The W
Views: 99934660
Main | FAQ | Search: Y! / G | Calendar | Color chart | Log in for more!
22.10.14 2214
The W - Movies & TV - Grindhouse
This thread has 40 referrals leading to it
Register and log in to post!
Thread rated: 4.95
Pages: 1 2 Next
(3618 newer) Next thread | Previous thread
User
Post (24 total)
Big Bad
Scrapple








Since: 4.1.02
From: Dorchester, Ontario

Since last post: 3 days
Last activity: 18 hours
#1 Posted on | Instant Rating: 4.10
Yeah, it's AWESOME. What a total rush of just ridiculous good fun. On the whole, I think I favour Death Proof just because that was maybe the best car chase I've ever seen in a movie, but Rodriguez's film was also terrific. Big thumbs up!

Oh, and I would totally go to see Hobo With A Shotgun.



I don't know what is more disquieting -- the fact that the rest of the statue is missing, or that it has four toes.
Promote this thread!
The Vile1
Lap cheong








Since: 4.9.02
From: California

Since last post: 2012 days
Last activity: 1744 days
#2 Posted on | Instant Rating: 1.92
Not surprised that this movie bombed this weekend. I am surprised with how dull and disappointing Death Proof turned out to be. Sorry, but Death Proof didn't look or feel like what this endeavor was supposed to be at all. It didn't live up to the whole presentation that the movie started with, not to mention the crappy and scratched up print quality. Suddenly we go into Death Proof and it becomes clear and pristine.

Basically, I think Planet Terror succeeded and Death Proof failed. Planet Terror was non-stop fun, violence, blood n gore, and sleaziness. The trailers were great too. I kept thinking during Death Proof how I'd rather be watching a movie like Machete more.

Good performances by Biehn and Fahey though, I'd like to see them get more work like this.
John Orquiola
Scrapple








Since: 28.2.02
From: Boston

Since last post: 116 days
Last activity: 116 days
#3 Posted on | Instant Rating: 6.05
See, I disagree. Grindhouse movies aren't supposed to be good. They're supposed to be really shitty looking, bad movies that are so bad they turn out to be pretty good if you like bad movies. Death Proof looked more authentic to me, a lot more like a crappy 70's movie made on no budget. Planet Terror was too slick and full of digital effects. It looked like any modern video game movie like Doom or Resident Evil, with the scratchy film and missing reels as a gimmick. I liked Death Proof more than Planet Terror because to me Proof was a Grindhouse movie while Terror was pretending to be.

But I think we can agree that DON'T! and Machete kicked ass. I'd love to see those movies.

"He just fucked with the wrong Mexican!"

I'm also not surprised Grindhouse bombed at the box office.

Much more in depth review with my further compliments and complaints here:

http://www.backofthehead.com/entertainment/2007-04-07.grindhousereview.html

(edited by John Orquiola on 9.4.07 0717)


Back of the Head: www.backofthehead.com
kentish
Andouille








Since: 19.8.05
From: My Old Kentucky Home

Since last post: 36 days
Last activity: 1 day
#4 Posted on | Instant Rating: 2.55
Planet Terror was better I think, just all out gore that actually had me cringing a few times. That was fun as hell. "That boy's got the devil in him"

Death Proof was cool once they got past all the chicks yapping, and got to the cool stuff with the cars. Anytime Kurt wasn't on screen it tended to get a little boring. I love QT, and he has great dialogue, but it wasn't needed here. Great ending though.

Speaking of cringing, the chick doing the splits on the trampoline was the nastiest thing I have seen in a movie in a LONG time. The wife nearly lost it on that one! The trailers were all great. They may have pushed it over the 3 hour mark, but were well worth it.

Someone needs to make the full version of Machete!! They f*cked with the wrong Mexican, indeed!




Dean! Have you been shooting dope into your scrotum? You can tell me! I'm hip!
oldschoolhero
Knackwurst








Since: 2.1.02
From: nWo Country

Since last post: 1986 days
Last activity: 1920 days
#5 Posted on | Instant Rating: 9.00
PLANET TERROR being better than DEATH PROOF is debatable, but the latter was most definitely the more authentic Grindhouse homage.

