Added: 2 years ago
From: TulseLuper
Views: 24,143
Sort by time | Sort by thread (beta)

Link to this comment:

Share to:

All Comments (166)

Sign In or Sign Up now to post a comment!
  • i didnt know what people meant whne they said a film review can be and art form now i do

  • Would love if Mark interviewed Quentin.

  • As soon as Kermode finished this review, he went home and put on his Quentin Tarantino mask, dropped his trousers and then wanked angrily in front of a mirror, almost pulling off his penis in the process.

  • I thought the movie was brilliant. Ive watched it many times. Very underrated and I'm sure one day it will receive the acclaim it deserves.

  • Before Death Proof came out, Tarantino explained in an interview (either Total Film or Empire) that the Grindhouse version would be stripped to it's most exciting parts, cutting to the chase as it were, like the way theatre owners would edit their movies for double bills and whatnot, with nods to missing reels etc. Then you watch the Grindhouse version which contains what feels like an hour long conversation at the beginning and cuts out the lapdance, the best part of the film! Fucking stoopid.

  • tarantino is one of my favorite film makers. he makes the movies he wants to make. love all his directorial efforts and most of the ones hes written. he makes movies for fans, not critics. he is one of those directors that i cant wait for another release because his films are fun, funny, action packed, sly, and, most important off all, great movies.

  • Comment removed

  • This really is CLASSIC Kermode. Such an amazing rant.

  • Death Proof is one of the most infantile misogynistic fluffed up mockery of a duck-hunt i have had the misfortune to listen to, sorry, watch. Tarantino should perhaps try his hand at radio and see how long he lasts..Quentins Half hour Cash-In..or something like that. At least i can feel safe in the knowledge that i don't own a wireless.

  • i love most Quentin movies, but this review is fuckin gold. shit movie by the way.

  • Death proof was a fucking piece of shit, every character talks like quentin tarantino, you end up not giving two shits about the characters or if they live or die. And tarantino wastes a fucking brillant performance from kurt russell dude im a tarantino fan but everything besides pulp fiction and jackie brown is utter shit. Resivoir dogs is great but extremely flawed and everything else is just pure shit man. Im praying that django unchained is atleast a return to form.....

  • @tttwas0910 Death Proof is well made crap, that is all. We all know Tarantino is self indulgent, but this is by far his worst film. I wouldn't say Reservoir Dogs is flawed though, as it's his second best film after Pulp Fiction, in my opinion. Jackie Brown is his third best and then fourth, Kill Bill. I didn't care for Kill Bill Vol. 2 except for a few scenes and Inglourious Basterds was pretty much crap aswell.

  • @69crafty Resavoir Dogs is probably one of the best debuts by any filmmaker of the past 20 to 25 years. It's still a flawed film, not saying it's bad. Jackie Brown like Kermode and many film geeks have said it's his best most complete film. Everyone has their own voice, it's beautifully shot, great performances from top to bottom, and it's Tarantinos most mature script. For a guy like Tarantino who has actual talent to be putting out shit movies like this is an outrage.

  • I love how Mark Kermode tries to make a point (a false one even), and he fails to because he speaks so quickly. This sounds more like a temper tantrum than a review. First, he says that Tarantino's film is first, which it isn't. And then, he tries to make up this reality as if people went to see it in theaters and went home after the first bit, which was actually Robert Rodriguez's (Planet Terror), from boredom and that's why Tarantino released it separately...Doesn't make much sense.

  • I don't always agree with Kermode. But he is spot on about Jackie Brown. It's his most grown up film.

  • @bambieyedbeauty Most grown up film? Don't you mean "mature"? And I wouldn't call Peter Fonda's ugly-ass daughter randomly being fucked anally by Robert De Niro "mature". Inglourious Basterds and Pulp Fiction are his two most professional; the level of symbolism shows it. People like Kermode are just too judgmental towards Tarantino's style. He's much like all the conservative types who freaked when 2001: A Space Odyssey was released.

  • @Transformers2themax Well if you want to be pedantic, which clearly you do, sure, Jackie Brown is his most mature film. As the bonking scene, well it's supposed to be pathetic, isn't it? Kermode always says he goes to see films with an open mind...except maybe Michael Bay's. He's a vocal, insightful, entertaining critic and it's clear he *wants* to like Tarantino's films because he knows he's capable of doing so much better.

