Friday Meals on Reels: Death Proof.
By Burbanked on Feb 8, 2008 in Friday Meals on Reels, Movies, Views and Reviews | 1,702 views |
Apologies for the light posting this week, movie snark fans. I’ve been pretty tied up with freelance work, so I’ve been pulling late nights and early mornings – which SERIOUSLY cuts into my precious blogging time. I’ll be back up and running regular-like again soon.
But here’s the deal: throughout this year we’ll be looking at screengrabs from the first appearance of food in classic and new movies. Maybe we’ll talk about the movies. Or the food. Or both. Or maybe I’ll drink your milkshake.
In the 2007 film Death Proof, we see our first food at around 22½ minutes in:
I’d like to pause here to point out the inherent irony – at least for me – in this new series I’ve begun: I hate – I mean, really seriously virulently and bone-quiveringly HATE watching people eat in the movies, on TV, in commercials and the like. I mean it; it drives me into a kind of irrational, monstrous rage usually only sated by horse tranquilizers and deep, sorrowful weeping.
So it was with a sense of outrage and misery that I watched the scene represented above, in which Kurt Russell’s Stuntman Mike character noisily consumes a dish of sloppy nachos – with all of the attendant crunching and smacking and finger licking and teeth-sucking and –
*dry heaves for several minutes*
I really despised this movie, and not just because of the excessive food-chewing of this scene. It’s a truly terrible film, obscenely indulgent and pointless 
and just head-crackingly dull. Sure, the stunt driving is fun – if entirely contrived and idiotic – but we only get there after suffering through so much rambling conversation, such self-consciously “cool” and “zippy” dialogue that is every bit as unmotivated as it is clichéd, stereotyped and unimaginative. I love most of Tarantino’s movies, but usually he treats these scenes with more respect. They inform the characters or move the plot forward, as such scenes should be designed to do. Jules and Vincent talk like this, but they’re on the move somewhere, preparing for a job. Their mundane dialogue is in contrast to what they’re doing (”We should have brought shotguns”, etc.). No such luck in Death Proof, where the lumbering dialogue scenes do nothing – nothing! – more than establish supposedly outrageous behavior in the female characters, who are anything but.
And please, please, Mr. Tarantino: let’s stop with the foot worship, okay? As an artist you’re allowed to put your own kink into your art, fine, but by and large we really don’t share this peccadillo and it’s become seriously dull and unfunny.
Of course I “get” that the movie was supposed to be intentionally cheesy, “so bad it’s good” in the Grindhouse style. But that doesn’t cut it here. This is a grindhouse movie only in so far that it’s got gory death and an outrageous premise. Other than that, everything indicates that it’s simply a Tarantino film – especially from the fact that he completely abandons the grindhouse “look” of the movie at the halfway point so that he can go off and film the rest of it how he pleases. It truly makes no sense to start out a film in one style, with a unifying look and feel and purpose, only to chuck it aside later because you changed your mind. So what was the point?
That’s enough ranting – let’s get to the food! As usual, the sensationally alluring and hypnotic Mrs. Burbanked asks that you please chew with your mouth shut when enjoying today’s delectables, after the jump.
Today’s Friday Meals on Reels: Copywriter Al’s Hunger Proof Chicken Nacho Dip
- 1 package (8 ounces) cream cheese at room temperature
- 1½ cups salsa
- 1 large canned chicken breast – and make sure you drain the
bacteria goowater - 2 cups shredded cheddar cheese
- 1 bag of your most favorite tortilla chips
Preheat oven to 350° F. Spray Pam on a 9″ x 13″ pan. Mix cream cheese, salsa and chicken together in a bowl and transfer to the Pam’d pan. Sprinkle cheese on top and bake uncovered for about 45 minutes until the cheese is a little brown. Serve with tortilla chips and indulge your dipping and crunching – and your manners – as you please.
Not only did the director of Crystal Skull find Michael Bay’s movie to be “awesome”, but in Michael Bay’s opinion, Spielberg might even feel that the movie is perhaps Michael Bay’s best. Awesome news for Michael Bay fans of Michael Bay movies! (
(
© Copyright
Ray | Feb 8, 2008 | Reply
Absolutely right, Alan. DEATH PROOF sucked. Hard.