Also, the THANKSGIVING trailer was the best thing Eli Roth's ever done.



To those who say people wouldn't look; they wouldn't be interested; they're too complacent, indifferent and insulated, I can only reply: There is, in one reporter's opinion, considerable evidence against that contention. But even if they are right, what have they got to lose? Because if they are right, and this instrument is good for nothing but to entertain, amuse and insulate, then the tube is flickering now and we will soon see that the whole struggle is lost. This instrument can teach, it can illuminate; yes, and it can even inspire. But it can do so only to the extent that humans are determined to use it to those ends. Otherwise it is merely wires, and lights, in a box.-Edward R. Murrow
Cerebus
Scrapple








Since: 17.11.02

Since last post: 8 days
Last activity: 8 hours
#6 Posted on | Instant Rating: 1.48
This was quite awesome. DEATH PROOF is like the early era grindhouse and PLANET TERROR is the later era when they had more violence and gore. I honestly can't say either film was better then the other because they were both different enough that you can't really compare them to each other.

my only two complaints are that the 'missing reels' is where the sex scenes should have been, however, this goes along with what Tarantino's trying to do here. Many of the grindhouse classics are missing the reels where the gratuitous nudity was because theater owners sold off those for quick cash to collectors and claimed they were stolen. Supposedly, these scenes were filmed but left out on purpose, so we'll probably get them on the DVD. My other complaint is that DEATH PROOF had too much of a Tarantino script. The conversation about Pete Townsend almost leaving THE WHO to join that other group really felt out of place in this type of film.

The only reason I can think of for it only pulling in $11.5 million is that it opened during a religious holiday weekend and church goers wouldn't go see something like this during 'God time'.

ges7184
Lap cheong








Since: 7.1.02
From: Birmingham, AL

Since last post: 44 days
Last activity: 1 day
#7 Posted on | Instant Rating: 5.39
According to this report, they are considering splitting the two movies and releasing them independently.

http://www.deadlinehollywooddaily.com/what-went-so-wrong-with-grindhouse/



The Bored are already here. Idle hands are the devil's workshop. And no... we won't kill dolphins. But koalas are fair game.
Llakor
Landjager








Since: 2.1.02
From: Montreal, Quebec, CANADA

Since last post: 561 days
Last activity: 552 days
AIM:  
#8 Posted on | Instant Rating: 7.14
    Originally posted by John Orquiola
    But I think we can agree that DON'T! and Machete kicked ass. I'd love to see those movies.

    "He just fucked with the wrong Mexican!"


Rodriguez said that he WILL make Machete possibly as a direct to DVD release.

    Originally posted by Big Bad
    Oh, and I would totally go to see Hobo With A Shotgun.


This was made in Haifax and Dartmouth. MARITIMES REPRESENT! It was not shown in the States, I have heard. The film makers were on CBC and said that they want to make the movie and that there is some interest but they were being coy at who was interested.

They also nearly got arrested by a rookie cop who thought that they were assaulting the hobo. (Because of the blood.) This terrified them because they had no permits and were using a real shotgun (unloaded). Fortunately, when the paddy wagon showed up, the female cop inside took one look at the camera, the hobo and the jar of fake blood, said, "Great detective work, genius!" and drove off.



"Don't Blame CANADA, Blame Yourselves!"
XPacArmy
Frankfurter








Since: 13.5.03
From: Woodbridge, VA

Since last post: 351 days
Last activity: 348 days
#9 Posted on | Instant Rating: 3.29


According to IMDb apparently thats what they might be doing overseas:

Release dates for Grindhouse (2007)

USA 6 April 2007
Australia 31 May 2007
Finland 1 June 2007 ('Death Proof')
Norway 1 June 2007 ('Death Proof')
Sweden 1 June 2007 ('Death Proof')
UK 1 June 2007
Belgium 6 June 2007 ('Death Proof')
France 6 June 2007 ('Death Proof')
Netherlands 7 June 2007 ('Death Proof')
Germany 14 June 2007 ('Death Proof')
Netherlands 19 July 2007 ('Planet Terror')
Germany 26 July 2007 ('Planet Terror')
Belgium 1 August 2007 ('Planet Terror')
Norway 14 September 2007 ('Planet Terror')
Finland 21 September 2007 ('Planet Terror')
Sweden 28 September 2007 ('Planet Terror')

(edited by XPacArmy on 9.4.07 1857)


kentish
Andouille








Since: 19.8.05
From: My Old Kentucky Home

Since last post: 36 days
Last activity: 1 day
#10 Posted on | Instant Rating: 2.58
What is the big deal with the box office results? Most QT flicks, while usually at least profitable, rarely make a lot of money. Same with RR, except for maybe Sin City and the Spy Kid flicks. These guys have loyal followings, but not particularly large ones.

