Grindhouse

[adam]

The time of my life. Bliss.

[kid cue]

i'm really excited to see it!!!!!!

[viddy]

drooling....

[grady]

heard good and bad points about it, eagerly awaiting the viewing hopefully tomorrow after my grandmother's 85th b-day.

i'm wondering what kind of madness b.miller was entwined with on his viewing in RR/QT land in Austin.....spill the can of beans already brian.

[b.miller]

I just got home from it about 15 minutes ago... We had several different events going on (i opted out of the star-studded premiere a week and a half ago) but I chose the all-night grindhouse marathon leading up to the 8AM showing of the movie.

Good and bad points on the event. good: I got to see 4 amazing movies before Grindhouse. bad: the 4 movies I got to see before Grindhouse were better than Grindhouse.

I liked parts of it, but don't want to shit on anyone's good time. my movie journal (http://mymovie.medialife.org) will have more detailed notes for the curious... the jist is I liked Death Proof more than Planet Terror. Don't and Thanksgiving might be my favorite parts though.

[adam]

Don't worry about shitting on my good time. Just because your opinion makes me want to tear your throat out like a bear protecting her young doesn't mean you shouldn't post it.

I'm just kidding, of course.

Please, by all means. One of the best things about movie watching is discussing that movie with friends. :)

I'll start:

spoilers ahoy!

I do think the veins of the two films were quite different, and I'm not sure if this worked for them or if the justaposition strengthened them. I expected Death Proof to be as campy as Planet Terror and it really was more straight up.

I'm surprised, honestly, that you didn't like Planet Terror so much, because I thought it was hilarious, but then, I was entertained by things that other people might find pretty mundane. Such as as the shot of the sheriff when he arrives in town amid the burning chaos and it's a close-up where he's shouting, "What the hell is going on here?!" It just struck me as such subtle (subtle as in the joke is in the melodrama/bad script/hokey directing/editing rather than ha ha punchlines) deliberately silly shit that I thought it was great.

Plus I was fairly captivated by El Ray. He was such an interesting character because he didn't quite seem to have that typical presence that you would expect the person cast in that role to have; I mean, up until the end he still struck me as this little kid/punk, except that he was totally awesome.

They were definitely some messy bits about it: the ball-collecting, the bruce willis backstory, that I would have cleaned up, but I took them in the spirit of "we're making a film that's a wink towards bad films".

Death Proof, however, was amazing. I was played that whole movie. I just thought the pacing was brilliantly done. The slow build from the first half of the story to the masthead scene was perfect, and then I was on the edge of my seat from there. Like, the transition from chased to chaser, and all that, I just loved every second of it.

I also loved Russell's smile towards the camera before he gets in the car.

But yeah, the fake stuff: Machete, Don't, "written and directed by rob zombie" was classic.

I guess what I'm getting at is I thought Planet Terror was flawed but that though flaws were at least plausible as part of the concept, and that Cherry and El Ray were interesting enough on their own that even if those flaws were not intentional, they were definitely in the "minor" category. And I loved Death Proof. Seemed to be just fucking brilliantly paced.

spoilers end here because the post ends. obvious, innit?

[b.miller]

heavy spoiling ahead! don't read if you haven't seen!

OK, here's where I'm coming from. So they're calling the movie Grindhouse and they're saying that it's an homage or callback to 70s exploitation cinema and Z-grade stuff that would normally play at drive-ins or urban 24-hour theaters, yet the movie cost over 100 million dollars to make. I didn't so much spend the entire movie thinking about the budget but it did manifest itself in a steady series of little details.

-These movies couldn't afford 40 explosions

-These movies didn't have the schedule for an 8-minute dolly/steadicam shot of women talking about nothing

-(most of)These movies had an endearing lack of irony or self-awareness (which made them memorable in the first place)

So if you're gonna purposely write your script like it's a cheapie and it's gonna be trashy and quick and specifically designed to evoke a feeling of nostalgic experience, it kind of jumps the rails when the movies get really huge and expensive and well-made.