  • @bambieyedbeauty It's supposed to be pathetic? That's your explanation for it? I'd much rather Jackie Brown not had any of the scenes with Bridget Fonda at all. She's unattractive and her acting is incredibly dry. Besides, it took place in the '90s. Sorry, I'm not much for anything in the modern era. Plus, it lacked the symbolism and themes of Pulp Fiction. Granted, some scenes in the film were great, but it lacked a lot. He should've not stayed so true to the novel.

  • @Transformers2themax That's my interpretation, yes. Whether you find Bridget Fonda attractive or not shouldn't really make any difference to your enjoyment of the film. What an odd thing to criticise the film for. What on earth has the era got to do with anything? You're clutching at straws my friend.

  • @bambieyedbeauty It ruins it because she has no role in it other than the exchange at the mall. Her character is a flat, one-dimensional painting from the inside of a prehistoric cave; except, those were actually artistic. The fact that she isn't attractive, but is filmed as if she is, just ruins the eye candy, the cinematography, and the seriousness of the film. I wanted to pop her in the face she was so annoying. She was a useless character that might as well have been changed or left out.

  • @bambieyedbeauty And the era ruins it because of it's alienation from the rest of Tarantino's style and the era of cinema it's paying homage to. Even though it was released in 1997, they say it's during 1995, which is odd...That aside, the fact that it's in the '90s outcasts it from Tarantino's usual style: none of his films are set in any era; except, for their own. He picks an era of film to pay homage to but at the same time, he gives it modern elements as well as its own heartbeat.

  • @bambieyedbeauty Death Proof, for example...It includes some modern day elements (some to my distaste), but the setting feels very much like the world depicted in carsploitation films from the early-'70s such as Vanishing Point and White Lightning...Pulp Fiction is a combination of the technicolor graphics novels of the '60s and '70s blaxploitation...From Dusk 'Till Dawn is a mixture of zombie flicks and '70s Texas blues crime films....

  • @bambieyedbeauty And it's fairly obvious that you just decided Jackie Brown was his most professional all because of Mark Kermode. He's the only reviewer of the film who's even complimented as his best. Explain to me why it's so "grown up". Sure, Pam Grier has a multi-dimensional character and so does Robert De Niro, but that's about it...It doesn't have any symbolism, themes, or any real character development. The film's professionalism is no where near that of Inglourious Basterds.

  • @Transformers2themax I was thinking you were making a very good, reasoned argument, and then you went and spoiled it all by saying something stupid like I love you... I mean... that I based my decision on Kermode's. Which is daft. I like Kermode a lot, but I don't always agree with him. We're going round in circles. So I will leave with this: No character development in JB? Umm.. Robert Forster's character anyone?

  • @bambieyedbeauty His character didn't develop in any way other than eventually kissing Pam Grier at the end of the film. He was the same blank sheet of paper throughout. That's how a lot of the characters in that film were...just a bunch of walking plot devices. They weren't likable, they weren't memorable, and more importantly...they were one-dimensional. The only aesthetic element of the film was the soundtrack, which could have done without rap and the OVER-playing of The Delfonics.

  • @bambieyedbeauty And actually, I was not being pedantic--I was being reasonable above all things. I can understand if he doesn't enjoy Michael Bay's films. They're not really artistic; they're preference-based, so there really is no analyzing them without sounding too opinionated. As for Death Proof, Kermode is treating it the same as with a Bay film. I agree that it's flawed and some of the dialogue did not work, but it's not a bad film. It's a very symbolic take on giallo horror flicks.

  • @Transformers2themax You keep using the word 'symbolic'. I do not think it means what you think it means.

  • @bambieyedbeauty Actually, the film has symbols in it; therefore, it is symbolic...Most (if not all) of the people who hate on Tarantino's films are not intelligent enough to find these sides to them. To call Death Proof "rubbish" and just dismiss it as a silly B-movie is like calling 2001: A Space Odyssey "boring". There's nothing professional about that and it's sad how people actually believe that it is and fall for everything Mark Kermode says. Never base your judgments of a film critic's.

  • I like Kermode. But sometimes he pisses me off. Okay, maybe Death Proof is not the best film ever, but it's entertaining as hell. But okay, I see your point.

    But then he says Escape from LA is bad, and I'm like DUDE!!! Enough!!!