The market for Grindhouse was pretty small, I would hardly expect it to do big business at the box office. If you are paying homage to B-movies that few people have ever seen, why would anyone expect Grindhouse to be a blockbuster?




Dean! Have you been shooting dope into your scrotum? You can tell me! I'm hip!
Big Bad
Scrapple








Since: 4.1.02
From: Dorchester, Ontario

Since last post: 3 days
Last activity: 18 hours
#11 Posted on | Instant Rating: 4.10
    Originally posted by kentish
    Death Proof was cool once they got past all the chicks yapping, and got to the cool stuff with the cars. Anytime Kurt wasn't on screen it tended to get a little boring. I love QT, and he has great dialogue, but it wasn't needed here. Great ending though.


I don't agree, and I'll use spoiler tags to explain why since it's plot-heavy.


Spoiler Below: Highlight text to read
The first segment with Jungle Julia and her friends was good because we were establishing their characters, and because we had no idea where the plot would take us and (ostensibly) these were the main characters of the film. We learn so much about these women that their sudden deaths at the hands of Stuntman Mike is a real shock. Cut to the second group of women (Rosario Dawson and company) and suddenly, we know what we're being set up for -- obviously, Stuntman Mike will target these women next. We know it'll be more interesting, though, because Kim is a stunt driver and Zoe is a stuntwoman. The next scene, the dialogue in the coffee shop, DOES go long, though it tells us some important information about why they're going after the car, Zoe's ability to survive wild accidents, etc. I would've held off the shot of Mike at the diner counter for a while longer, so his reveal is more of a shock later into it. Since we see him almost immediately as the camera circles the table, we start asking when Scratchy and Itchy are going to get to the proverbial fireworks factory. I think QT was going for a somewhat Hitchcockian vibe of delaying what the audience knows is going to happen, and he just waited a bit too long. The payoff is so good, however, that it's totally worth it.


BTW, it was weird hearing Naveen Andrews speak in his real voice. I'm so used to Sayid.



I don't know what is more disquieting -- the fact that the rest of the statue is missing, or that it has four toes.
kentish
Andouille








Since: 19.8.05
From: My Old Kentucky Home

Since last post: 36 days
Last activity: 1 day
#12 Posted on | Instant Rating: 2.58
I agree, the payoff was worth it, but they may have waited too long to get there. Yes, some important plot points are revealed in the long scenes of dialogue, but the scenes did not have to be as long as they were. Make no mistake, I am a huge fan of QT's writing, so it pains me to say that.




Dean! Have you been shooting dope into your scrotum? You can tell me! I'm hip!
oldschoolhero
Knackwurst








Since: 2.1.02
From: nWo Country

Since last post: 1986 days
Last activity: 1920 days
#13 Posted on | Instant Rating: 9.00
300, an ultra-masculine bloodlust epic, made silly money less than a month ago. GRINDHOUSE is in much the same vein - a boys' own movie, advertised as full of blood, tits and profanity. Putting aside the directors' track records, I don't think it was unreasonable to have expected a better box-office result for this.



To those who say people wouldn't look; they wouldn't be interested; they're too complacent, indifferent and insulated, I can only reply: There is, in one reporter's opinion, considerable evidence against that contention. But even if they are right, what have they got to lose? Because if they are right, and this instrument is good for nothing but to entertain, amuse and insulate, then the tube is flickering now and we will soon see that the whole struggle is lost. This instrument can teach, it can illuminate; yes, and it can even inspire. But it can do so only to the extent that humans are determined to use it to those ends. Otherwise it is merely wires, and lights, in a box.-Edward R. Murrow
Mr Heel II
Lap cheong








Since: 25.2.02

Since last post: 6 days
Last activity: 5 hours
#14 Posted on | Instant Rating: 6.14
While the box office was less than hoped for, it's assumed it'll still make money thanks to a relatively low budget.

