criterionforum.org

domino harvey wrote:I doubt this makes more than $15 million this weekend. The studio knows it will recoup with DVD and the international market, I doubt even they are anticipating a number one opening.

I seriously doubt that. With all of the hype they throwing out there... Rose McGowan, Rosario Dawson, et al on the covers of Rolling Stone, Vanity Fair, EW (i believe)... they are definitely making the BIG push and going for as big a box office tally as they can get.

On another note, the L.A. Weekly has printed a really wonderfully spirited round table conversation with Tarantino, Rodriguez and Richard Rush, Bob Clark, Allan Arkush, George Armitage and Lewis Teague. It's a good read.

All the mainstream press just makes this whole thing more boring.

Fletch F. Fletch wrote:

domino harvey wrote:I doubt this makes more than $15 million this weekend. The studio knows it will recoup with DVD and the international market, I doubt even they are anticipating a number one opening.

I seriously doubt that. With all of the hype they throwing out there... Rose McGowan, Rosario Dawson, et al on the covers of Rolling Stone, Vanity Fair, EW (i believe)... they are definitely making the BIG push and going for as big a box office tally as they can get.

It really depends how many screens it will opening on; the three hour plus runtime is really going to cut down on how many screenings per day the film will be able to have. It will probably do better than $15 million and enter the top three films for the weekend, but I doubt it will come out on top.

The Fanciful Norwegian wrote:Well, the Variety article you linked to at the top of the page blames the hiatus squarely on Rodriguez' personal troubles, so it looks like at least some of the rumors made their way into the "legit" media (even if there's nothing particularly seamy in there).

All I can hope is that people pay enough attention to Variety to be careful in blindly repeating it elsewhere. Variety recently reported that Bryan Singer left Superman Returns for UA and when they proven wrong, they implied that they had nothing to do with the story and incorrectly cited (blamed) sites like Moviehole.net (which they called Moviehole.com). More and more they are repeating rumors and not checking sources, which is how they got busted on that IRS/Wesley Snipes story. Either way, admitting that you didn't stick to the budget and that the production went beyond the perimeters of the financing is worse than having problems with your wife, so it sounds to me like they just want something juicier to spread in their coverage of Grindhouse.

How this squares with the "Rodriguez was going over-budget" story is anyone's guess but I suppose they're not mutually exclusive.

It's possible, I just wish they would leave those poor people alone.

Regardless of the actual numbers and the reasons behind them, the stuff in the trailer alone looks like it cost more than any two or three dozen real grindhouse pics put together...

You can tell he was doing some Sin City stuff there, similiar to that brief sunset drive sequence from Once Upon a Time in Mexico. It's getting harder and harder to predict the costs of a Rodriguez movie because he's seems to be getting better at tossing around digital material.

Stan Czarnecki wrote:In my opinion the budget is Grindhouse's biggest problem.

That's only because of the double-feature format. The directors' usual opening weekend figures show that the films would be profitable if released on their own terms, as they can manage an average $25 million. A 3+ hour feature is going to drain their ability to have more showings in a day, and if anyone has a problem with either feature, it could seriously disrupt their return business.

Also, the faux trailers by Rob Zombie and Eli Roth are much more in the actual Grindhouse-tradition than the Rodriguez/Tarantino films.

Rob Zombie's does not look authentic. Judging from early reviews, audiences seem to notice too. By far, Wright's and Roth's looks to be the most on target, especially due to their choice of camera, film stock and (in Wright's case) physical manipulation of the footage.

I'd much rather see Thanksgiving or Werewolf Women of the SS than Death Proof and Planet Terror.

I'd much rather see Thanksgiving than Stephen King's Cell, or Werewolf Women of the S.S. than another Halloween hackjob. How about we all go see Grindhouse and help make these kinds of choices easier for the directors?

Well Grindhouse's budget is not astronomical, but what bothers me about Tarantino and Rodriguez is their lack of guts. I mean, a real exploitation homage would have to be done independently and not in a big studio way.

Actually, if it gets finished, Machete is far more in this vein. Danny Trejo and Jeff Fahey are far from being big stars and many exploitation films had to rely on faded or third-rate celebrities to land them financing and distribution (Donald Pleasance, John Carradine, etc.). I'm fine with them going all out because the purpose of this double-feature is to convince audiences it's ok to enjoy movies of this particular tone. Unfortunately, you're not going to pull that off without todays marketing-friendly elements.

Antoine Doinel wrote:I can only imagine the cries of "rip-off!" and "unoriginal!" that would've come from this board had Tarantino gone the direct duplication route.

