criterionforum.org

Posted: **Sun Apr 08, 2007 6:39 am**

Barmy wrote:I think the person who earlier in this thread suggested that Kurt Russell's character represents "grindhouse" got it right.

The first half of DP has a 70s vibe and the girls are 70s types. You (are supposed to) want them to live. But being that they are grindhouse-era gals, they must die.

In the second half, we have careerist, boring, vanilla "women". Very 00's. Grindhouse is dead now, so Russell's character must die. Like most people (and this must have been Tarantino's intent), I wanted these women to die. Unfortunately, their survival represents the dominance of PC PG-13 Hollywood/Entertainment Weekly "culture". Kurt's death=End of Cinema.

I think that's giving tarantino too much credit, but I am totally going to use that to sound intellectual around the women's in these here parts.

Posted: **Sun Apr 08, 2007 6:49 am**

Really? Were people really rooting for the girls in the second half of Tarantino's film to die? I know I wasn't, and I don't think I was alone since my entire audience seemed to be cheering them along. To me, they seemed as fun, fleshed-out, and immensely likeable as the characters in the first half. I have to think that anybody who was rooting for them to die is saying way more about their own personal prejudices and hangups than about Tarantino's intentions or the film's supposed message. I think the real thrill of the second half of that film was to see the complete reversal that Kurt Russell's character goes through there. I mean, is there anything more satisfying than seeing this sadistic killer get reduced to a wimpering mess when he runs across victims who don't lie down and die? That's one of the primal pleasures of the finales in most slasher films, where the last few victims finally stand up and defeat the villain -- the genius of this film was to place that reversal in a very different context and position within the film. It was pretty clear from the way Tarantino presents these scenes -- not to mention the long and fun dialogue scenes he devotes to the girls beforehand -- that the audience is meant to be entirely on the side of the girls, not Russell.

Posted: **Sun Apr 08, 2007 7:45 am**

Indeed. I've never seen a moive audience cheer so enthusiastically than when Kurt Russell got his ass kicked.

Posted: **Sun Apr 08, 2007 2:43 pm**

Nothing wrote:I'm constantly amazed by how many people overestimate the responsibilities of a DoP. In television soap operas, maybe...

If you still think you can sell this idea after Natural Born Killers, then I'm not going to take anything you say seriously. Your entire argument is born out of gross generalizations and have little to do with researching the involvement of the specific DP on specific features. Tarantino's visual work on Kill Bill amounted to asking the DP to specifically bring over his earlier techniques while duplicating the visual designs of films he personally told Richardson to watch and copy. Tarantino even handed him personal reels of films like Lady Snowblood to imitate (confirmed in American Cinematographer), one of the same films he borrowed copious amounts of structure, dialogue, music and production design. Tarantino does not know how to appropriate these styles himself, so he hired the one DP who has already done it with great success.

Death Proof is the result of a hack filmmaker who is no longer relying on multi-million dollar, oscar-caliber crew, smarter collaborators or strong producers to catch him from falling.

Posted: **Sun Apr 08, 2007 3:31 pm**

Dear Catastrophe Totoro wrote:Are people really going to try to track down old B films with no stars in this day of incessant remakes, or are they going to assume that Tarantino watched these mediocre films for them to extract what was positive about them in order to create a truly great film? Is Tarantino praising the genre, or is he telling us that he knows everything about film, even these small, campy B films?

Well, I'll be tracking down Vanishing Point soon. And who cares if he attempts to make the ultimate genre film? Or hopes to make the ultimate chase sequence ever put on film? Frankly, anyone who can speak out about such ambitions and actually delivers is admirable in my book...

Posted: **Sun Apr 08, 2007 8:21 pm**

Enjoyed the Rodriguez one quite a bit.

The Tarantino one was mostly terrible. He's turned into such a mediocre parody of himself. The dialogue in the first hour of his segment - which felt more like three hours - sounded like a college student's attempt to write something "Tarantino-esque" for women. I would, however, like to see him take on a pure action film (preferably silent) as some of the action toward the end was quite well-handled.