To my mind, it was a misstep calling it Grindhouse and playing up that whole angle. I don't think it helped them in the marketing and I don't think many (young) people nowadays knows what the hell it is and I think I wouldn't have had nearly as much of an issue with this level of the film if it was just a straight double feature. Like it's somehow impossible to say "we're doing two movies together! it's like an old-school double feature!" without any of the history or specificity that they went for. But since they did do that, I think there might be a misconception out there (since I had one) that these movies are kind of experiments in filmmaking from a bygone era when in actuality they're simply the next film from Rodriquez and Tarantino that happened to get released together (and yes, I know QT said this exact thing in an earlier interview, but I also have MUCH fewer problems with his movie than Robert's, which I'll get to... eventually).

But whatever, that's like a more theoretical level of thinking about the movies rather than when I'm actually watching them. All that stuff didn't really start to bother me until it ended and I was thinking back. This stuff, still superficial, bugged me while i watched.

-So you're going to use digital effects to age your film. I was pleasantly surprised that they looked better than I thought they would (you know that one Final Cut Pro filter where there's like the one scratch line and the one hair and it just loops?), but Robert.... he... it's like.... i mean he just doesn't get it. I don't know if this translates but it's like if you're a computer person and you watch an episode of 24 and hear Chloe say things like "you forgot to uncouple the transition matrix on the second IP address!" Taken individually, the words are real but put together they make no sense. It's the same thing with Robert's film aging. The filters change in Planet Terror from shot to shot. That makes no sense. That's like Robert shot the movie, developed the film, made prints of every take, ran them in projectors for 30 years, then edited them together. Scratch lines, levels of color fade, dust and dirt, water damage... all that stuff doesn't happen for a few seconds then immediately change. That's stuff that happens to the actual print as it ages. So... practially all of Planet Terror was immediately tarnished for me because I started noticing these effects used for corny-ass purposes, like the film stutters when there's a shock type scare, or the color all of a sudden gets red when a bad guy comes on the screen (and by the way, color fade doesn't immediately creep in from the side then bleed across the frame like computer tentacles, and it definitely doesn't slowly restore over the next 30 seconds back to pristine). Splices I can deal with, jump cuts, audio blips, all that crap is 100% fine. But the meltdown gag? UGH. It's because the scene is so HOT, right? McGowan is so HOT that the film BURNS UP!!!! It all just felt SO manipulative to me that I couldn't stop noticing it.

now, I should note that Quentin's movie does the print aging thing right on. it gets dirty at the heads and tails of each reel, there are some rough change-overs, a splice here or there, and (unless this was just my theater) an annoying audio buzz over a portion of the film that rings 100% true to my vintage-print-watching eyes and ears. Also, QT's use of the alternate title roughly cut into the print is genius. Plus Quentin's missing reel is actually a missing reel (insider knowledge: i know this because I read the script and i'm glad it was missing!).

The trailers are excused because trailer stock is so cheap and the trailers are short anyway

Now, the actual stories and direction and acting and all that stuff:

-Death Proof. I really loved whenever they were in a car or whenever Stuntman Mike was on the screen. And even the girls talking, which i was dreading, wasn't all as bad as I thought it would be. I definitely think the second group of women were much better actresses, or maybe their characters were just a little more tolerably written. The first group annoyed/bored the fuck out of me. I'm not a woman so I don't 100% KNOW this but it all sounded really artificial and quentin-y and the women I did talk to afterward all let me know that no one they know talks like that, which is good for them. But especially the Jungle Julia "attitude" character... BLAH. and couldn't you have picked a shorter poem to recite? And, being an Austinite, I found all the local place-dropping really arbitrary and foreign... like an Italian trying to be American or something. She was at Antones! Let's go to Gueros! We're at Texas Chili Parlor! (but, the establishing shot of Austin was great because it's the Alamo Drafthouse and that place is cool). I'm really glad 20 minutes of that first scene was cut out (missing reel). I wish they'd cut more.

