1. **"Will they chalk this whole thing up to the bad taste of the American public..."**

How funny that shunning a movie that copies bad genre is considered bad taste. I agree that Americans are typically prone to embracing bad movies (300, Titanic, Gladiator, Wild Hogs, Star Wars ep 1,2,3) but in this instance, they chose correctly.

Tarantino and Rodriguez did not make a good movie shunned by the public - that would be The Lookout. What they made was a ripoff of a genre of film that thankfully died long ago. Most of us don't look back at Faster Pussycat and think, "Damn, i wish they made more movies like THAT!"

The only thing Grindhouse proves - some genres die and are meant to remain dead.

Posted at 1:42PM on Apr 15th 2007 by bgdc

2. re: BGDC. If Planet Terror had been released on it's own, with a marketing campaign that didn't spend half it's time explaining what a Grindhouse was, it would have been a big financial success.

Whether that's a good thing, I don't know... I am not a huge RR fan and I wasn't a big fan of Planet Terror, either... but the audience reaction when I watched it leads me to believe that it would have been successful on it's own...

Posted at 3:00PM on Apr 15th 2007 by josh

3. Thank heavens. See, Quentin, not everyone thinks the sun shines out of your behind!

Posted at 3:27PM on Apr 15th 2007 by akilis

4. This film just proves the hypothesis that Snakes on a Plane put forth last year. The "but it's supposed to be bad and hokey" argument doesn't really do it for the moviegoing public.

Posted at 3:35PM on Apr 15th 2007 by Rob

5. Wow. This is the biggest bomb of the year so far, which surprises even me, and I didn't think it would do well -- I just didn't think Grindhouse would do THAT badly.

Now I wonder had the directors stuck to the original plan (each movie only being a mini-film that ran no more than 50 minutes) if it would have made any difference.

No way Grindhouse can make money back internationally either, at least as one movie. (The general "rule" is that international gross equals, on average at most, 70% of North American gross.)

We're talking about a movie that cost perhaps $90 million (including promotional expenses). Damn.

I wonder if this derails Rodriguez's plans to produce Machete for real?

Posted at 3:48PM on Apr 15th 2007 by scotty

6. I think all you have to do is put the word "Grindhouse" in this blog and everyone will post.

Posted at 3:54PM on Apr 15th 2007 by jessica ferrara

7. Including me.

Posted at 3:55PM on Apr 15th 2007 by jessica ferrara

8. Regarding the DVD release:

At this rate, I wouldn't be surprised if they decide to release the DVD as early as late June/early July.

But I also foresee that each movie will be released separately, with a special box set to come later which features both together.

Posted at 3:57PM on Apr 15th 2007 by scotty

9. i have said this pretty much since the beginning of his career: when are people gonna wise up about tarantino and stop giving him money to make movies? fanboys and blindsighted critics need to take a good step back recognize that in the grand sceme of things the man and his work are insignificant, truly fortgetable.

Posted at 4:37PM on Apr 15th 2007 by affidavid

10. it was worth the 3 hours and 11 minutes entertaining and funny.... maybe summer would have been a better time for it or not who is to say great reviews no box office like its never happened before....and its going to happen again and we all know it is.... grind house will live on but will be replaced with garbage that makes millions and has no substance cookie cutter world enjoy it no originality enjoy that too....

Posted at 5:23PM on Apr 15th 2007 by adrian

11. Personally, I loved Grindhouse...Death Proof in particular. I didn't expect the movie to be a box office smash like a lot of people did...but I certainly didn't expect it to bomb so severely. I guess the only good I can see in this situation is that the DVD will come out super early? Great for me. Not so much for the Weinsteins.

Posted at 8:56PM on Apr 15th 2007 by mccann119

12. I think a lot of the problem here is that the movie was released at the wrong time of year. Especially Easter weekend. That was kind of a dumb move on their part. Late summer would have been fantastic for this movie.