Now I've seen this, I'm not surprised it flopped. It's really nothing more than a vanity project with an appeal strictly to fans of the directors and their massive egos. True grindhouse fans will leave about 15 minutes into Death Proof.

Posted: **Sun Apr 08, 2007 8:37 pm**

rs98762001 wrote:Now I've seen this, I'm not surprised it flopped. It's really nothing more than a vanity project with an appeal strictly to fans of the directors and their massive egos. True grindhouse fans will leave about 15 minutes into Death Proof.

Even though I agree with you about Death Proof, I think it has next to nothing to do with the weekend as no one has even seen it yet. There's only two possibilities, judging from the rather consistent performances of the previous projects from both directors. Living in a college town, I asked anyone I knew if they were going to see it, if not, and why. It constantly turned out that people didn't know what it was or even when it was coming out! The Friday turnout was a joke, and when I asked one of "hardcore" audience members about it, he said he didn't know it was coming out that weekend until a friend of his told him TWO DAYS AGO!

I asked the freshmen in my speech class, and most of them had no idea what the movie was from the advertising. They were halfway interested, but weren't sure what they were walking into and you could see the apprehension. Once I explained it, they became very excited, but this was pretty much the average reaction I got from anyone of any age. Not people who frequent the Internet as much or 2 or 3 of my friends, but from *normal* people. I talked to the theater manager and he said expected turnout in a college town just wasn't there. That has nothing to do with quality and that's either interest or awareness. Knowledgable disinterest doesn't make sense because the numbers aren't there from either the Tarantino or Rodriguez fan camps, so it must be confusion and lack of awareness.

If there's any negative aspect, it's asking people to see a 3+ hour movie experience that they don't know anything about. Not that it's 2 movies plus fake trailers, not that it's a zombie film *and* killer car movie, nothing... they simply had no idea what to make of the marketing. And I'm not surprised either, as some of the advertising didn't tell you what you were looking at - while it pointlessly cut together footage from two different films - until the end of the TV ad. If they didn't know what they were looking at when it started, the explanation at the end didn't put 30 seconds of fast action into a comprehensible sell. In a day and age when car films and zombie movies are making a decent amount of money, there is simply no excuse for the pitiful performance of this double feature.

Posted: **Sun Apr 08, 2007 9:44 pm**

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.

You have to be the most disillusioned member on here. You seem to have given Rodriguez a free ride, yet I spotted many references to Jim Cameron's work in Planet Terror.

Posted: **Mon Apr 09, 2007 12:26 am**

exte wrote:You have to be the most disillusioned member on here.

I don't think you understand the meaning of the word disillusion.

You seem to have given Rodriguez a free ride, yet I spotted many references to Jim Cameron's work in Planet Terror.

Because there is a big difference between reference and tracework, further compounded by doing the work yourself versus taking credit for someone else's.

I am curious to know where you see Cameron, if only because I didn't see any influence from that particular director. All up for catching something I missed, though.

Posted: **Mon Apr 09, 2007 4:22 am**

I hate to say I told you so, but

Grindhouse," a three-hour reinvention of the down-and-dirty B-movie double features Tarantino and Rodriguez grew up watching, debuted at No. 4 with $11.6 million.

Posted: **Mon Apr 09, 2007 4:33 am**

A few random observations:

1. I don't see how any Rodriguez/Tarantino/Grindhouse fan could be unaware of the release. The Rose McGowan machine gun leg has been everywhere for what seems like years.

2. Does Rodriguez even have a fanbase?

3. Does Tarantino? Jackie B (the best film he will ever make) was a B.O.disappointment. And many people saw through the ego exercise that was Kill Bill--two good action scenes surrounded by endless blather and, moreover, cynically turned into 2 endless films.