The main problem I have with the story is how all the dialogue never goes anywhere. Sure it's strategically set up to get you to like these women so you'll feel for them when they're inevitably put into danger, but it's just so long and fruitless. it really stretched my limits of paying attention because goddamn it, kurt russell should be all over this movie! he's so cool in it and I LOVE his turn in character as he nears the end... all the car stuff I loved. I also really loved QT's soundtrack choices. i think it was shot really well, i appreciated the aging like I mentioned above, and honestly, after reading the script, this came out much better than I thought it would. I thought overall (except for the mega-long shot with the dialogue) it felt like an authentic "grindhouse" type of movie.

-Planet Terror on the other hand felt like a parody of grindhouse movies to me. I think a lot of that comes from Rodriguez being Rodriguez... it's all so over the top and blatant and in your face that it does end up being funny but in my mind it's the bad kind of funny where i'm laughing *at* the movie rather than laughing *with* it. The gun leg thing... I think is ridiculous. I laugh at that because I hate it. I actually really like all the actors in Planet Terror and I think there are maybe a handfull of good moments between people (Josh Brolin dealing with Nicky Katt definitely being one of them), but the execution of the idea grated on me and I didn't like how it developed and I HATED how it ended. it was stupid to me. very campy, very winky, like "hey, it's ok to show the camera crew in the mirror because this is grindhouse and it's ok to be shitty." I liked the characters in the movie, i just didn't like (at all) what they did or what happened to them. Especially every word Rose McGowan had to say. ugh. And if he's gonna use the "missing reel" gimmick to skip all the boring stuff in the story, why have the goddamn boring stuff like Bruce WIllis explaining where the gas came from!!! I guess by boring stuff he means stuff that's too hard for him to write like how characters come together or plot develops.

I mean, "reach up??" that shit doesn't belong in a movie like this! The whole reason to do a movie like this is so you don't have to put shit like that in it!

so yeah... didn't like Planet Terror much at all, due to a real problem with Rodriguez's "style" and the tone of the piece. The parts that are clearly supposed to be badass kinda are, they just seem like they're all stuck together to me, like it's less a movie than a picture of all the magazine clippings and posters on Robert's wall when he was a kid. Maybe I didn't enjoy it because I believe Robert wasn't trying to be funny in the level you found humor in, Adam... but I can definitely see what you're saying... I had a VERY similar experience to that watching Shooter (a really great time if you're a fan of Commando).

but lastly... and maybe this is my biggest disappointment... what the FUCK are they doing making two grindhouse hard R movies and not having ANY nudity!!?!?!?!?! seriously.

so that's my viewpoint... being someone who watches the "real deal" movies like this every week. I kind of expect people to like it more than I did though, having the whole look and feel be a relatively new thing for them and having the trailers and stuff be something fresh to see in today's movies. I'm really glad people like it and honestly hope more people see it. It's such an open-ended premise that any sort of sequel or direct-to-DVD franchise that might spring up if the movie makes money could lead to some really great stuff.

and by the way, if anyone wants a list of vintage films that inform and influence this movie, let me know The great thing about DVD is that, slowly but surely, a large amount of these movies are now readily available (if you have netflix or a really good video store)

[GreenPea]

and by the way, if anyone wants a list of vintage films that inform and influence this movie, let me know The great thing about DVD is that, slowly but surely, a large amount of these movies are now readily available (if you have netflix or a really good video store)

Please :):cool:

[adam]

MORE SPOILERS

Wow. I can't say I really identify with your criticisms at all. Like, okay, if you wanted to be picky about the digital aging not being realistic, sure, I can see how if you were familiar with such things, it would bug you. But not liking the gun leg? Ummm, okay. But then, I mean, you knew that going into the movie from the preview, right? And the poem was too long? That seems like a really odd thing to find fault with.

(My questions are rhetorical.)

[b.miller]

yeah... the poem (and by extension all of his dialogue) just felt way too over-indulgent to me... and the gun leg has always been a turn-off for me. I guess they're both indicative of their movies though. if you like those things then you like the movie, if not then chances are you might have other issues.

[b.miller]

ok, here are some movies that, if you liked Grindhouse, you may want to check out for similar good times. Some of these may take some tracking down, but others are surprisingly accessible.

