Skip to main content

What you are doing is not how it's done.

From Dusk Till Dawn
(1996)

(SPOILERS) Tarantino undertook a bout of script doctoring during the mid-90s, but From Dusk Till Dawn represents his sole outright gun-for-hire job from inception, and apart from feeling through-and-through like a scrappy Robert Rodriguez production, with “That’ll do” writ large across it (complete with a plum part for mate Quentin), it’s also an unusually scrappy screenplay, lacking his usual inventiveness and memorable dialogue, leaving instead merely a pervading air of unpleasantness.

Tarantino claimed “Not really” when asked if he wrote Richie Gecko for himself (“I wasn’t visualising anybody. I wrote an exploitation film. It’s a head-banging horror film for horror-film lovers!”) But it’s very easy to believe that Richie, treated to a whole scene in which he gets to exult in and suck off Salma Hayek’s toes, was designed with its screenwriter in mind (it’s also been said he was originally going to direct but elected not to so he could concentrate on the writing and playing Richie; how true that is, given Robert Kurtzman, who paid for the screenplay, was originally pegged to call the shots, is debatable).

Certainly, there’s no way he and Rodriguez didn’t indulge their peccadilloes, thick as thieves as they are. There’s also Quentin and serial killers: “The planet Earth couldn’t handle my serial killer movie” as it would “reveal my sickness far too much”. Well, we already have a movie where he plays – quite convincingly, to be fair to him and criticisms of his acting, although effects guy Tom Savini as Sex Machine is definitely more proficient – a sicko who rapes and murders at the drop of a hat, hallucinating conversations and extrapolating from there onwards.

Making an intentional exploitationer is almost insulation against criticism in Tarantino’s book, hence Grindhouse. But in both cases, reviewers didn’t hold back. And rightly so. This is the dog-end of Tarantino, his penchant for the sordid and degrading unrelieved by more artful or creative influences. It comes across more like a Tarantino knock-off than the real deal, right down to the either tired/tiresome or OTT dialogue (Cheech Marin’s “pussy” speech is a virtual parody of the director’s obsessions), culminating in the incredibly lazy “I don’t care about living or dying any more. I just want to send as many of these devils back to hell as I can”.

Consequently, Rodriguez is perfect to direct this kind of crapola, because he really doesn’t care about quality: the more slipshod and homemade, the better. There’s zero tension during the vampire section, the surprise attack turned around with ease, and any kind of obstacle (be it the turned Richie, or vampire Salma) likewise summarily dispatched. Compare it to Vamp (unsuspecting humans get turned at a vampire bar), and the results are infinitely inferior.

Which means that, relatively, the first half is superior. Indeed, the best scene is the first, featuring the kind of Tarantino trickery he’s famous for, as an encounter between Michael Parks’ Texas Ranger and John Hawkes’ liquor store clerk plays out with the Gecko brothers on the premises, unbeknownst to Parks or us. But anything goes in the name of exploitation, and it’s beyond me how you’re supposed to have fun with a movie (let alone “see it six times. I would”) where Richie commits the acts he does.

Horror movie section-wise, it turns silly quickly, unfortunately without being a whole lot of fun with it. Fred Williamson is easily the highlight, along with his Nam speech, but the special effects are entirely less than special, and the treatment of vampires is closer to zombies (tearing flesh and feeding).

From Dusk Till Dawn is notable as Clooney’s first post-ER role, but like Batman & Robin and The Peacemaker (and to an extent the likeable-but-bland One Fine Day), he has the right ideas but misses the boat – who wouldn’t want to work with Tarantino, play Batman, star in an action blockbuster for new-studio-on-the-block DreamWorks), make a romcom opposite Pfeiffer? In each case, the material or the right people aren’t there, so it’s no wonder he regrouped. Still, it stands as a curiously atypical role for him, a hard-edged criminal who only isn’t defined as a sociopath by reflection of how much of a psychopath his brother is (“a bastard, not a fucking bastard”). He can deliver “Everybody be cool. You – be cool”, and make it sound like choice dialogue, but mostly, you’re conscious how beholden he is to the actorly quirks and tics that have since defined him.

