the first half of FROM DUSK TIL DAWN - Page 2

Forget Tarantino, my biggest complaint with the movie is the horrible kid actor, the Japanese kid. (What? He's Chinese? Well, excuse me all to hell.)

He's such a weak link in the film. He shows no emotion. Even in the scene where he's freaking out about his father he doesn't register any bit of acting ability.

Well, he does get blown up, so there is that payoff.

Hell, I thought the second part was better than the first. It's a pretty rough, vicious, escaped-criminal road movie that finds redemption in the arms of a totally crazy Mexican vampire film. And I totally want one of those arm/neck tattoos. Some day.

I watched this again today for the first time in years. I may have liked the second half more than the first. Sure it was silly, but it was a nice contrast to the gritty criminal tone of the first half. By the end, you start to forget that Clooney was such a prick in the first half. It takes actual inhuman creatures to make him seem sympathetic.

Both halves suck ass.

This along with your bearded avatar makes me think you're filling in for Devin while he's overseas.

Something like that.

I love the concept of the 1st half/2nd half shift. The execution, not so much.

And I don't think the script is the problem. I read it a few years before I saw the movie and remember thinking it was pretty good. Then I finally got around to netflixing the film and felt like Rodriguez really dropped the ball.

It isn't that the tonal shift couldn't work, it's simply that the 2nd half isn't very well made. The effects look bad, the editing is choppy, camera isn't as good, etc. etc. Above all, it feels clumsy to me.

Still love the idea, though.

Closer to truth than anyone else in this thread has come.

I stand corrected on the the title (I was remembering "The Man from Rio" from the dialogue), and while it may have lifted large portions from another film ("The Patsy"), so has every other Tarantino written production. It's really sort of expected at this point. Regardless, comedy is subjective, so while you may not have liked it at all, I find it an amusing little skit.

Patrick's mental association with Woody Allen makes this an understandable position for him. There's far too much pseudo-cool and macho-bravado for him to relate.

And while this isn't really a good film by any stretch of the imagination. It is, however, arguably an entertaining one.

Actually, I was just in a shit mood and felt like shitting on something. For that I apologize. It's not too shabby, just not nearly as fun as it thinks it is.

Yes. Love this movie. Beginning, middle, and end.

The sequels suck. 3 is a bit better than 2, but that's like saying Date Movie is better than Epic Movie.

Watched this with commentary last night and forgot how good Clooney and Keitel are in this, and I can't wait to show people the flick under false pretenses. After taking in the 42nd Street DVD I can now fully appreciate Fred Williamson's presence, I completely forgot about his 'Nam flashback as well as Keitel's shotgun cross. Full Tilt Boogie should be a fun watch tonight.

That's pretty well summed-up.

I do have a soft spot for the closing shot, though.

Thanks for the credit. I like the movie a lot, but as I said in the "Man I Love *FILM*" thread(and many people have mentioned here), I always find myself wanted to see the end of the first half of the film. Pretty much everything Greg David said, I completely agree with(Tarantino's acting, etc).

The opening scene may be one of my favorite openers in history. I love the crooked, old-fashioned Sheriff, and the determined look he gives when talking about the Seth and Richie("which means they should be headed right my way").

And Clooney shouting "LOW PROFILE" as the building blows up behind them is gold, IMO.

Oh, and FULL TILT BOOGIE and that gag real are fucking great, also.

Can't really say much aside from I still love this movie, despite agreeing that the shift is kinda awkward. Still a very enjoyable romp.

I'd like to add that this movie deserves props as far as I'm concerned, for eventually leading to Grindhouse.

Yes! I love that exchange so much.

I wasn't surprised by the tonal shift in the middle of the movie, because the TV spots constantly ran Hayek morphing into a vampire. That said, I loved this movie upon first viewing in the theater & I still love it as an owner of the DVD. I suppose that Clooney hadn't done much other than ER at that point, so I was shocked by how much of a total bad-ass he was in this. And yeah, as mentioned, Hayek's dance scene is hot beyond description.

It sure as hell is!