PLANET TERROR
I don't think Planet Terror is really a grindhouse-inspired movie that much; i don't think Rodriguez "took" too much from anything other than the genre and kind of film it is. He does use Carpenter-esque music in parts and all the tough-guy stuff is reminiscent from many other films... but these movies do sort of connect:

-Zombie (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0080057/): Lucio Fulci's most well-known probably... famous for a scene in which a zombie fights a shark. Some great gore, very Italian make-up, and it's zombies... other pinnacles of surrealistic Fulci gore are The Beyond (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0082307/) and City of the Living Dead (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0081318/).

-Assault on Precinct 13 (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0074156/): Rodriguez takes a lot of tonal stuff from Carpenter. This doesn't have any zombies but it does have tough guys with guns. Freddy Rodriguez's Wray character seems to me like a mix between the main guy in this and Snake Plissken from Escape from New York (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0082340/). Other Carpenter required viewing (as far as I'm concerned) is The Thing (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0084787/) and Big Trouble in Little China (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0090728/) (even though they don't have quite as much to do with this movie). Note: don't settle for the remakes of any of these movies. All of them are missing the "Carpenter feel" that Rodriguez goes after with Planet Terror.

-Audios, Sabata (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0066745/): ok, so this is a Spaghetti Western, not a horror movie. But the director, Gianfranco Parolini, reminds me A LOT of Rodriguez in that he'll have traditional action elements but also a strong element of absurd humor, like he takes it SO over the top that it's not even so much cool as it is funny. I think Parolini had a gymnast or circus background or something because there's always a strong trapese or acrobat element to his films. Five for Hell (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0062807/) is a great example as a WWII men on a mission movie where one guy's specialty is explosives, one guy's good with knives, then one guy brings along a trampoline. Audios, Sabata's great because it has Yul Brenner and one of the bad guys drops a ball bearing into a little cup on his shoe then does a kick so fast that he shoots the ball and kills people by hitting them between the eyes. That sounds right up Rodriguez's alley if you ask me.

DEATH PROOF

Quentin's always much more influences and also much more overt about recognising his influences, starting off is a list of films he explicitly mentions in the movie:

-Vanishing Point (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0067927/): This is a car chase movie with a really strong hippie existential bent to it, about a driver named Kowalski who refuses to slow down on a trip between Denver and... maybe San Francisco? somewhere on the coast. The whole movie's basically one big car chase and the white 1970 Dodge Challenger is showcased in Death Proof.

-Dirty Mary Crazy Larry (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0071424/): a balls-out car chase film starring Peter Fonda and Susan George. This one's great and I like it a lot more than Vanishing Point because there's no hippie crap, just action. Some really great car stuff in here.

-Gone in 60 Seconds (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0071571/): "the real one" according to Zoe Bell in Death Proof. Don't bother with the remake. This is crazy stuff. it's literally all car chase. the plot and other equally worthless stuff are handled as fast and cheap as possible, lots of times with just voice-over as they show awesome cars on the street, to make sure every red cent went to the car chases. Amazing stuff.

-Convoy (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0077369/): I haven't seen this yet but IMDb said Stuntman Mike's ducky hood ornament comes from this so there you go.

In addition to the car chase elements, a lot of Death Proof is taken from North American Slasher films and, by extension, Italian Giallo films. There's no real diect reference (at least not that I noticed on first viewing) except that a guy's killing women, so I'll just list a few notables that I happen to like. Besides, both the slasher and giallo are SUCH strict genres that they're all very similar anyway.

GIALLI

-Bay of Blood (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0067656/): Mario Bava, sort of the prototype for the genre, where an unknown killer is taking out a finite group of people one creative murder at a time. This is also the blueprint for the Friday the 13th series and basically the whole genre.

-The Bird with the Crystal Plumage (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0065143/): Dario Argento's first movie and a really solid giallo.

-Torso (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0069920/): A solid giallo that I really only like for one scene, but it's completely worth watching for that one scene.

SLASHERS

-Silent Night, Deadly Night (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0088117/): just edging out Black Christmas (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0071222/) as my favorite X-mas slasher, this one is amazing just for it's prologue with the boy being terrorized by his catatonic grandfather. Of course the rest of the movie's pretty great as well... killer Santa... great stuff.

