could be an impressive special effect transformation, numerous blasts and intense action sequences, making the viewing experience quite worthwhile in the end.

Grindhouse films, generally speaking, were economical productions that catered to a specific adult audience who appreciated something other than highbrow art. Their main objective was to provoke and perhaps include a bit of explicit content. This is why many of these movies end with the suffix “-ploitation,” such as blaxploitation, sexploitation, nunsploitation, etc.

Since Grindhouse was screened in conventional cinemas rather than grindhouses, Rodriguez and Tarantino had limited scope for their “exploitation” elements. However, Tarantino excelled particularly in the thrilling final chase scene of Death Proof, featuring Zoe Bell perched on the hood of a car, a game she refers to as “Ship’s Mast.

The thrilling chase sequence involving the women and Kurt Russell is captivating indeed, making the earlier “less engaging” segments seem more than compensated for in retrospect.

As a cinephile and self-proclaimed Tarantino enthusiast, I must say that this latest offering from the maestro is like no other in his extraordinary filmography. It’s a distinctive gem that stands out among the nine masterpieces he has already graced us with (and yes, I’m still disheartened about the absence of “The Movie Critic” as his tenth movie, but I’ve vented my feelings on that matter enough). In essence, this film is a testament to Tarantino’s unparalleled storytelling and cinematic vision.

It Might Be My Least Favorite Tarantino Film, But I Still Wouldn’t Call It His “Worst”

I have a significant issue with the film ‘Death Proof’, as it doesn’t resonate with me on the same level as Quentin Tarantino’s other films. However, it’s worth noting that I still appreciate ‘Death Proof’, just not to the extent that I adore his other movies.”

This version aims to convey the original meaning while using more natural and easy-to-read language, and provides additional context by clarifying that the speaker still finds value in the movie despite their reservations.

It’s perfectly fine to simply appreciate something! For instance, I adore chocolate ice cream, and I have a soft spot for the later Indiana Jones films, including the controversial Crystal Skull. However, just because I like them doesn’t make chocolate ice cream the most dreadful ice cream I’ve ever tasted or Crystal Skull the most disappointing Indiana Jones movie I’ve ever watched.

If I enjoy something, then I truly do. I really like the movie “Death Proof,” but if I were to watch all of Quentin Tarantino’s movies in a marathon, I might skip a few parts of “Death Proof” while I wouldn’t for any of his other films.

Because of this, I wouldn’t label it as Tarantino’s “worst” film, given that it stars Kurt Russell. However, I would admit that it is not my favorite one among his works.

As a cinephile, I must admit that referring to “Death Proof” as “tap water” seems a bit off for me. Could we perhaps delve into the reasons behind your perspective on this Quentin Tarantino classic? I’m all ears!

Read More

2025-06-03 02:09

Previous post 10 Jarring TV Character Recasts That Shocked Fans
Next post Crypto Collaboration in Dubai: Solana and VARA’s Bold new Step! 🚀