If it's as direct as Kill Bill and Reservoir Dogs was, I'll still complain. It's a lot easier to be obvious about stealing than make those techniques transparent, and is my opinion why Tarantino gets as much attention as he does. It's also easier to feel smarter as an audience when you get winky references to other movies every 30 seconds. I'd rather work at having to find the origins of influence than experience a Family Guy episode every time I see a movie. My expectations for Death Proof are about as low as they can get, but I'm still going to ask people to see the film because I believe in what he's *trying* to do.

Domino Harvey wrote:I doubt this makes more than $15 million this weekend.

They won't recoup that easily if the opening is that low. If the budget is $53 million, that's still another $20+ for marketing and who knows for P&A. Either way, they've reached $75 million in investment.

DrewReiber wrote:I'd much rather see Thanksgiving than Stephen King's Cell, or Werewolf Women of the S.S. than another Halloween hackjob. How about we all go see Grindhouse and help make these kinds of choices easier for the directors?

The Thanksgiving trailer is a lot of fun for its two minute running time, but a full length? Really? I would find it exceedingly difficult to stomach the premise for a full ninety mintues. Plus, the trailer already has two explicit nudity/sex scenes that end in decapitation and death? Seeing that happen ad nauseum would get tired, fast. Hell, the fact that Eli Roth is trying to become the North American Takashi Miike and gaining credibility for it is bad enough.

And I'd rather see five Hilary Duff rom-coms back to back than anything remotely related with something Stephen King wrote.

DrewReiber wrote:If it's as direct as Kill Bill and Reservoir Dogs was, I'll still complain. It's a lot easier to be obvious about stealing than make those techniques transparent, and is my opinion why Tarantino gets as much attention as he does. It's also easier to feel smarter as an audience when you get winky references to other movies every 30 seconds. I'd rather work at having to find the origins of influence than experience a Family Guy episode every time I see a movie. My expectations for Death Proof are about as low as they can get, but I'm still going to ask people to see the film because I believe in what he's *trying* to do.

Let's be real here - 90% of the audience aren't going to get the references that Tarantino and Rodriguez are going to be throwing in. Unlike the Asian cinema which so readily referenced in the self-indulgent Kill Bill, these exploitation flicks are a little harder to come by even for film buffs. Where Asian and spaghetti flicks can be had on DVD and VHS fairly easily the more obscure exploitation flicks are a bit harder to track down. I hardly think it's going to be a Family Guy scenario.

Kill Bill didn't make me feel smart, so much as bored as hell. It was such genre/fanboy masturbation. Though budget talk makes my eyes glaze over, I'd rather Grindhouse go over budget because of Rodriguez's tech experimentation than Tarantino's need to get every bit of his "clever" scripts filmed. Whatever happened to the talk of a joint, uncut Kill Bill being released theatrically? Is Grindhouse the test for that?

Though I too will be going into Death Proof with my expectations reigned in, it can't do anything but help Tarantino to be forced to work within a 90 minute time frame.

Antoine Doinel wrote:The Thanksgiving trailer is a lot of fun for it's two minute running time, but a full length? Really? I would find it exceedingly difficult to stomach the premise for a full ninety mintues.

Judging from Eli Roth's work so far, I highly doubt he would make anyone stomach a movie as boring and dumb as Thanksgiving looks. If he felt obligated to do the entire film, I have no doubt it would be incredibly humorous throughout with both irony and his usual penchant for social commentary. I am not looking at the trailer and filling in the gaps based on that, but rather thinking about how Roth operates. As for Cell, the last thing I want is more over-the-hill Stephen King adaptations from Bob Weinstein as he continues to poorly ape Dino DeLaurentiis. Eli Roth is far more interesting to me when it's his original ideas than if he just works on whatever work-for-hire job that comes from the 1408 screenwriters.

Let's be real here - 90% of the audience aren't going to get the references that Tarantino and Rodriguez are going to be throwing in.

Yes, let's be real. I've sat with people who haven't seen any of the films referenced by either Family Guy or Kill Bill, but they get that it's supposed to be relating to them another work and they tell me how they still feel entertained. Why? Because there is a visual, audio or tonal cue they are supposed to respond to and now they feel great because they can recognize a prompt. The disembodied material that is used as a reference frequently contains a joke or action, so that is usually more than enough to give them what they think they're suppoesd to get out of it.

Whatever happened to the talk of a joint, uncut Kill Bill being released theatrically? Is Grindhouse the test for that?

There were rights disputes, but I think they've been solved because Tarantino says he's going to get that going later this year.

Antoine Doinel wrote:[...] the trailer already has two explicit nudity/sex scenes that end in decapitation and death? Seeing that happen ad nauseum would get tired, fast.