-Halloween (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0077651/): I guess I have to mention this because it was so huge.

-My Bloody Valentine (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0082782/): Slasher + mine = good times.

A general note about slashers, if you're in the mood for one, is to go with the 80s originals where they actually showed the sex AND the violence rather than the post-Scream 90s ones where it's just barely the violence and never any of the sex. boo to that!

Now... for those still hungry for movies, here's a short list of some of my personal favorite exploitation movies. They're not really connected to Grindhouse in any direct way except to say these movies actually played the urban areas and drive-ins that the new movie wishes it could.

-Abar, The First Black Superman (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0122116/): Blaxploitation version of Superman where the guy uses his powers to mess with white neighbors. Absolutely hilarious.

-Cinderella (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0075849/): A sexploitation musical version of the story that's really funny and I couldn't believe ever got made.

-Poor Pretty Eddie (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0070556/): Hicksploitation where a black singer gets stranded in a backwater redneck town. I just saw this and it's already a favorite.

-The Candy Snatchers (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0069840/): Wonderfully uncomfortable movie about a group of people who kidnap a little girl for ransom but the dad doesn't care. Great movie.

-Impulse (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0071654/): William Shatner. That's pretty much all I need to say. If you think William Shatner is cool today, check out this movie. He also did a few other 70s gems that are unbelievably great: Kingdom of the Spiders (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0076271/) and Big Bad Mama (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0071216/).

And lastly... here's a link (http://www.medialife.org/qtfest) to a full listing of films Quentin Tarantino has played in his film festivals here in Austin. They represent a lot of what he loves and provide a pretty hefty list of things to see if you're interested in the subject.

[GreenPea]

Thanks man for your time making this list. I guess I am familiar with some of these movies already without knowing they were "grindhouse" movies. What exactly is grindhouse then? I saw pretty much all the Friday the 13th and Helloween series :o

And the script of Vanishing Point was written by Guillermo Cabrera Infante I have to check this out! Not sure if I saw it or not.

[b.miller]

hey it's no problem. Always my pleasure to tell other people about movies I like (and I liked all that I mentioned). It's just that after that mega post, i was hesitant to keep going :)

I should state that although I've been immersing myself in these films for the past year and a half or so and I've found a ton of great stuff, I'm by no means an expert in the field. I am pretty lucky to be living in a town that still shows these kinds of films on a regular basis though so hopefully these posts don't sound too pompous.

Yeah, not all the films I listed above are "grindhouse" per se... Dirty Mary Crazy Larry made TONS of money if I read correctly, and was one in a line of mega hits for Peter Fonda at that time. Vanishing Point is pretty well regarded by mainstream critics as well as psychotronic enthusiasts. A Film like Willie Dynamite (an excellent blaxploitation pimp movie on par with The Mack) was not only a Universal picture but also produced by Zanuck/Brown, who also produced little movies like Jaws and Driving Miss Daisy. So in the case of Quentin's influences, it's not that he only saw Grindhouse movies but that he saw EVERYTHING.

So, my understanding of the term "grindhouse" is that it comes from the theaters of the 70s, mostly in urban areas, that would run double or triple features, often late into the night or even 24/7, grinding films out one after another while all kinds of questionable clientele went about their busienss, whether it was a junkie riding a fix or a prostitute earning his/her money or a homeless guy sleeping and maybe pissing himself, or crazy film lovers willing to risk a mugging or hold up or have their car broken into for the sake of seeing a movie outside of the mainstream. Probably the most famous example of this was the row of theaters lining 42nd street in NYC. Open all night, some playing porn others playing kung-fu or ethnic films (like The Chinese Mack or Blacula) or whatever. They pretty much played everything just to stay open and keep making money.

In more rural areas, the same type of films played the Drive-ins, also on double, triple, or quadruple bills. So to fill all this programming, certain producers and distributors, needing to fill their orders, made tons and tons of cheap-ass movies. They bought European movies and retitled them with names and posters that were nothing like the film (not to mention 10x more exciting), pretty much anything they could do to churn out product.