I don't think a lot of people knew what to expect, thus the soft box office. I think business will pick up on word of mouth.

I loved EVERYTHING. Death Proof was was my favorite of the two. Planet Terror was a lot of fun...as much a satire to the zombie genre as it was a tribute.

The fake trailers were awesome. The audience reaction to "Thanksgiving" at the show I attended was great. And just the idea of a movie called "Werewolf Women of the SS"...

An excellent way to waste three hours. FAR better than I was expecting. It's even better with a good audience.
CRZ
Big Brother
Administrator








Since: 9.12.01
From: ミネアポリス

Since last post: 5 hours
Last activity: 5 hours
AIM:  
ICQ:  
Y!:
#15 Posted on | Instant Rating: 9.00
    Originally posted by Mr Heel II
    While the box office was less than hoped for, it's assumed it'll still make money thanks to a relatively low budget.
Whoa. Where did you hear THAT? I heard budget numbers like fifty and SIXTY million. Or is that "low" in 2007?

Por ejemplo, this Hollywood Reporter article (hollywoodreporter.com) says "reported $53M." I read somewhere else (link escapes me) that that was spun downwards by the Weinsteins, who are already embarrassed at the bath everyone thinks they're taking, and it's closer to up over $60M.

It seems that in this day and age, it's very EXPENSIVE to make a film that LOOKS "low-budget." ;-)



I AM CRZ
Big Bad
Scrapple








Since: 4.1.02
From: Dorchester, Ontario

Since last post: 3 days
Last activity: 18 hours
#16 Posted on | Instant Rating: 4.10
Possible reasons for the lower-than-expected box office....

* Tarantino and Rodriguez, for all of their hype, are still not huge box office draws. Most directors aren't, save Steven Spielberg. Rodriguez, in fact, is so relatively unknown still that the majority of people I talked to thought Grindhouse was a Tarantino-only film. Their films become profitable in the long run due to DVD sales.

* The movie's long running time limits it to only a few screenings per day.

* Grindhouse isn't everyone's cup to tea, to put it mildly. 300 was also a blood-and-guts action picture, but it was straight-forward and easily marketed: "it's the story of the 300 Spartans defending their land against the Persian army." Grindhouse is "well, it's actually two movies, and you have to stay for the whole thing, and it's like recreating the grindhouse experience of a double-feature (you might not remember those, you're too young), and..."



I don't know what is more disquieting -- the fact that the rest of the statue is missing, or that it has four toes.
Llakor
Landjager








Since: 2.1.02
From: Montreal, Quebec, CANADA

Since last post: 561 days
Last activity: 552 days
AIM:  
#17 Posted on | Instant Rating: 7.14
    Originally posted by CRZ
      Originally posted by Mr Heel II
      While the box office was less than hoped for, it's assumed it'll still make money thanks to a relatively low budget.
    Whoa. Where did you hear THAT? I heard budget numbers like fifty and SIXTY million. Or is that "low" in 2007?

    Por ejemplo, this Hollywood Reporter article (hollywoodreporter.com) says "reported $53M." I read somewhere else (link escapes me) that that was spun downwards by the Weinsteins, who are already embarrassed at the bath everyone thinks they're taking, and it's closer to up over $60M.

    It seems that in this day and age, it's very EXPENSIVE to make a film that LOOKS "low-budget." ;-)


I have heard reports that it was up to 67 million and that it cost 30 million to market it.

On the other hand, I have heard that the Weinsteins have had strong overseas sales for the movie and they might make their money back just from that.



"Don't Blame CANADA, Blame Yourselves!"
kentish
Andouille








Since: 19.8.05
From: My Old Kentucky Home

Since last post: 36 days
Last activity: 1 day
#18 Posted on | Instant Rating: 2.58
Neither of these guys do big box office, especially QT. Nothing they have ever done should indicate they were going to make a blockbuster. Grindhouse is a genre picture, or at least is paying homage to a genre. If the Weinsteins thought it would do 100 million, then they are idiots. But I doubt that is the case.