To each his own.

Yeah I'm sure the whole world is CLAMORING for uncut Kill Bill in one sitting. KB2 alone seemed 3 hours long. And what is being restored--color to that fight scene?

Barmy wrote:Yeah I'm sure the whole world is CLAMORING for uncut Kill Bill in one sitting. KB2 alone seemed 3 hours long. And what is being restored--color to that fight scene?

Oh, go take a nap, Granny.

I believe it's going to be a limited release prior to a new DVD version.

"This is the beauty of having two volumes," said Rick Sands, chief operating officer at Miramax. "Vol. 1 goes out, Vol. 2 goes out, then Vol. 1 Special Edition, Vol. 2 Special Edition, the two-pack, then the Tarantino collection as a boxed set out for Christmas. It's called multiple bites at the apple. And you multiply this internationally."

DrewReiber wrote:

Also, the faux trailers by Rob Zombie and Eli Roth are much more in the actual Grindhouse-tradition than the Rodriguez/Tarantino films.

Rob Zombie's does not look authentic. Judging from early reviews, audiences seem to notice too. By far, Wright's and Roth's looks to be the most on target, especially due to their choice of camera, film stock and (in Wright's case) physical manipulation of the footage.

Well not authentic, but it wasn't their goal to reproduce. They paid tribute. And Zombie's trailer has a certain deranged charm to it. Also, I like his films more than Tarantino's and Rodriguez'.

Barmy wrote:"This is the beauty of having two volumes," said Rick Sands, chief operating officer at Miramax. "Vol. 1 goes out, Vol. 2 goes out, then Vol. 1 Special Edition, Vol. 2 Special Edition, the two-pack, then the Tarantino collection as a boxed set out for Christmas. It's called multiple bites at the apple. And you multiply this internationally."

I said back then and I repeat it today: Rick Sands knows where he can shove his apple.

Going to see Grindhouse now.

DrewReiber wrote:I've sat with people who haven't seen any of the films referenced by either Family Guy or Kill Bill, but they get that it's supposed to be relating to them another work and they tell me how they still feel entertained. Why? Because there is a visual, audio or tonal cue they are supposed to respond to and now they feel great because they can recognize a prompt. The disembodied material that is used as a reference frequently contains a joke or action, so that is usually more than enough to give them what they think they're suppoesd to get out of it.

That's remarkably incisive observation -- and terribly sad. I've always hated Family Guy but had a hard time justifying and articulating my disdain, and now I can use your words, if you don't mind. I especially like the last bit: ".. to give them what they think they're supposed to get out of it." Very nice.

you gotta be kidding me wrote:That's remarkably incisive observation -- and terribly sad. I've always hated Family Guy but had a hard time justifying and articulating my disdain, and now I can use your words, if you don't mind. I especially like the last bit: ".. to give them what they think they're supposed to get out of it." Very nice.

I don't really know where to begin to respond to this. You guys are basically saying that generally anyone who laughs at a show like Family Guy (just that show?) are shills for bad comedy. Humor is complicated. Knowing that some fat guy is going to slip on a banana peel doesn't make it less funny when he does so. Hell, maybe the people laughing at references they don't understand are doing so because the timing of the joke depends on only half the reference. During one of the family guy bits, it shows the classic TV Comedy "Eight Is Enough" open. One of the younger girl's makes some inane joke, and the father slaps her until after the eighth slap one of the girl's sisters grabs the dad's hand and says "Dad, stop! Eight is enough!". They then have a warm hug to studio applause and laughter. Does one have to see know "Eight is Enough" to laugh at the incongruous and ridiculous actions? However, it wouldn't bother me a bit to see people attacking shows for intimidating the viewship into laughing at obscure jokes. In this case, you're better off taking a shot at Dennis Miller.

Yes, I would say someone DOES have to know the show Eight is Enough to actually get a joke dependent on the punchline "Eight is enough."

I think we need to get this thread back on track (I'm not sure how this became about Family Guy). Really, the film aspires to be nothing more than three hours of hot babes and cool dudes blowing up a lot of shit in some cool ways - and what's wrong with that?

Antoine Doinel wrote:hot babes

Thanks for the link, Antoine....but has Rose had work done? She was always pretty fugly before this (although she's still no Rosario).

While I don't think Rose is fugly, she has apparentally lost quite a bit of weight. And I'm sure Rolling Stone, like every other magazine on the planet, did quite a bit of airbrushing of their own.

But yeah....Rosario.....

I saw this last night. Liked it enough to want to catch it again.

For me, the Rodriguez piece is the better of the two. It has far better actors and is much, much pacier. Wish he could have done without the zombie theme, which has been done to death.

