Reviews

Tarantino does not get the joke.

Robert Rodriguez gets the joke. Planet Terror is an incredibly gory, off the wall parody of exploitation action/horror movies, complete with all the right characters, a knowingly silly script, intentionally stupid dialog, and ridiculous amounts of violence. Planet Terror is a gory comedy, with some horror elements, in the same spirit of Bad Taste, Evil Dead 2, and Scream. It's not a very good movie, but it was never meant to be. That's the joke.

Tarantino didn't get the joke. Tarantino went ahead and instead made an actual exploitation movie. Unlike Planet Terror, Tarantino plays it completely straight faced, and besides a few editing jokes near the beginning, there really isn't anything in the movie that differentiates it from your normal summer slasher material.

This being said, Death Proof is a better movie than Planet Terror. It's better made, executed, and the last 20 minutes are pure dynamite! It just isn't funny.

It's not a parody of exploitation movies, it IS an exploitation movie, which is fine, but it doesn't fit with anything in Grindhouse up to then. Imagine going to see Friday the 13th and the last half of the movie is Jason gaining intelligence and having to come to terms with the crimes he's committed through painful introspection.

Who the hell wants to see that? Either you want to see a horror comedy or you want to see a regular horror movie, and in either case you certainly don't want to watch it for over three hours.

Grindhouse would have been a 9, rather than an 8, if they were either released separately (you could have even had a 'which movie is better, you decide' advertising campaign), or cut about 45 minutes out of the entire thing (or 22.5 minutes a movie). There are plenty of disgusting hospital scenes in Planet Terror and useless conversations in Death Proof that all belong on the cutting room floor.

This never would of happened of course, for the same reason the new King Kong wasn't edited even though it badly needed it: they were ego movies. That isn't to say they were bad movies. They just could have been so much better.

Hitchcock is, and has always been, one of the greatest directors of all time. As a matter of fact, he's my absolute favorite. I watched Vertigo with admittedly high expectations, and was more than a bit disappointed with what I found. I admit Jimmy Stewart gave a fine performance, and so did the other actors, but none of them gave a great performance. Most of the plot is rather confusing and coupled with the ending makes even less sense. I just couldn't believe anything in the movie could actually ever happen, and so it was missing that touch of realism that most Hitchcock movies have. Hitchcock did a fine job directing and Jimmy Stewart did a fine job in his role, but the plot was silly and there was plenty of padding as well (I hope you like scenes of people driving). Hitchcock and Stewart made this mediocre movie into a good movie, but it is definitely not a great movie.

Final rating: B

Am I the only one who's tired of seeing Tom Hanks in these movies? Don't get me wrong, Road to Perdition is a visually stunning movie, and some of the performances (Paul Newman) were quite good, but Tom Hanks just plays his role as the "Everyman" persona that he's come to master. Be it Road to Perdition, Saving Private Ryan, Castaway or the Green Mile, Tom Hanks is always playing the same character, the likeable, kind of funny, day to day nice guy. In short, he's playing himself, Tom Hanks. Personally, I'm tired of it. Not that I don't like him, but if he was a friend, I think we'd be getting to the phase where I don't really call him anymore. It's not that I don't like him, it's just that I'm kind of tired of hanging out with him. If he makes another "Philadelphia", I might call sometime.

I remember being floored by E.T.'s special effects when I was young, and it gave the whole movie a mystical, mystical feel. I recently re-watched it, and was more than a little disappointed. Without taking the special effects into consideration, the movie is essentially a naked alien baboon with magical powers handing out with a kid. First, what was a highly advanced alien doing naked and alone on our surface? The answer: picking flowers. Yes, that makes perfect sense. Secondly, he has super magical powers of telepathy and telekinesis, coupled with the technical know-how to create complicated technology with kids toys, but he has absolutely no ability to survive on his own, must completely depend on a kid, and has absolutely no preconception of our planet what-so-ever. I know it's just a silly kids movie, but why is it in the top 250 movies of all time list?

Final Rating: C

Wow! It's the original Snow White! Isn't it...Isn't it....Isn't it quite dull? Okay, it's the first feature length cartoon, but everyone seems to feel they're contractually obligated to like it. Yes, you liked the dwarfs. I liked the dwarfs (especially grumpy), but can you give me even one line Snow White or the Prince says in the movie? Of course not, they're completely bland and boring characters. The witch and the dwarfs are the only characters with any personality. Yes, I know, you saw it as a kid and you liked it, but did anybody watch it twice?

Rating: C