  • @Transformers2themax You really need to get over it. How many times have you come back to this or the Basterds review to clutter up the comments page? So a film critic doesn't like Tarantino. Big deal. Go put on Death Proof and have yourself a good time, then.

  • @TulseLuper Actually, this bothers me because regularly, he is a good film critic. But when he gets to Tarantino, he becomes incredibly biased. Most of his reviews are based off of opinions anyways. A good film critic thinks into it. They at least find one good thing about it. The first Transformers films aren't really artistic at all, but that doesn't make them bad movies. Those are the kinds that depend on preference. As for Death Proof, it's not my favorite, but it still has artistic subtext.

  • @TulseLuper

    To be fair, he could use that same response for you. Big deal, he likes Tarantino. He's just giving his point of view.

  • @TrevorKingKwong Plenty of people here have given their points-of-view. This guy has been spamming every single one of my Kermode/Tarantino uploads. It's obnoxious and annoying.

  • @TrevorKingKwong His point of view is also wrong.

  • @Transformers2themax

    noo, tarantino wrote an directed from dusk till dawn. de first alf dat is, untill they arrive at de vampire boozer. it wus a project much loike grindhouse, except for rodriguez wus credited as sole director.

  • @mrderrickmcguinty Really? Huh. I didn't know that. Because he starred in it, I can see him directing part of it. Rodriguez probably handled all the cinematography and action; that's what he's best at...Still, From Dusk 'Till Dawn is not legally a Tarantino film--neither is True Romance (awful movie in general) or Four Rooms (even worse).

  • @Transformers2themax

    Tarantino wasn't credited as director cause directors guild av america wouldn't allow two directors ter be credited. so ter avoid trouble tarantino as a gran mucker, let rodriguez take full credit as director. another tin, arguin aboyt tarantino is pointless. yer man is director wi most divided opinions among cinefiles.

  • Mark, casting Kurt Russell as Stuntman Mike is a complete piss-take of Snake PLissken and I think it works as a bitof fun. Dennis Potter's characters were all him so let it be.

  • I loved Death Proof right up until the ending, where the hard-ass-mean-sonnuvabitch killer turns into a sniveling wimp. I don't mind the feminist message (I'm all for it in fact) I just don't like the turnaround from Russell being insane psycho to begging for his life.

  • Mark, you got your information wrong. Planet Terror was the first film in the Grindhouse lineup. Then the faux trailers. Then Death Proof.

  • In Tarantino's defence, he only wrote and directed a quarter of 'Four Rooms'.

  • "He's not a fawayun". And neither are you, Cur-mode.

  • Yeah, he picks up people and kills them.....Lol.. What a cleverly biased pogue. If he actually believes that, he truly is as ignorant as I believed. There is a lot more of a story there than just murdering people with cars. Clearly, he didn't see the level of character development towards the end of the film. That car chase scene was sick!

  • "the cinematic crimes of Quentin Tarantino." Really? To me, Kermode's just too ignorant to take any feedback or bother to analyse the films he reviews for subtext. Death proof has a lot of subtext, a lot of character development, great dialogue, a unique soundtrack; and most of all, it has some of the most intense, well directed car chase scenes in cinema history,....

  • Wow, Kermode *loves* CRUISING?? I know the good doctor has a great fondness for Friedkin, but Cruising? Bleh.

  • The clip of the film nearly sent me to sleep.

  • funny because its all absolutely true.

  • 1 mark if your gonna include films that tarantino wrote then its his 9th film. natural born killers and true romance dont forger.

    2 so what if everyone talk like tarantino? every one talks like woody allen in allen's movies.

    3 tarantino acting isn't bad here it works

    4. the acting is not supposed to be great its a exploitation flick.

    5 you cant compare this to his other films

  • @robaquarian I think he left out True Romance because its a great film. He put in Four Rooms because its shit, which kind of proves how biased he can be in regards to Tarantino. I mean, if Four Rooms was great and Quentin regarded it has one of his films, most people would feel he was taking credit for a film he had minimal involvement in. If Four Rooma is a QT film, Crimson Tide is a Tarantino film too! Lets put that in

  • A cool villain played by Kurt Russell is NOT supposed to be brought down by a pack of gearhead bitches.

  • I was bored by this film and didn't care about any of these characters.

    There were too many female characters and I thought the villian was really stupid.