Then the theaters and drive-ins would book the stuff because it's cheap, so they may fill out a bill with a Hollywood movie like Jaws with a much cheaper picture like Pirahna, so they could advertise as a 'Don't Go In The Water!' show that lasts all night, or play The Exorcist with Demon Witch Child, or you might see across the street Abby: The Black Exorcist.

A good example of this is Tombs of the Blind Dead. This movie is a pretty surreal European horror film by a spanish director about the ghosts of Knights Templar coming back to kill whoever stepped on their hallowed ground. The ghosts appear in Templar armor and ride horses but, as we see in the prologue, priests burnt out all their eyes as they died so in ghost form they are blind (but not deaf!!!). So someone in America got a bright idea and brought it over, cut out the two or three scenes that lay out all the Knights Templar stuff, record about a minute of narration over a few still shots of paintings explaining that a thousand years ago, a superhuman race of intelligent apes came down onto our planet and waged in intergalactic war with humans. The humans won, burning out their eyes but one of the apes was the lead ape and he vowed revenge. They slap that onto the beginning of the movie, retitle it as Revenge from Planet Ape, and sell it during the height of the Planet of the Apes frenzy. Absolutely nothing to do with apes, but there you go.

So basically, a "grindhouse" movie would be anything that would typically play in those theaters. Before the 60s/70s, they were known as B-movies. Then as soon as home video started all the theaters died out but there was a similar all-consuming hunger for films to fill the rental aisles (and so grindhouse movies eventually became direct-to-video) and nowadays... I suppose you could make a case for direct-to-DVD stuff... and who knows maybe in 30 years people will be going through all of that crap and finding gems in the rough there as well. The general term that I hear most often and personally prefer is exploitation film, meaning the film was made to exploit some proven hit, be it a hit movie (Pirahna), a proven audience (blaxploitation), an in-vogue topic (remember that glut of Australian movies in the mid-80s after Crocodile Dundee made tons of money?), or the good-old standby: sex. The thing was, since they didn't have the budget or the star power to sell their film, they had to do it with gore or violence or sex... things you didn't see in mainstream movies. So that's why so many have awesome names and really great posters and outstanding trailers... Very often the advertising materials for the film were better than the film itself (how can you live up to a title like The Incredible Sex Revolution?)

But since there was this whole other world of film happening, there was a corresponding hierarchy of actors and directors that populated this world. Jack Nicholson for example, was a pretty big exploitation movie star before he got Five Easy Pieces and Carnal Knowledge and became a mainstream star. People know about Easy Rider but how many know about Hells Angels on Wheels and the original Little Shop of Horrors (shot in 2 days!) and Psych-Out? There was a whole group of actors like Adam Roarke and Antonio Vargas and Chris Mitchum who were never very notable in mainstream movies but were kinda kings of the cheapies. And it was the same behind the camera. Now-famous producers like Roger Corman and Sam Arkoff made all these movies with directors like Richard Rush (http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0750701/) and Jack Starrett (http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0823630/) who made no-kidding really good movies but never got much attention. The "Corman school" roster of directors is now pretty famous. People like Martin Scorsese, Peter Bogdanovich, Joe Dante, Jonathan Demme, and Ron Howard have all gone on to become mainstream directors and have major hits, but they all got their start working for Corman. In addition to those, there are some directors that were just as good but, for one reason or another, never got their break.

Also, something really weird happened in the 80s. It was actually the very late 70s but really became obvious throughout the 80s. Movies like Jaws and Star Wars were basically B-movies with A-movie budgets. Once they made such an ungodly amount of money, Hollywood took notice. and so the 70s ended with their risky choices and original ideas and gave way to the 80s where mainstream hollywood adopted the exploitation outlook. If the first one's successfull, why not make a second? If it worked the first time, why not make it again? So you get movies that were originally very small and cheap (like Friday the 13th and A Nightmare on Elm Street or Dirty Harry) becoming gigantic franchise hits. And even today... basically B-movies with A-movie budgets... which is a shame because once they got expensive, all the risk and taboo were gutted out of them in order to appeal to the widest possible audience and offend the least amount of people.