4. Next weekend will be telling. Even "The Hills Have Eyes 2" (a film I enjoyed) made $10 million in the opening weekend. If "Grindhouse" has a 50-60% drop next weekend, it is clearly a disaster. The 3 hour running time issue only goes so far, as at this time of year, there is plenty of dross that can be bumped for popular films.

Posted: **Mon Apr 09, 2007 4:46 am**

Barmy wrote:1. I don't see how any Rodriguez/Tarantino/Grindhouse fan could be unaware of the release. The Rose McGowan machine gun leg has been everywhere for what seems like years.

Doesn't mean they know when it comes out. I'm sure it's hard to believe, but a helluva lot of people don't live their life by the release dates of movies or online news.

Posted: **Mon Apr 09, 2007 4:47 am**

im happy the film performed poorly the first week, it means less assholes telling me qt has made the best film ever.

in all serious, i think what killed it is that he's made this movie before, they both have. people arent going to rush out and see something that most of his fans think he already perfected. (not to imply "perfection" in the following analogy) but if spielberg were to make another film about a gentile saving jews in WWII, would people see it? i say no.

and, and the titles are shitty. planet terror and death proof and grindhouse are shitty titles.

Posted: **Mon Apr 09, 2007 4:59 am**

The problem is simple: the double feature was too high-concept for average moviegoers, and the average moviegoer already thinks Tarantino has directed every movie he's presented in the last three years anyways. This will clean-up in DVD sales and rentals, but was doomed at the box office.

Posted: **Mon Apr 09, 2007 5:06 am**

domino harvey wrote:The problem is simple: the double feature was too high-concept for average moviegoers, and the average moviegoer already thinks Tarantino has directed every movie he's presented in the last three years anyways. This will clean-up in DVD sales and rentals, but was doomed at the box office.

You're very possibly correct, but it's still a damn shame. I would have gladly existed in a world where a Grindhouse double-feature was released each year. I especially loved how the trailers gave filmmakers the ability to pitch the audience on entire potential features. So much for hope in expanding the theatrical experience outside of tricks like digital, 3-D nonsense. Whoopie!

Posted: **Mon Apr 09, 2007 6:28 am**

Barmy wrote: Does Tarantino? Jackie B (the best film he will ever make) was a B.O.disappointment. And many people saw through the ego exercise that was Kill Bill--two good action scenes surrounded by endless blather and, moreover, cynically turned into 2 endless films.

To paraphrase Spinal Tap, the cinematic growth rate of this man cannot even be charted. To think how high the hopes were for him after making Reservoir Dogs in his late twenties.

Posted: **Mon Apr 09, 2007 6:47 am**

Tarantino did live up to those hopes with Jackie Brown. But sadly, no one cared, and he retreated for six years and came back with a crowd pleaser. Maybe the failure of Grindhouse will keep him away from the fashionable homage crap and bring him back to something sincere and original.

Posted: **Mon Apr 09, 2007 8:06 am**

Highway 61 wrote:Tarantino did live up to those hopes with Jackie Brown. But sadly, no one cared, and he retreated for six years and came back with a crowd pleaser. Maybe the failure of Grindhouse will keep him away from the fashionable homage crap and bring him back to something sincere and original.

I agree. Jackie Brown is, by far, Tarantino's best film and I was quite bemused by the fact that Tarantino himself does not rate it that highly. The film is one of the very best films of the 1990s. It is the most complete, coherent and satisfying film he has ever made and, right now looks like, he ever will.

Posted: **Mon Apr 09, 2007 8:17 am**

Box office is no measure of quality. (In recent times -- OK, I'll just say it, â€œ300â€

Posted: **Mon Apr 09, 2007 12:25 pm**

marty wrote:I agree. Jackie Brown is, by far, Tarantino's best film and I was quite bemused by the fact that Tarantino himself does not rate it that highly. The film is one of the very best films of the 1990s. It is the most complete, coherent and satisfying film he has ever made and, right now looks like, he ever will.