    Although I must say I thought pulp fiction and kill bill were masterpieces

    and Inglorious bastards was a great film too.

  • @MundyArtStudio I can see where you're getting at. I don't care much for feminist films either; however, I do like it when Tarantino films have badass female characters. I personally loved Death Proof and found the female characters at the end to be very unique and, at the same time, entertaining. I get why you didn't enjoy it and I respect that. We're all entitled to our opinions. Just do me a favor--watch it one more time. Trust me, it worked for me with Basterds. Regardless, it's still art.

  • Loved the car chase, thats it, everything else is just self indulgent bollocks.

  • This guy is a fucking hater, he needs a cuddle.

  • I love Kermode and his reviews, I have great respect for him and his film knowledge, which far surpasses not only mine but the better half of film lovers in general, but I absolutely cannot stand it when he exaggerates his point beyond reason. Saying that Quentin Tarantino "cannot direct" simply because he despised his last film is completely disproportionate. Everyone knows that simply isn't true, whether you like Death Proof or not. His occasional lack of objectivity irritates me.

  • @julespec I agree. Firstly, I've liked all QT's movies except this, and i've since forgiven him for the fantastic Inglourious Basterds, but something that bugs me about Mark in this subject is the opinion that anything before/after Jackie Brown is suddenly "adolescent claptrap". Pulp Fiction is a vastly better film than JB, Mark. Sorry, but it is, and is not "adolescent claptrap in any way, shape or form. Same could be said for Reservoir Dogs. Kill Bill? Self Indulgent, but still good fun

  • I really can't stand that other guy that only contributes interruptions to Mark's reviews.

  • I really like both Grindhouse movies but Death Proof was my favourite.

  • The problem is, Tarantino hasn't tried anything new EVER. He hasn't thought up a way to make a great movie. He's just thought up ways to make effective movies. Look! Women main characters! He's a feminist! Look! he sits you down for 10 minutes and explains a pop culture theory to you! He's Postmodern!

    It's all just the fact that he does SOMETHING that makes people like him, not the worth of what he does. There's a rule of movie-making - never reference a better movie in your crappy movie.

  • @Bassbait Feminist, postmodernist, I don't care. What I love about Tarantino is the way you can really take in a scene, breathe in its atmosphere. His films marinate in their own (his) desires, emotions, instincts. You could say this is self-indulgent, but I've never understood why that is a bad thing. Self-indulgence lets you get to know the artist. I feel I'm in the presence of Tarantino himself when I watch his movies. As much as I love Kubrick, Coens, etc, that is a virtue they don't have.

  • @theotormon Kubrick does have that and more. Kubrick constantly embeds his films with characters similar to his own personality, and actually subliminally appears in his films. Postmodern is full of crap, and feminist? That's irrelevant. Tarantino is a BAD movie maker.

    Kubrick actually has his voice in FMJ, and he appears in reflections in The Shining and 2001: A Space Odyssey. His atmosphere is better than Tarantino's by a mile, and Tarantino's is "let's just talk about movies!". It's boring

  • @theotormon Also, Tarantino's major problem is that his films suck, not that they are unoriginal, but that they aren't GOOD. His films have no sense of logic or meaning. Things happen that make no sense, for no reason other than plot convenience. Nobody feels realistic, nobody feels right, nobody feels worth paying attention to. Then, you have him butchering genre conventions to suit his own ego, whilst ruining the genre's worth (Kill Bill did this especially).

  • @Bassbait Fair enough about Kubrick. Per T-o butchering conventions -- well, isn't that what innovators do? That is one thing that makes his films invigorating. And if a whole genre can be "ruined" by one man, it deserves to be. You say things happen for no reason, but it is the little throwaways that often reveal his characters. I often feel genuine pathos towards his characters and see an unremarked upon desperation beneath their cartoonish facades, something I don't see in his pal Rodriguez.

  • @Bassbait He is no Herzog or De Sica or Bergman, sure. He is not "for the ages." But to say he sucks is like saying the best chocolate chip cookie in the world sucks because it is not a madeline. T-o is trash, but he is incredible, nearly transcendent trash because he seems a) in such mastery of technique and b) so gloriously indifferent to the self-seriousness that mars other high-art popcorn directors such as, say, Nolan (who I find bland and overly literal almost to an absurd degree).