That's the charm of these movies for me personally. When you watch a movie like Dirty Mary Crazy Larry, you know that every car stunt in that movie was actually performed by actual people in actual cars. No CG, no test marketting, no studio notes. That's why so many of those movies could never be made today. They are stuck in a period in cinema history where audiences were open and theaters were full and films had balls. There's a movie called Toys are Not for Children that is... SO WRONG... on so many levels. It's just amazing. If you watch it alone, it's guaranteed to make you feel dirty. The shit that happens to that poor little kid in the beginning of Silent Night, Deadly Night... is scarring. That just doesn't happen much any more. People don't walk out of the Poseidon remake and think "i can't believe what I just saw!" but whatever...

[Aaron Contreras]

Tarantino is no longer ahead of the curve with dialog.
His music selection is still ace.
Planet Terror was way more entertaining. Both movies were too long.

[jOHN rODRIGUEZ]

My only complaint would be not seeing this at a drive-in.

For many reasons. ;) :mad: :o :cool:



OK now clean up yours.

[koisk]

SOME SPOILERS BELOW

I thought the bad-film effects in Planet Terror were interesting. The film quality added atmosphere into the film - the trunk opening scene near the beginning (with the green fog, right before the first killing) was more scary and tense becuase of the film which was starting to scratch, crackle, and obscure the action much in the same way the fog was. I thought it was interesting becuase you can'd do something like that in a normal film - the audience would just assume the film was damaged and it would look out of place.

I mean, the movie was so over the top, so why couldn't the effects be as well?

As far as Grindhouse, I know the dialog was ment to be a little pointless, but it was really bad. It made me reconsider all the things I like about QTs movies. All I could think about while watching it was - Here are four Quentin Tarantino's sitting at a table. However, the last half was amazing. Kurt Russell's turn of character was cool to watch, but the chase itself was so gripping - it was technically very basic but so much more intense then any modern-day car chase sequence (CUT to tire, CUT to hood, screetch, CUT to Car # 2, techno music! CUT to road, argh!!!). It also ended perfectly.

EDIT:

Forgot - the conversation about "The Who." UGHH. I thought that was infinitely terrible. Tarantino and Rodriguez might as well have photoshopped thier faces on the characters and had the conversation in the middle of the thing.

[Aaron Contreras]

All I could think about while watching it was - Here are four Quentin Tarantino's sitting at a table.

I thought the exact same thing. It was not enjoyable.

[potatobroth]

while its pretty obvious that going from Planet Terror to "Don't" and "Thanksgiving" that Death Proof's talkiness would be a letdown in momentum, i still thought it was highly entertaining. the talking scenes were a bit over the top, but still kinda funny and ultimately the payoff was well worth the slow ride. two simple stories managed to keep me giddy and smiling the whole time. i'm just glad i was old enough to remember those crappy movie saturday afternoons on WPIX NY. "and now, without further interuption, the exciting conclusion to The Octagon." :D

[Scott Warner]

All I could think about while watching it was - Here are four Quentin Tarantino's sitting at a table. Hahahaha exactly.

I finally saw Grindhouse last night. Overall I'd say I enjoyed about 3/4 of the experience, particularly the trailers.

Machette and Thanksgiving were hilarious and both of them nailed the spirit of those old trailers - these double feature movie house places are a couple of generations before my time but I certainly remember watching horror movies in the early 80's that would have these sorts of clips before the movie.

Planet Terror was as advertised. My audio director at work would nod with delight to hear me say "The music was at least 50% of the experience". What good dumb fun this movie was.

Death Proof was irritating until the action sequences kicked in. I really enjoyed Kill Bill because, among other reasons, Quetin gracefully shut his characters up for once. Here it's back to four dudes sitting around the table talking about Madonna's big dick... and it's like, hey, didn't I come in to this GRINDHOUSE thing to see GRINDHOUSE movies? I like how he just totally bypasses emulating the shitty quality (both content and fake physical effects on the film reel) about five minutes into the movie and just starts making one his movies, complete with 70's record fetishes and everyone just too bad ass for you. It's not BAD it's just not really following the high concept of what I paid money to see! Also, I'm sick of his dialog... he's like slightly better than Kevin Smith at this point.