It wasn’t even a good representation of the Grindhouse experience – PLANET TERROR did a much, much better job of that. DEATH PROOF was basically Tarantino telling the whole wide world, “Guess what, everybody? I’m Quentin Tarantino, and I can make anything I want and people will love it. So, suck it.”
BTW, that little snippet of dialogue was (a) more realistic, and (b) snazzier than anything found in DEATH PROOF.
Sr. Irene | Feb 8, 2008 | Reply
Must this Ray, use such nasty language?
Burbanked | Feb 8, 2008 | Reply
Ray: Is Planet Terror worth seeing then? Because I tend to be more of a Tarantino fan than I am of Rodriguez, and Death Proof seriously soured me on these movies.
Sr. Irene: Actually, I’m pretty sure he must.
Ray | Feb 8, 2008 | Reply
Burbanked – Well, I really enjoyed PLANET TERROR, although I must admit that neither film really works outside of the predetermined space of GRINDHOUSE, which was only a mimic of the real experience anyway. But Rodriguez made a film much more in the spirit of the thing, for sure.
Sr. Irene – I didn’t really think my comment was all that nasty. Perhaps you’re just a prude.
Megan | Feb 9, 2008 | Reply
The crunching & smacking is what got me…
Liz | Feb 9, 2008 | Reply
Didn’t anyone like the second half of Death Proof, at least? Yes, the first half was awful, but that was to give the audience a real intermission after the trailers that nobody wanted to miss.
Tarantino clearly has nothing left to say after Pulp Fiction, but he keeps making movies because he can. Robert Rodriguez is officially the better filmmaker – the pupil has surpassed the master.
Burbanked | Feb 10, 2008 | Reply
I can’t say I liked the second half, Liz, which by my clock starts with the second group of women jabbering incessantly. Maybe you’re referring to the final 20 minutes or so, which is basically one long stunt sequence – and that’ fine, but it truly has little to do with character or plot or really any sort of fulfilling movie-making. It’s flashy and fun but it doesn’t much stick with you.
Sulu at the Helm | Feb 11, 2008 | Reply
Great post. I actually was going to suggest this scene since with all of its disgusting crunching and greasy-fingered goodness it’s easily the most memorable part of the movie–for me, at least. Oh, and the fact he washes it down with a club soda and lime (gaggg) then follows that with a virgin pina colada (gggraaaaamphhhh!)–never have I wanted so much for Kurt Russell to die in a movie.
Burbanked | Feb 11, 2008 | Reply
True enough, Sulu – but I think it’s unintentionally hilarious that we want Stuntman Mike to die, yet he’s the only sympathetic character in the whole stupid film.
Piper | Feb 12, 2008 | Reply
I’ll weigh in as someone that liked Death Proof.
Alan, you’re right about the self-indulgence of this movie. But where this movie fall short is that I don’t know that Tarantino knew what he wanted to do with this movie. It’s an spoof of an homage of a I don’t know what.
But damn if Sydney Poitier isn’t as sweet as pie in this surprising roll and Kurt Russell makes this entire movie for me. So I’m willing to endure the talky talky (which there was less of in the original release) for those two things and some of the best car action I’ve ever seen.
Alan, to me Planet Terror was good fun but it didn’t do a whole lot for me. It was fun to watch with a rowdy crowd but I don’t know how it would play on DVD for me.
Burbanked | Feb 12, 2008 | Reply
I’ll give you the Kurt Russell comment, Piper, because he can pretty much do no wrong in my book. He goes far to make Stuntman Mike interesting, but what QT’s given him to work with is thin, thin, thin.
The car action was fine – but each time he cuts back to the rowdy women swearin’ and screamin’ and kickin’ up a fuss, I’m so very very bored, and it has the effect of killing whatever sense of pace this sequence is supposed to have.
And sorry: I found Poitier to be incredibly one-note, and – again – she’s not given anything compelling to do. What was with the text messages? First she was all lovey dovey and then she was angry? I strained so hard to make any sense of this movie outside of its visual treats, and just came up with a whole lot of headache instead.