  • @theotormon To say Tarantino sucks is to say the best turd in the world sucks because it is still a turd. Tarantino is trash, but his technique isn't worth crap, and his supposed lack of self-seriousness is both fueling his terribleness and actually working the other way around. He makes the whole films seem way too serious at moments, and then way too UNSERIOUS when he needs to be. It's fan service that's meant to insult true fans, and a pathetic excuse for art-house, trash OR popcorn cinema.

  • @Bassbait I would say Tarantino is not for you, which is perfectly fine. There are acclaimed directors I can't get into (Malick, Nolan, Spielberg, Jeunet), but I suspect we are just of a different aesthetic temperament, not that they are worthless. They have all found ways to distinguish and individuate themselves, which is praiseworthy.

  • @theotormon Yes, I admit that there is a level of subjectivity in all things, so Tarantino is not for me, yes. However, the one thing I DON'T like is when fans of Tarantino give him a pass for doing things that they don't like in other examples. For example - Tarantino's movies are incredibly stupid, but then people say "oh, but you're missing the point, they're SUPPOSED to be stupid". I doubt that's true, and many fans of Tarantino miss the HUGE amount of flaws in his work.

  • @Bassbait I'm sure I am biased and blinded by my instinctive enjoyment of his films - and what other kind of true enjoyment is there? Justifying reasons for a feeling are usually teased out or even conjured up after the impression has struck us. And then we pretend those reasons are inevitable. (Or this could just be a personal admision.) Eh, I didn't mean to get pretentious. So, what does T-o do that really scratches my itch?

  • @Bassbait I think (and I appreciate this discussion because it makes me try to pin this down) it is his willingness to show his characters at length in periods of leisure or periods when, at least to them, nothing important is happening. The local color and verbal play and the idiosyncrasies and banalities of the characters come into focus at the expense of the plot, which is fine to me. You don't see this a lot in American movies, at least not before T-o.

  • @theotormon I see what you mean. However, I don't think Tarantino was the first one to do it, and I don't think it makes his films good. I think that if you're going to have lengthy conversations during movies, make it have sense in context to the movie. Clerks is a good example because it's two nobodies, so it's ok that they talk forever about nothing. But I can't pass on anything that Tarantino does.Too much talking and not enough development.

  • all Tarantino's done since Jackie Brown have been these "homages" of his. Kung Fu homages, a war homage, now I hear he's doing a spaghetti western homage. ugh.

  • @Rimbaud1531 All of his films are homages, genius.

  • Splitting Grindhouse into two movies wasn't Tarantino's call. You can thank the Weinsteins for that one.

  • God! He IS a douche! QT goes WAY over his head... I wonder what kind of directors this guy actually likes... I'll keep watching untill I hear him say a movie is good...

  • @ComandoPadentro he likes plenty of movies. just not shit ones like Tarantino films.

  • @Rimbaud1531 Well... thanks for that piece of nothing information...

  • @ComandoPadentro he likes Christopher Nolan, Werner herzog, Stanley Kubrick, William Friedkin, and many more great directors; it's funny how you guys turn on him every time he doesn't agree with you. Intolerant much?

  • @Regenmacher175 I wouldn't call Nolan a great director. He STOMPS Tarantino, but his movies are pretty stupid. Kubrick is a master, but Nolan is NOT fit to be compared to the "greats". Not yet, anyway. By the point of Inception for Nolan, Kubrick was making Dr. Strangelove, and Inception is FAR from being on that level. Nolan's still got work to do before he becomes great. He needs to learn to transcend.

  • @Bassbait speilberg also needed time to get some recognition. I think that Inception is a great movie because there was no film like it before. And I certainly don't think the Dark Knight or Batman begins are stupid movies because they found the realism in superheroes. Nolan is a great director. He's maybe not as good as Werner Herzog but he's also younger than him. So I agree that it may still take time until he can make his second masterpiece (the dark Knight being his first).

  • @Regenmacher175 Inception? There are TONS of movies like it. I could go on about Paprika, The Matrix, Existenz, and blah blah blah.

    But more importantly, there's a duck comic from the early 2000's that's almost the EXACT SAME PLOT. Look up "Donald Duck Inception", and read about it.