Anyway, I absolutely love From Dusk 'Till Dawn. And it is obvious it is the precursor to Grindhouse. The only difference is that instead of two movies they made one: the first half is Tarantino's and the second is Rodriguez's. Can't wait to sit down and watch all of them together in a long double feature at some point. Might even throw the Kill Bill flicks in with them.

That said, I do understand some people liking the first half better than the second. I felt that way the first two times I saw it, but since then I've come to absolutely love the film as a whole. I think we were all just disappointed initially that we weren't getting another Reservoir Dogs/Pulp Fiction/True Romance crime flick. That's just bad expectations on the audiences' part though, as this movie isn't meant to be anymore than a rollercoaster ride of an exploitation film. Basically, it's like an old school "grindhouse" movie where the production only had enough money to include monsters in the second half.......so the first half is just a regular old crime film. The only difference here is that Robert & Quentin actually have a good budget and are doing it that way anyway for the hell of it...............just like with Grindhouse earlier this year. Once you realize that it's not supposed to be taken seriously in the first place, then you can start to actually appreciate the movie for what it is.



Oh, and anyone who says that there's nothing remotely over-the-top in the first half really needs to watch it again. How about the ridiculously huge explosion at the store, the massive magnum wound in Ritchie's hand that he casually covers with duct tape, Ritchie's wacky visions, or the "Superman"-vision shot of the hostage in the trunk? While not as over-the-top as the second half (few modern films are), the extreme elements had already begun to filter in from the very start.

I feel as though the "man-on-fire-running-around-screaming-whilst-firing-gun" is as over-the-top as the first half gets.

This was a personal favourite of mine as a teenager, although I kind of fell out of love with the film when I started to generally dislike Rodriguez as a director. Watching it again I’m of the opinion that it’s one of his better directed films. There is a sureness of hand and pace to the film that is missing from his later, trashier, cheaper feeling films. It helps that he’s got a great cast and a really fun script. Clooney, Keitel, and Juliette Lewis are a great central trio whilst Cheech Marin, Danny Trejo, Fred Williamson and Tom Savini are all really funny peripheral characters. I know a lot of people who feel that the first part of the film is stronger than the second, but I find that the story of the Gecko Brothers flight from the law plays too much like an excised subplot from Natural Born Killers. 

Once the film moves to Mexico it loses a lot of intensity but it becomes a really different, fun, kind of film. Clooney is great as the smarmy badass, but he’s even better as a panicked smarmy badass and his desperation to live give the film a vein of black comedy in its last half hour. Great practical effects work and a wicked sense of humour really make the split between the two halves of the film apparent, but I think they kind of naturally compliment each other. Special mention has to go to Fred Williamson who plays his role as a Vietnam Veteran with an almost comical maniacal edge, his protacted speech about butchering Vietcong, played largely in silence and framing Savini’s change, is one of the great visual jokes in the film. 

 

That's why I tend to prefer the second half to the first half, it feels a little more honest to be honest.

I'm a fan of both directors but when I first saw it on release I prefered the first half. In a wild twist of fate however, seeing it again a while back I thought the first half was pretty much balls. Hairy, sweaty balls. Everyone* knows I love The Cloon but I feel like this is his least effective role. I don't believe for a second in Neck Tatt McGhee here and it breaks my heart because as everyone knows, I love The Cloon. Tarantino is more forgivable but still not believable in the slightest on screen and whatever he did from the chair lead to a half-baked tone.

 

The second half though I'm on Team Spike. Clooney's character feels more at home in that part of the film - still unbelievable, but believably unbelievable** - and all that good stuff that Spike said I'd copy and paste here if I knew how to.

 

 

* On Earth.

** Yeah, I only half know what I mean there. I think it's because the film goes goofy and Clooney's character is more goofy to me than badass.

Not quite as abrupt a tonal change, but Red Eye starts off like a romantic drama, complete with a "Meet cute" scene and then it becomes a thriller when they get on the plane.

 

Oh man... Red Eye.  There's a movie I haven't seen or thought about since I saw a free screening of it.  Good call on the tonal change.  That movie literally ends the way the fake movie in The Player ended: with a really stupid happy-go-lucky quip.  ... if my memory serves...