Of the rest, Harvey Keitel can’t salvage a lousy role as a preacher who has lost his faith, and Juliette Lewis survives unscathed on the basis that she isn’t being annoying in a Tarantino film (Natural Born Killers) or any other film (Strange Days) of that period for a change. The mid-90s had Tarantino dabbling, indulging his yen for acting (which thankfully peaked, or troughed, with his stage role in Wait Until Dark), beefing up others’ scripts, and even taking guest director gigs on TV (ER). He clearly had a blast making From Dusk Till Dawn or he wouldn’t have reunited with Rodriguez for Grindhouse, but together, they’re an irredeemable dive too far into the kind of shlock he unselfconsciously adores. Shlock you just can’t self-consciously replicate. Even Natural Born Killers has more merit than this, and that’s really saying something.


Agree? Disagree? Mildly or vehemently? Let me know in the comments below.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

I just hope my death makes more cents than my life.

Joker (2019)
(SPOILERS) So the murder sprees didn’t happen, and a thousand puff pieces desperate to fan the flames of such events and then told-ya-so have fallen flat on their faces. The biggest takeaway from Joker is not that the movie is an event, when once that seemed plausible but not a given, but that any mainstream press perspective on the picture appears unable to divorce its quality from its alleged or actual politics. Joker may be zeitgeisty, but isn’t another Taxi Driver in terms of cultural import, in the sense that Taxi Driver didn’t have a Taxi Driver in mind when Paul Schrader wrote it. It is, if you like, faux-incendiary, and can only ever play out on that level. It might be more accurately described as a grubbier, grimier (but still polished and glossy) The Talented Ripley, the tale of developing psychopathy, only tailored for a cinemagoing audience with few options left outside of comic book fare.

Dude. You’re my hero and shit.

El Camino: A Breaking Bad Movie (2019)
(SPOILERS) I was going to say I’d really like to see what Vince Gilligan has up his sleeve besidesBreaking Bad spinoffs. But then I saw that he had a short-lived series on CBS a few years back (Battle Creek). I guess things Breaking Bad-related ensure an easy greenlight, particularly from Netflix, for whom the original show was bread and butter in its take up as a streaming platform. There’s something slightly dispiriting about El Camino: A Breaking Bad Movie, though. Not that Gilligan felt the need to return to Jesse Pinkman – although the legitimacy of that motive is debatable – but the desire to re-enter and re-inhabit the period of the show itself, as if he’s unable to move on from a near-universally feted achievement and has to continually exhume it and pick it apart.

Two hundred thousand pounds, for this outstanding example of British pulchritude and learning.

The Avengers 4.18: The Girl From Auntie
I’ve mentioned that a few of these episodes have changed in my appreciation since I last watched the series, and The Girl from Auntie constitutes a very pronounced uptick. Indeed, I don’t know how I failed to rate highly the estimable Liz Fraser filling in for Diana Rigg – mostly absent, on holiday –for the proceedings (taking a not dissimilar amateur impostor-cum-sidekick role to Fenella Fielding in the earlier The Charmers). I could watch Fraser all day, and it’s only a shame this was her single appearance in the show.

The past is a statement. The future is a question.

Justified Season Six
(SPOILERS) There have been more than enough damp squib or so-so show finales of late to have greeted the demise of Justified with some trepidation. Thankfully it avoids almost every pitfall it might have succumbed to and gives us a satisfying send-off that feels fitting for its characters. This is a series that, even at its weakest (the previous season) is leagues ahead of most fare in an increasingly saturated sphere, so it’s a relief – even if there was never much doubt on past form – that it doesn’t drop the ball.

And of those character fates? In a show that often pulls back from giving Raylan Givens the great hero moments (despite his maintaining a veneer of ultra-cool, and getting “supporting hero” moments as he does in the finale, 6.13 The Promise), it feels appropriate that his entire (stated) motivation for the season should be undermined. He doesn’t get to take down Boyd Crowder, except in an incarcerating sense, but as always he is sanguine about it. After…

My name is Dr. King Schultz, this is my valet, Django, and these are our horses, Fritz, and Tony.

Django Unchained (2012)
(MINOR SPOILERS) Since the painful misstep of Grindhouse/Death Proof, Quentin Tarantino has regained the higher ground like never before. Pulp Fiction, his previous commercial and critical peak, has been at very least equalled by the back-to-back hits of Inglourious Basterds and Django Unchained. Having been underwhelmed by his post Pulp Fiction efforts (albeit, I admired his technical advances as a director in Kill Bill), I was pleasantly surprised by Inglourious Basterds. It was no work of genius (so not Pulp Fiction) by any means, but there was a gleeful irreverence in its treatment of history and even to the nominal heroic status of its titular protagonists. Tonally, it was a good fit for the director’s “cool” aesthetic. As a purveyor of postmodern pastiche, where the surface level is the subtext, in some ways he was operating at his zenith. Django Unchained is a retreat from that position, the director caught in the tug between his all-important aesthetic pr…

You’re only seeing what’s in front of you. You’re not seeing what’s above you.