  • @Regenmacher175 Sorry, but as a side note, Nolan isn't a great director, and just because he made superheroes MORE realistic, doesn't mean he found realism. Because there's still too much plot convenience - Batman takes the heat for Harvey Dent's death? Why didn't he just blame the joker? Because that would be much easier for EVERYBODY involved. The ending is stupid. Then there's the fact that the guards are on the inside of Joker's cell, and that the getaway bus in the beginning is ignored, etc

  • @Bassbait he still blows Pulp Fiction out of the water with Memento. another thing is that the complaints you are making are nitpicks. the story is engaging enough so most people (except you ) can buy into it. I understand the ending because i got involved in the story, whereas I always find tarantino making movies for himself with all his film references just to show what a nerd he is. He hasn't made a good film in years, ever since he decided to turn his back on Jackie Brown.

  • @Regenmacher175 Yes, Nolan is not a terrible director, but he is not great either. There's a difference between nitpicks and plot holes, and I was pointing out plot holes. Nitpicks usually relate to things that bothered me but don't affect the logic of the story, such as thinking that someone was an annoying character.

    As for Memento, I could easily point out a very gaping plot hole, because his amnesia works so that he forgets new information, but yet still remembers he has amnesia (new info)

  • Death Proof was muck.

  • I like this guy. It would be funny if Tarantino fans don't like him, because he's a fast-talking guy who uses repeating phrases as likes weird movies, hmm.....

  • Quite right. Death Proof was proper wank.

  • i liked this review, i haven't seen the film, but it is a good review.

  • That was harsh, Death Proof was good fun, Why the hate Dr Kermode?? Why?? Quentin Tarantino is one of the best film makers out there...

  • @ 6:27, you have to admit whether you like or dislike what Kermode is saying, he does have a point about the whole Jackie Brown thing.

  • I didn't know Mickey Rourke turned down the part. Too bad for him, Death Proof is fantastic.

  • I liked Death Proof but I also like the style of Kermodes reviews even though he absoloutley rips movies I like to pieces. 

  • love how he compares him to Starlin

  • When I saw it in theatres here in Canada, Planet Terror was first, and the audience was entertained... they loved the trailers... then half of them walked out during Deathproof at what was essentially the 3/4th mark of the entire performance.

  • i think death proof was brilliant. i enjoy the way quentin tarantino talks and the second set of girls' revenge was like faster pussycat wrapped up in a car chase.

  • @TheeOneWhoTalks He's a gardening implement then?

  • @TulseLuper That's not what I was going for but, if you like that better : D

  • planet terror never made it to cinemas in australia

  • it is the 4th film. kill bill should have been one movie and four rooms he directed a segment.. i dont count a segment as a whole film.

  • the public was wrong when they saw other movies and not grindhouse.

  • Fuck you

  • shut up mayo!

  • I don't think I'll ever understand the term of 'sell out'. It's fair enough to say that something is generic and money grabbing but in terms of whether the actual entertainment is good enough it becomes null and void to me.

  • What claptrap did tarantino make before jackie brown? dogs or fiction? i liked them both.

    it was fairly ingenious to make a film about a killer stuntman in a film called death proof and make it the most tedious film i can remember.

  • the genuis of the first part of this film is the fact that there's almost no plots. after that it became too talky.

  • It's the 5th Quentin Tarantino film because it was the fifth time he wrote and directed a feature length film. Sorry, Mark, you're wrong there.

    I quite liked Death Proof too.

  • Deathproof was too long and had too much dialog, but it wasn't half as bad as Mark is making it out to be here.

  • Mark, I think that you'd like Planet Terror. It's an awesome, not stop horror romp. Rock solid zombie gore and funny as hell. Check it out, please.

  • @QuatermassMan He liked it a little better.

  • That's odd, because Death Proof was a lot more artistic. In fact, Tarantino's a lot more artistic than Rodriguez in general. I just think the latter writes and directs. He's a decent filmmaker but he hasn't the talent that Quentin does. To me, Death Proof was a great homage to Grindhouse cinema as well as a genius combination of the muscle car and giallo horror genres. Planet Terror was just nothing but effects. I'm sorry but Rodriguez is fairly dry in terms of dialogue and substance.

  • "Deathproof" was like being forced to listen to someone else's boring conversation. Someone shoot me please. . .

  • Tarantino is such a useless director. He's a man in his forties with the mind of a twelve year old.

  • Still the worst movie I have ever viewed at the cinema

  • great review

  • Oh Death Proof was probably the most boring and exhilarating movie i ever watched. Planet Terror however; was completely the opposite. It was fast, explosive and a tone of fun. They should have chopped Death Proof off and released Planet Terror by itself instead.