I guarantee you QT and RR don't care, they did a movie that was dear to their hearts, and could care less if it is a monster hit. It will make plenty of money once it goes to DVD, much like the other movies these guys have made.

The true audience for this movie, the ones that actually "get it" is small. You are either over the age of 50 and remember the period, or like me (age 33) and just became a fan of these types of movies on video. Few, if any, of my friends or people I know "get it". They just think it is a zombie movie, featuring a chick with a gun for a leg, and there is a cool car in there somewhere. Anyone who thought it would make a lot of money was only fooling themselves.

300 was a war epic with decapitations for the guys, and rippling abs for the gals. Sounds like a no brainer at the box office.




Dean! Have you been shooting dope into your scrotum? You can tell me! I'm hip!
oldschoolhero
Knackwurst








Since: 2.1.02
From: nWo Country

Since last post: 1986 days
Last activity: 1920 days
#19 Posted on | Instant Rating: 9.00
The directors' names being draws have nothing to do with it. There are pretty much no directors that are proven draws. Films aren't expected to do well commercially on the basis of who made them. This is being billed as the ultimate genre pic, two gorefests for the price of one. I don't think that's too hard a sell. And for what it's worth, awareness on this side of the Atlantic is through the roof.

I think the low B.O. has to do with a)Big Bad's point about it squeezing in only three or so screenings a day due to length, and b)it being released on a primarily family-oriented holiday. If people are going to the cinema this weekend, it's for films that the whole brood can watch. It was an attention-grabbing Weinstein release plan that fell on its ass.

And Z, as sad as it is, %3-67million is a pretty small budget for a tentpole release. When movies like GHOST RIDER are clocking 150million in expenses, you know the industry's fucked.



To those who say people wouldn't look; they wouldn't be interested; they're too complacent, indifferent and insulated, I can only reply: There is, in one reporter's opinion, considerable evidence against that contention. But even if they are right, what have they got to lose? Because if they are right, and this instrument is good for nothing but to entertain, amuse and insulate, then the tube is flickering now and we will soon see that the whole struggle is lost. This instrument can teach, it can illuminate; yes, and it can even inspire. But it can do so only to the extent that humans are determined to use it to those ends. Otherwise it is merely wires, and lights, in a box.-Edward R. Murrow
Llakor
Landjager








Since: 2.1.02
From: Montreal, Quebec, CANADA

Since last post: 561 days
Last activity: 552 days
AIM:  
#20 Posted on | Instant Rating: 7.14
    Originally posted by oldschoolhero
    The directors' names being draws have nothing to do with it. There are pretty much no directors that are proven draws.


Steven Spielberg

    Originally posted by oldschoolhero
    And Z, as sad as it is, %3-67million is a pretty small budget for a tentpole release. When movies like GHOST RIDER are clocking 150million in expenses, you know the industry's fucked.


300 was made for 70 Million which it made back in its first week.

67 Million is also not too bad when you consider that for that amount they made TWO films.

You also have to look at a lot of movies at Sundance and their ilk which were/are made for very little money. I don't have the figures on me but Thank You For Smoking and Little Miss Sunshine both made profits for their original producers for the amount that they were sold for at Sundance which in both cases was under 15 million. Keep in mind also that for a film like Superman Returns all of the aborted mis-fires and making the movie including say the Giant Spider version or the Nicholas Cage version are all thrown into the final cost. I suspect that the long production time had something to do with the costs for Ghost Rider.



"Don't Blame CANADA, Blame Yourselves!"
Pages: 1 2 Next
Thread rated: 4.95
Pages: 1 2 Next
Thread ahead: The AQUA TEEN movie is quite enjoyable.
Next thread: Planet Earth (BBC)
Previous thread: Lost (D.O.C.) 04-25-07
(3618 newer) Next thread | Previous thread
OK, though I saw this thread and this one, I haven't seen an actual Oscar winner prediction thread... so here ya go. (My screwed-up picks in bold)
- Reverend J Shaft, Oscar winner predictions (2007)
The W - Movies & TV - GrindhouseRegister and log in to post!

The W™ message board

ZimBoard
©2001-2014 Brothers Zim

This old hunk of junk rendered your page in 0.222 seconds.