Lately, the phrase “Quentin Tarantino presents” has become enough to ward of the canny film enthusiast. However, when the inanity of the title “Hell Ride” keeps staring at you across the Blockbuster floor, sometimes even the hardened critic may, in a moment of weakness, be reduced to watching this straight-to-Dvd bike crash of a movie. The film is the result of a viewing, by director Larry Bishop and Quentin Tarantino, of violent 60s biker movie The Savage Seven (1968) – apparently near-impossible to find. Bishop co-starred in this film in his youth before rising to hand-picked salvation from the world of B-movies by QT for his role opposite Michael Madsen (who joins him here) in Kill Bill Vol. 2. At this viewing, Tarantino decreed that Larry was destined to write and direct the greatest biker movie ever made. No pressure, mate.
The film has a thin plot that merits little explanation – and the director evidently feels the same. Pistolero (Bishop), The Gent (Madsen) and Commanche (Eric Balfour) – a role originally intended for Quentin who ran off for his part in Takashi Miike’s Sukiyaki Western Django. Ouch, It was your idea Quentin! – are members of The Victors, one of your Hells Angels biker gangs so prevalent in biker exploitation films. After this about all you need to know is revenge and gratuity of all orders and appearances by Dennis Hopper (Easy Rider co-star Peter Fonda turned down the film), David Carradine (although reluctantly) and … Vinnie Jones. Right.
Now, I have a limited knowledge of the genre this “homages” having seen Easy Rider (1969), which surpasses the limitations of the low-budget shock sub-genre to be a counter-cultural cornerstone – and for the record a masterpiece in my eyes. I’ve also seen the Roger Corman (so we’re talking proper B-movie exploitation here) film Wild Angels (1966), also starring Peter Fonda. The film does build on these premises, in some visual references, the general style of exploitation cinema in an updated format (which mostly amounts to tits and guns) and in the music which it borrows from and builds on fairly well. However, it soon becomes apparent that Bishop is trying to make Kill Bill Vol. 2 on wheels. The picture is dragged through the desert dirt of Quentin’s back catalogue, and most of all the movie reeks of macaroni, Quentin’s take on the Spaghetti Western is clearly as much an influence as the biker movie genre. Bishop openly admits the scenes that “homage” QT – how many times does that term get used in relation to Tarantino only to disappoint? – perhaps failing to see their cringe-worthy nature. When he isn’t directly ripping on the directors trademarks, the dialogue – consistently dire throughout – jumps and falls at the witty banter of films like Reservoir Dogs (1992) and Pulp Fiction (1994) and the time-line spooning narrative just makes a mess of a simple, stock story.
Though I find it hard now, and immediately after viewing, the experience of watching Hell Ride itself was not a bad one for me. The film managed to keep me entertained by either surpassing my low expectations – bear in mind I had seen the trailer, and the reviews.. and the title – or being so terrible it’s amusing. The film is indeed a strange mixture of knowingly dodgy i.e. trying to be the epitome of 60s biker movies, and trying to be Kill Bill Vol. 2 – and just bad. However, despite the attempts to directorially body-snatch Mr. Tarantino, which pester the entire movie, this isn’t such a crime given that everyone has done it in the last few years and after all at least Bishop is justified to do this. Furthermore, the film looks pretty good and is shot pretty competantly for a newcomer to filmmaking who has given himself the burden of writer (fail), director (fail) and actor (fail). But just as the film knows its roots in poor quality – the only reason I’m not going to pass judgement on its extensive T&A and porno-movie scenes – Bishop seems more than aware that he is just a puppet for a film Quentin would like to see but can’t be arsed to make. At the end of the day this has the excuse “Quentin made me do it” – which is something the man himself can’t get off on.