  • @jigsaw332 >> Apart from a very cool death scene and an awesome car chase,....yeah, it ain't worth anything really. Planet Terror's better.

  • @jigsaw332 Agree completely. I was staring at the cieling for most of the movie. Its just girls talking crap.

  • Kermode ftw

  • I don't even like Jackie Brown so my thoughts on Death Proof were Kermode's and then some more.

  • God I wish Simon would just shut the hell up

  • And on the plus side?

    Well I liked the theme from Cruising... I like it in Cruising!

  • very well said. Quentin does my head in.

  • do u know how we know = WE PAID TWICE

  • "Guy pic girls in bars and kills them" proves how talented Quentin is that he turned such a stupid idea so watchable.

  • @skinwalkerxxx

    You thought it was watchable??? It was fucking boring man.

  • Kurt Russell can't be boring.

  • Escape From New York and The Thing - 2 Excellent movies to prove your point by, but sadly I still found the film boring. Kurt just looked ridiculous and it made me upset to see talent wasted.

  • I thought it was his best performance in years. Especially in the bar.

  • from other reviews - i gathered that Death proof was a weak movie - and so i got pleasently surprised - it is positively silly and quite funny

  • Death Proof is a load of tripe.

  • Super review, spot on about QT

  • Someone's got to...

  • I thought Death Proof was a fun movie.

    Kermode's reviews though are great.

  • Could you upload his review of Sex Lives of the Potato Men, if he ever did an official review of it? Thank you!

  • I wish more than anything that I had that review. They didn't start doing podcasts of the Kermode/Mayo show until May 2005 so there's no way of hearing it unless somebody comes out of the woodwork with a recording of it. But yeah, that sounds like it was one of his best.

  • well whatever, I liked death proof.

  • I'd love to hear that one too.

    I can vaguely remember it. he wasnt very complimentary! As i recall, he thought it was so bad he couldnt even get angry about it!

    Thanks for posting these

  • lol have you got a review from Kermode for a film he liked?

  • Sure. Friedkin's Bug. I mainly post the bad ones because those are the most entertaining, but if you have a request for a good review, I'll certainly turn it over.

  • 'Which you're trying to write out of history in your Stalinist ways.' brilliant.

  • i love kermode... go on son!

  • You must be Danny Dyer

  • @Flipflopab if only i was danny dyer. few men possess such an acting talent. how he gets passed year after year for the oscars, i'll never know.

  • I know its tragic isn't it lol

  • Could you please upload his review of Superbad?

  • Will do.

  • Thanks man. :)

  • Does anyone know what Kermode ended up thinking of Planet Terror?

    A rare occurence: I agree completely with Mark about this film. It really is that bad.

  • He wasn't crazy about it or the Grindhouse project in general but he thought it was better than Death Proof and didn't understand why the latter got the star treatment at Cannes while Planet Terror was side-lined.

  • Thank God there is a critic willing to call Tarantino out on his decline in quality. Critics here in America continually praise Tarantino because of his past glories (Reservoir Dogs, Pulp Fiction) and describes his films' increasing deficiencies as strengths. I can't wait to see Kermode's take on Inglourious Basterds.

  • I'm gonna upload it later since I don't think they took a video of last week's podcast. He's actually rather even-handed about Inglourious Basterds but I won't say anything else.

  • Thanks, I just listened to it, once again I feel he's right about Inglourious Basterds. Unfortunately critics here in the U.S. are giving Tarantino a pass because of his past glory and using hyperbolic praise to describe the movie.

  • Or perhaps it's because Harvey Weinstein demanded that Grindhouse (and Kill Bill as well) be split into two. Not really Tarantino's fault at all. Anyway, Kermode is an over-the-top twat as usual.

  • Then why does he keep going back to Weinstein if he continuously tampers with his vision? It's because he doesn't care. Kermode may be over-the-top but that's why he's so entertaining. And he's right; Tarantino is a sell-out.

  • That's to say nothing of the Weinstein's butchery of countless Hong Kong films that are very hard to find elsewhere, or their many other controversial cuts.

  • And Mr. Film Buff Tarantino, who says that "DVD is great because you can see all of these old kung fu movies" hasn't squaked too much about it.