Anyways, cool stuff.

[koisk]

Also, I'm sick of his dialog... he's like slightly better than Kevin Smith at this point.
I get that. I mean I love all the QT movies, but then after seeing Death Proof with it's grating dialog not only does it make me not like the dialog in this movie but other QT movies as well. It's a sudden realization that all the dialog is the same, just different subjects. I like your analogy to Kevin Smith too. Watching Clerks and Mallrats is awesome, but by the time you get to Clerks 2 and it's the same thing, you begin to wonder why you liked it so much in the first place.

Overall though I find these points minor, becuase I freakin' loved Grindhouse, Kevin Smith rules, and so does Tarantino.

And the music in Planet Terror was awesome as hell.

[GforGroove]

after all the mix reviews i read.. we decided to go and see it after having enough booz and stuff, so we can be super dizzy. I knew this grinhouse stuff is not my type and probably sober i would be complaning more right now. :D. But i'm satisfied. No real complains i have a good time and i want those soundtracks NOW

Planet Terror feels more natural to Rodriguez no sense type that i love.

[kid cue]

SPOILERS




i thought the film fx in Planet Terror was too self-conscious & eclectic for its own good. the missing reel part in general was a pretty contrived gesture. the gun leg was obv meant to be this over-the-top wild ride to the end of the film, but somehow fell short. the film seemed ambitious with all the elements it was trying to pull together, but i felt like it never quite got there. QT's acting really got to me.

so did Zoe Bell's. the rest of the movie was cool though. the dialogue didn't bother me too much. i kind of like how he just slapped it in there. maybe it made the film too QT and not enough grindhouse (i wouldn't know), but he is the director, and it became its own thing. the last chase was a total blast.

[Bargo]

:( (source (http://www.news.com.au/entertainment/story/0,23663,21621364-10388,00.html))

But where once the arrival of a new Quentin Tarantino film was a highlight of the cinema year, his latest work is languishing in limbo without a British or Australian release date.

For months, Grindhouse, a $US100million ($120 million) double bill of nostalgic horror films made with his friend Robert Rodriguez, had been scheduled to arrive in British cinemas on June 1 and Australia on May 10.

After disastrous box office takings in the US, it has been withdrawn while Harvey and Bob Weinstein, the films' producers, try to formulate a rescue strategy.

A spokesman for Momentum Pictures, the films' British distributor, said yesterday: "We are reviewing the release date and the release plans. It will definitely be released here but we don't know in what form."

[grady]

I feel a few weeks late and about ten dollars short on this thread, but I finally got around to seeing the film this evening.

Surprisingly I enjoyed it much more than I was expecting. Rodriguez's film surprised a bit by how hyped it had been and how it was so hit and miss at times. I did like his tinkering and fiddling here and there with the image and sound but it felt a bit too deliberate and the way he does his own score seems to be quickly treading into the waters of John Carpenter land. There were times where it sound like bits of the score from Sin City.

Tarantino's Death Proof seemed to get the most slogging from my friends who had seen the film and I found myself liking it, but really wish a few things would happen, reiterating what others in the pages before this post have said, his characters are just too Tarantino for their own good now. But what also irritates me a great deal more is when he appears in his films. Between him, M. Night Shamalamadingdong and Kevin Smith, I would take Kevin Smith anyday, and that is being very forgiving. Someone needs to restrain Tarantino's insistence(ego) upon appearing in his own work.

But my main problem was there was not enough of Stuntman Mike! Kurt Russell was just a fucking pleasure to watch, and there wasn't nearly enough of him. The car chase/action was fun too along with Tarantino's stellar choice of music.

So yeah, it was more enjoyable than I was expecting it to be. My friend and I that saw it this evening are both projectionist and were grinning like hell at some of the little bits here and there that popped up. I only wish there would have been some more count down mylar type stuff or having the framing appear to be off for a minute or two in the scene deliberately so someone would think there is a problem with the film, get up to complain, only to return to the auditorium and find the film back in proper framing.

And the trailers, I loved the trailers!