They probably should have kept them to mini movies too. I think the length of this is a big scare for people. Three and half hours for an ehh movie just isn't right.

I would love to see Thanksgiving get made though. Eli Roth would rock as the Director.

Posted at 10:45PM on Apr 15th 2007 by ito_okashi

13. I just got back from seeing the movie, and the theater was pretty full. Aside from the 8 or so people who walked out, everyone else seemed to enjoy it, and there was a big burst of applause at the end.

I myself enjoyed much of it but found it too long. And I happen to think Tarantino is quite talented, but he does not seem to have any idea what women talk about when they are not around men. And I have to say that the whole first half of his movie feels like filler.


The last half-hour kicks ass, though.

Posted at 11:02PM on Apr 15th 2007 by oolookitty

14. i remember being excited about this film, until i heard it was 3 hours and 11 minutes, because three hours and eleven minutes basically means almost FOUR hours, when i factor in the whole endeavor.

and i pretty much wont be able to get anyone to go with me to see a movie that long, it kind of reminds me of Wyatt Earp, it sounded interesting until i heard of the running time.

Posted at 12:37AM on Apr 16th 2007 by panther

15. I got on to one of the critics on this site about kissin QT's butt too much about this film and kept on getting edited but it seems I was right in the long run. I am big QT and RR fan, I love QT to death, but after watching Grindhouse... I gotta say I liked Planet of Terror more so, it kept me watching. Death Proof though. I don't even know where to begin with that. THe dialog omg I just wanted to shoot myself. There was so much there, plus not to mention JJ's character wanted me to take a knife to the eye. But the car chase scene was amazing, and kinda different.

Posted at 1:12AM on Apr 16th 2007 by Rulother

16. Who thought this would be a big hit? Enjoyment of this flick requires an investment of time and an irony born of experience. Kids today just won't get it. This flick should have played in a handful of art houses in major metros and spent the year getting around the country, not making a big non-splash at multiplexes.

Posted at 2:57AM on Apr 16th 2007 by Chet

17.
Ebert once said that no good movie is too long & no bad movie is ever short enough.

Judging a movie's worth based on its length is like saying, "No, I didn't go see Lawrence of Arabia. Too much beige."

m.

Posted at 10:10AM on Apr 16th 2007 by Mike Davis

18. This is absolutely hilarious. I saw this bomb coming a mile away. RR's work is consistently derivative tripe, QT's is creative and pointless; combine these two on the same ticket and you have the perfect storm of hollowness that is Grindhouse. It's like 3 hours of stuffing your face with Peeps.

RR said he wanted to recreate the experience of his buddies gathering 'round the boob tube and firing up those 70s exploitation films. What they forgot to include were those unconscionable piles of blow they undoubtably bring to the party.

Anyway, I'm just loving this. People don't understand that most males want some kind of point in their movies. That is why 300 owned and GHouse bizzombed...300 actually engendered timeless ideals that these unlimited salvos of narcism can't kill.

Posted at 10:17AM on Apr 16th 2007 by Pop Culture Pessimist

19. wow...there is a lot of "playa hatin" going on. i do think that too much $$ has been spent on telling people "what the shot is" as opposed to just talking about the two movies. i enjoyed the whole experience, but i do think it is too much to ask for the masses today to "get it". i concur with the observation that maybe a couple of art houses in the top 5 markets to build word of mouth might had been better.

but i am also old enough to recall the summer of 82, when "blade runner" was banned as a "flop", while they ate reese's pieces and ate up "et"...don't know too many people now would say that "et" was the better flick...

Posted at 1:26PM on Apr 16th 2007 by Jeff

20. Bad taste? Sex and violence certainly have their place in meritorious cinema, but sex and violence exclusively for the sake of sex of violence?

I may be a film snob, but I would sooner watch a Wild Hogs/Norbit double feature than sit through this excreta.

Posted at 4:09PM on Apr 16th 2007 by Hoover