I agree too, but filmmakers often aren't the best people to reach lasting judgements on their own work. Woody Allen notoriously thought that Manhattan was unreleasably bad (especially in comparison with its bookends, Interiors and Stardust Memories), and the Quay Brothers wanted me to drop their first short altogether from their new DVD compilation, lest it taint the rest of the canon (we compromised by tucking it away on the extras disc). Not that the last of these is any kind of masterpiece, but it's pretty damn impressive considering they were almost complete beginners.

I suspect there's some cognitive dissonance at work whereby the filmmaker will always measure the finished product with what they originally had in their head. Which is why some filmmakers find it physically painful to sit through their work after completion: there are too many reminders of all sorts of compromises of which the rest of the audience is blissfully unaware.

Posted: **Mon Apr 09, 2007 1:08 pm**

[quote="a.khan"]Box office is no measure of quality. (In recent times -- OK, I'll just say it, â€œ300â€

Posted: **Mon Apr 09, 2007 5:20 pm**

Some people are saying that the second half of DP takes place before the first half. I'm not sure I'm convinced, but, if so, my appreciation for the film would increase. Kurt lives!

Posted: **Mon Apr 09, 2007 5:26 pm**

Didn't think of this.....Does Kurt have the scar in the second half?

I'm not sure it makes it any better or worse though.

Posted: **Mon Apr 09, 2007 5:43 pm**

Not sure about the scar. It makes it better only in that Kurt survived and got tougher.

Could the Weinsteins BE any lamer. They are talking about replacing the missing reels.

Harvey Weinstein told me this morning that he's "incredibly disappointed" with the half-than-expected $12 mil box office for Grindhouse. So much so, that he's considering abandoning the double feature as a single feature concept and re-releasing the movie around the U.S. "in a couple of weeks" as two separate feature-length movies with additional footage put in. That's what Harvey says The Weinstein Co. is already intending to do with the film's release in Europe: split it into two separate pics, Quentin Tarantino's Death Proof and Robert Rodriguez's Planet Terror. "Quentin's movie goes out first in competition at Cannes. He'll do an extensive 4 to 5 month tour. And the trailer will be all Quentin's," Weinstein told me about his European plans. "Then we'll release Robert's a couple of months later. By splitting it up, we're going to do a hell of a lot better internationally than we did here." Weinstein noted that, even in Grindhouse's TV deal with Starz Entertainment Group, it's been sold as two separate movies. "Our deal with Encore is that they can play it any way they want." So this is why The Weinstein Co. is now deciding to suck it up and do in this country what it probably should have done all along. "First of all, I'm incredibly disappointed. We tried to do something new and obviously we didn't do it that well," Harvey told me today. "It's just a question of how is it going to hang in there. But we could split the movies in a couple of weeks. Make Tarantino's a full-length film, and Rodrqiguez's too. We'll be adding those 'two missing reels' that's talked about in the movie." (At one point in Grindhouse, a sex scene is interrupted because of "two missing reels".)

Weinstein pointed to several reasons why Grindhouse did so poorly in theaters over Easter weekend. "Our research showed the length kept people away. It was 3 hours and 12 minutes long. We originally intended to get it all in in 2 hours, 30 minutes. That would have been a better time. But the movies ran longer, the [fake] trailers ran longer, everything ran longer," Harvey told me. Weinstein also criticized his own marketing plan. "We didn't educate the South or Midwest. In the West and the East, the movie played well. It played well in strong urban settings. But we missed the boat on the Midwest and the South."

Posted: **Mon Apr 09, 2007 9:21 pm**

Barmy wrote:Not sure about the scar. It makes it better only in that Kurt survived and got tougher.

Could the Weinsteins BE any lamer. They are talking about replacing the missing reels.

Yes, Kurt has the scar in both halves.

As long as Vanessa Ferlito's lap dance gets put back in, and every scene that QT ruins with his jaw-droppingly talentless presence is dropped, I'll gladly sit through Grindhouse again!

criterionforum.org

Grindhouse (Tarantino/Rodriguez, 2007)