Mr. Robot Season 2
(SPOILERS) I suspect my problem with Mr. Robot may be that I want it to be something it isn’t, which would entail it being a much better show than it is. And that’s its own fault, really, or rather creator and writer-director of umpteen episodes Sam Esmail’s, who has intentionally and provocatively lured his audience into thinking this really is an up-to-the-minute, pertinent, relevant, zeitgeisty show, one that not only has a huge amount to say about the illusory nature of our socio-economic system, and consequently the bedrock of our collective paradigm, but also the thorny subject of reality itself, both of which have been variably enticing dramatic fodder since the Wachowski siblings and David Fincher released a one-two punch at the end of the previous millennium.

In that sense, Mr. Robot’s thematic conceit is very much of a piece with its narrative form; it’s a conjuring act, a series of sleights of hand designed to dazzle the viewer into going with the flow, rath…

He tasks me. He tasks me, and I shall have him.

Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan
(1982)
(SPOILERS) I don’t love Star Trek, but I do love Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan. That probably isn’t just me, but a common refrain of many a non-devotee of the series. Although, it used to apply to The Voyage Home (the funny one, with the whales, the Star Trek even the target audience for Three Men and a Baby could enjoy). Unfortunately, its high regard has also become the desperate, self-destructive, song-and-verse, be-all-and-end-all of the overlords of the franchise itself, in whichever iteration, it seems. This is understandable to an extent, as Khan is that rare movie sequel made to transcendent effect on almost every level, and one that stands the test of time every bit as well (better, even) as when it was first unveiled.

What about the meaningless line of indifference?

The Lion King (2019)
(SPOILERS) And so the Disney “live-action” remake train thunders on regardless (I wonder how long the live-action claim would last if there was a slim hope of a Best Animated Feature Oscar nod?) I know I keep repeating myself, but the early ‘90s Disney animation renaissance didn’t mean very much to me; I found their pictures during that period fine, but none of them blew me away as they did critics and audiences generally. As such, I have scant nostalgia to bring to bear on the prospect of a remake, which I’m sure can work both ways. Aladdin proved to be a lot of fun. Beauty and the Beast entirely tepid. The Lion King, well, it isn’t a badfilm, but it’s wearying its slavish respectfulness towards the original and so diligent in doing it justice, you’d think it was some kind of religious artefact. As a result, it is, ironically, for the most part, dramatically dead in the water.

Never compare me to the mayor in Jaws! Never!

Ghostbusters (2016)
(SPOILERS) Paul Feig is a better director than Ivan Reitman, or at very least he’s savvy enough to gather technicians around him who make his films look good, but that hasn’t helped make his Ghostbusters remake (or reboot) a better movie than the original, and that’s even with the original not even being that great a movie in the first place.

Along which lines, I’d lay no claims to the 1984 movie being some kind of auteurist gem, but it does make some capital from the polarising forces of Aykroyd’s ultra-geekiness on the subject of spooks and Murray’s “I’m just here for the asides” irreverence. In contrast, Feig’s picture is all about treating the subject as he does any other genre, be it cop, or spy, or romcom. There’s no great affection, merely a reliably professional approach, one minded to ensure that a generous quota of gags (on-topic not required) can be pumped out via abundant improv sessions.

So there’s nothing terribly wrong with Ghostbusters, but aside from …

It’s the Mount Everest of haunted houses.

The Legend of Hell House (1973)
(SPOILERS) In retrospect, 1973 looks like a banner year for the changing face of the horror movie. The writing was on the wall for Hammer, which had ruled the roost in Britain for so long, and in the US the release of The Exorcist completed a transformation of the genre that had begun with Polanski’s Rosemary’s Baby; the realistic horror film, where the terror was to be found in the everyday (the home, the family). Then there was Don’t Look Now, which refracted horror tropes through a typically Nic Roeg eye, fracturing time and vision in a meditative exploration of death and grief. The Wicker Man, meanwhile, would gather its reputation over the passing years. It stands as a kind of anti-horror movie, eschewing standard scares and shock tactics for a dawning realisation of the starkness of opposing belief systems and the fragility of faith.

In comparison to this trio, The Legend of Hell House is something of a throwback; its slightly stagey tone, and cobweb…