So, we may be able to justify the reasons the film is bad but is it worth watching? Well put it this way, I think if you’ve looked into the film this much you’re probably going to get something out of watching it and might be pleasantly surprised, but once its over you will never want to see it again. Given that it’s £2.99 on HMV you can’t really complain. Here’s my advice. Watch it as a supporting feature to From Dusk Till Dawn or one of the Grindhouse (2007) movies and you can have a good evening of morally-messed entertainment. Because, let’s face it, real exploitation films aren’t for everyone and you’ve seen QT’s back catalogue, probably way too many times.
The film has a thin plot that merits little explanation – and the director evidently feels the same. Pistolero (Bishop), The Gent (Madsen) and Commanche (Eric Balfour) – a role originally intended for Quentin who ran off for his part in Takashi Miike’s Sukiyaki Western Django. Ouch, It was your idea Quentin! – are members of The Victors, one of your Hells Angels biker gangs so prevalent in biker exploitation films. After this about all you need to know is revenge and gratuity of all orders and appearances by Dennis Hopper (Easy Rider co-star Peter Fonda turned down the film), David Carradine (although reluctantly) and … Vinnie Jones. Right.
Now, I have a limited knowledge of the genre this “homages” having seen Easy Rider (1969), which surpasses the limitations of the low-budget shock sub-genre to be a counter-cultural cornerstone – and for the record a masterpiece in my eyes. I’ve also seen the Roger Corman (so we’re talking proper B-movie exploitation here) film Wild Angels (1966), also starring Peter Fonda. The film does build on these premises, in some visual references, the general style of exploitation cinema in an updated format (which mostly amounts to tits and guns) and in the music which it borrows from and builds on fairly well. However, it soon becomes apparent that Bishop is trying to make Kill Bill Vol. 2 on wheels. The picture is dragged through the desert dirt of Quentin’s back catalogue, and most of all the movie reeks of macaroni, Quentin’s take on the Spaghetti Western is clearly as much an influence as the biker movie genre. Bishop openly admits the scenes that “homage” QT – how many times does that term get used in relation to Tarantino only to disappoint? – perhaps failing to see their cringe-worthy nature. When he isn’t directly ripping on the directors trademarks, the dialogue – consistently dire throughout – jumps and falls at the witty banter of films like Reservoir Dogs (1992) and Pulp Fiction (1994) and the time-line spooning narrative just makes a mess of a simple, stock story.
Though I find it hard now, and immediately after viewing, the experience of watching Hell Ride itself was not a bad one for me. The film managed to keep me entertained by either surpassing my low expectations – bear in mind I had seen the trailer, and the reviews.. and the title – or being so terrible it’s amusing. The film is indeed a strange mixture of knowingly dodgy i.e. trying to be the epitome of 60s biker movies, and trying to be Kill Bill Vol. 2 – and just bad. However, despite the attempts to directorially body-snatch Mr. Tarantino, which pester the entire movie, this isn’t such a crime given that everyone has done it in the last few years and after all at least Bishop is justified to do this. Furthermore, the film looks pretty good and is shot pretty competantly for a newcomer to filmmaking who has given himself the burden of writer (fail), director (fail) and actor (fail). But just as the film knows its roots in poor quality – the only reason I’m not going to pass judgement on its extensive T&A and porno-movie scenes – Bishop seems more than aware that he is just a puppet for a film Quentin would like to see but can’t be arsed to make. At the end of the day this has the excuse “Quentin made me do it” – which is something the man himself can’t get off on.
So, we may be able to justify the reasons the film is bad but is it worth watching? Well put it this way, I think if you’ve looked into the film this much you’re probably going to get something out of watching it and might be pleasantly surprised, but once its over you will never want to see it again. Given that it’s £2.99 on HMV you can’t really complain. Here’s my advice. Watch it as a supporting feature to From Dusk Till Dawn or one of the Grindhouse (2007) movies and you can have a good evening of morally-messed entertainment. Because, let’s face it, real exploitation films aren’t for everyone and you’ve seen QT’s back catalogue, probably way too many times.
No comments:
Post a Comment