Tarantino's piece is scads of "Tarantino dialogue" with one short and one long action sequence. I find "Tarantino dialogue" to be tiresome, but in prior films at least it was delivered by interesting actors. In "Death Proof", the actors suck (except Russell), which would be fine if they didn't chatter so much. I loved the ending--it was the best part.

Barmy wrote:Tarantino's piece is scads of "Tarantino dialogue" with one short and one long action sequence.

It didn't even feel like a movie, honestly. No one I know enjoyed it and there were 15-20 of us at the midnight screening.

I find "Tarantino dialogue" to be tiresome, but in prior films at least it was delivered by interesting actors.

Sydney Poitier seemed like she was trying but she was wasted along with Russell.

I loved the ending--it was the best part.

I got nothing from it at all. Unfortunately, I find myself agreeing with those who were horrified by the so-called "arc" of the film, which I'm going to keep to myself for the time being because so many people on this thread have yet to see it. I'm just going to go on record as agreeing that Tarantino's idea of women are sex objects that can also act like men.

I think my audience liked it once it actually STARTED--i.e. the final car scene. Agreed that it's not really a movie. When I say I liked the ending I mean literally the last 15 seconds and final shot. Just the way it ended.

I'd like to see a 2 hour version of "Planet Terror", however.

Barmy wrote:I think my audience liked it once it actually STARTED--i.e. the final car scene.

Some of the people in my group liked the last 20 minutes, some were more impressed with the earlier sequence and others didn't care for either. I think Tarantino's cinematography hurt the former and repetitious coverage harmed the latter. Either way, no one felt that those scenes made up for the problems with everything else.

I'd like to see a 2 hour version of "Planet Terror", however.

According to this Ain't It Cool News interview the final running time will be about 15 minutes longer and closer to 100 minutes. I believe his shooting script came out to 110 pages, so that's not too unexpected.

Btw, even if you think the zombie genre has been overplayed, you should still give Andrew Currie's "Fido" a chance. I saw at the Florida Film Festival and it was so refreshing that I saw again the following night.

Maybe I'm just a mark for Tarantino, but I actually liked Death Proof more than Planet Terror. One could argue that DP doesn't live up to the "grindhouse style" established by PT (and I'd agree, DP is a thoroughly Tarantino flick that never once goes for a "throwback" style, unless you count the scant few film scratches and the missing reel), but it's a good movie in its own right. I loved the dialog and I thought the actors were all quite good (Kurt Russell was particularly great). The ending was a great moment as well; the right ending for Grindhouse as a whole, I think.

Planet Terror was a decent zombie flick, but the true highlight was Rose McGowan. Good God she's an amazing looking woman, even with a leg missing. The action sequences were well done, and I really liked the visual style. Rodriguez obviously understands better than Tarantino that the look - scratches, melted frames, constant focusing and refocusing, etc. - is as important for a movie like this as the acting, writing, directing, etc. PT sets the mood well, but I doubt I'd watch it as a separate movie. I like it as a lead-in to Death Proof.

As for the trailers...I hope they make more Grindhouse movies so we can see these trailers expanded to feature length films. I'd kill for a double bill of Machete and Thanksgiving. Those just looked like the best cheesy fun imaginable. I mean, really, who wouldn't want to watch Cheech Marin gun down one-dimensional baddies for ninety minutes? And a giant evil pilgrim on a rampage? I mean, come on. Let's be real. That has the potential to be the stuff of Z-grade movie legend.

Overall, Grindhouse is a real good time so long as you can handle the shift in tone from PT to DP.

I actually enjoyed Death Proof just slightly more as well, if only because it felt like the more substantial film, while Planet Terror was just balls-out wild mayhem for 90 minutes. Rodriguez's film was a real trip, and I enjoyed the hell out of it, especially Rose McGowan going into machine-gun superheroine mode in the finale. The missing reel was handled perfectly, too. Tarantino's was definitely less of a grindhouse flick and more like a typical Tarantino film, but I thought it was really good. I always enjoy his quick pop-culture dialogue, and this was some of his best yet. He manages to establish both sets of girls as very likeable, individualized characters who are very fun to just spend some time with as they chat. And though I won't spoil the end, I REALLY liked the way the film plays with genre expectations and really has some fun with the turn-around in the second half. It's very talky and low on action, which I wasn't really expecting -- especially after Planet Terror -- but I just threw my expectations aside and went with it. A whole different kind of fun than Rodriguez's film, and I thought they actually complemented each other very well. I'm not sure I would've enjoyed the film as a whole quite as much if Tarantino's half had been as gory and over the top as Rodriguez's.