Grindhouse…

With Grindhouse just about to leave theaters for good (it dropped down to 14th, garnering a paltry $1.4 million and a wincingly-bad $950 per screen), I ran out to see it while I could.  I was especially alarmed by reports that the Weinstein Brothers, who released the film, where already screwing with it.  Apparently in some theaters they are skipping the fake coming attraction trailers for imaginary films, and using the time to insert an intermission.

In any case, I’m not going to go through the film in any great detail.  I really liked it, more than Slither (which was pretty good), and maybe as much or even more than Snakes on a Plane, which I loved.  However, it confirms my belief, stated in an earlier blog entry, that such films are just too inside baseball to draw mass audiences.  Nerds are an increasingly noisy minority, because of our dominance of the Internet, but yet a small minority.  I’m glad I saw the film in theaters while I could, though.

With the film a bomb at the box office (although I imagine it will do well enough on home video to at least break even), there are supposed plans to break Grindhouse into its two constituent movies, expand each—both films, as a gag, have ‘missing reels’ that can be reinserted—and re-lease them separately.  Eh, why bother.

There are tons of ’70s film nerd gags like the missing reels, and I’m sure many people have gone through and documented as many as they can.  My favorite, though, is that for about half a second the second feature, Death Proof, flashes another title on the screen; “Thunderbolt,” I think.  At this the screen cuts to a black card with Death Proof written on it in blocky letters. 

The gag is that back in the drive-in circuit days, distributors would often cheat the then obligatory double or triple bills by re-releasing old exploitation fare as part of the package.  To fool people into thinking they were getting something new, they would re-title the movie.  This happened all the time.  However, reshooting the opening credits would have cost money—although this was done sometimes—and if they just cut the old title out without replacing the footage the soundtrack would skip.  So a lot of times they went to a black card, as they do here, or would freeze-frame an image just before the old title appeared, and superimpose the new title over that.  (You sometimes see this on cheapie videocassettes, too, which would sometimes use the altered prints as their source.)

That’s a great reference, but even among hardcore geeks, probably only 10%, if that, of viewers are going to ‘get’ it.  In a better world, larger audiences would come to enjoy the film’s many, many more obvious delights, while such spoofery would just add extra sugar for the knowing.  However, ‘normal’ people just didn’t seem interested in this.  Too bad.

Probably the best compliment I can pay Grindhouse was that when it was over, I surprised to have it end so quickly.  And that’s with a 3 hour and 15 minute running time.  (Although presumably that length, rather than striking people as a ticket-buying bargain, struck them as too long to keep their asses parked in a theater seat.)  I’ve seen 90 minute movies that caused me to squirm with boredom, so this is something of an accomplishment.

By the way, I broke another Old Man milestone with this movie, as I went to see it at 10:15 in the morning, as that was the only time of the day I could see it for $5 rather than $10.  It’s probably also the first time I’ve gone to see a movie by myself in a couple of years, at least.

  • Ohh. Thanks for explaining that bit with the title cards; I’m too young to have had the grindhouse experience firsthand, so that just confused me.

    I really enjoyed this movie. I saw it in the intended format, with all the trailers intact (though, honestly, I could have lived without the knife through the trampoline). My favorite meta joke was the supercheap local restaurant commercial, because of a detail that has not changed through the years – those pictures of carefully arranged plates that are designed to appeal to potential customers and show off what the restaurant has to offer, but are spoiled by the fact that said plates clearly sat around for hours to congeal and were shot with crappy film and poorly processed, so that the food has an appetizing purple/yellow tinge. Yum!

    I suspect this movie will make its money back through the video release. It has major appeal to video nerds (aka, people who spend half their income on DVDs – and that’s not a knock, I’d be one of ’em if I had any of my income left after rent, bills, and food!) and the uniqueness of it gives it a good chance of becoming a cult classic.

  • Ken HPoJ

    Cathryn —

    Good catch on even noticing the first title, which
    appeared very briefly. And that’s the way it should have been; you don’t make a joke funnier by belaboring it.

    I noticed that food too, and it was hilarious. Anyone with a DVD containing old drive-in theater concession ads knows that it was spot on. They could never get the color right on those films, and since they were shown every night for years, they faded on top of it, and the food would look awful.

    I’d heard about the knife through the trampoline thing, and frankly it was one of the things that made me concerned that the film would be too gross for me to enjoy. It wasn’t *that* bad, though.

    A warning, though: supposedly that exact bit was one of the things that got trimmed to keep the film from getting an NC-17 rating (Entertainment Weekly reported that it was much nastier in the beginning, so I assume we see her actually land on the knife or something), and I assume the DVD will feature the “uncensored” cut.

    I’m with you on the money / DVD thing, sadly. It’s a sign of my financial straits that I hardly buy any DVDs anymore.

  • RobU

    I loved this movie and was glad I got the chance to see it in the theater. However, I admit that at about the 2 1/2 hour mark, I felt that the movie came to a crashing halt. Once Tarantino dropped his “hommage” style in favor of a personal love letter to both Zoe Bell and himself, the film ceased to become fun for me anymore. Perhaps it threw the pacing of the entire experience off for me. If only Zoe and her friends had been escaped convicts from a women’s prison–THEN we would have been on to something!

    Regardless, I still loved the show, and I agree that, as much as it saddens me, there is a limited audience for this sort of project….

  • Pfft, doesn’t the MPAA know that not showing the monster is way scarier than showing it? The images my brain helpfully provided after the glimpse of the knife coming up and her dropping down are, I’m sure, far worse than what the movie would have had to offer. Of course, part of me also thinks it’s funny that I went this long without seeing on film a moment designed to make *women* cross their legs . . .

    As for the titlecards, I guess I just managed not to blink at the right moment. The only reason I even remember it is because I thought, “Wait, I don’t remember anything about a subtitle from the reviews.” I had forgotten it until your mention jogged my memory.

  • Chris Magyar

    I should point out that the infamous trampoline kill was done first in Brad Pitt’s Cutting Class.

  • Ed Richardson

    Although “Grindhouse” was sort of a disappointment for me, I was surprised at the witheringly bad reception it got in terms of the box office. I don’t think it’s because the movie was esoteric. The concept was no more bizarre than “Kill Bill” (which was a single movie prior to the Weinstein bros decision to release it as two films). Frankly, what could have been more bizarre and way off the mainstream than “Pulp Fiction” when it came out?

    One cannot blame the release date either, although it did open after “300” blitzed the box office, so how many people are going to spend $30 to take their date to see a movie after they did so just weeks prior?

    One can’t blame it on the star power of the directors. Rodriguez hit success city with “Sin City” and sequels are being filmed back to back. Tarantino is an even bigger name.

    This is down to the pacing and writing of the two films. Rodriguez got too campy and Tarantino didn’t get campy enough. And we’ve all seen it before. Tarantino did homage to blaxploitation with “Jackie Brown” – Tarantino did homage to 70s kung-fu movies with “Kill Bill.”

    Can Tarantino leave the 70s alone now and just film a movie? This is why I got excited when I heard he was writing and directing “Inglorious Bastards.” You just want to see him do something that doesn’t involve background music from something that was released on 8 Track thirty years ago.

    I loved two things about “Grindhouse” – the trailers, which I thought were utterly superior to the two films, and the intense performance of Freddy Rodriguez, whose agent’s phone has to be ringing off the hook.

    Ok, three things – Rose McGowan.

  • Chris Magyar

    See, I don’t think the lack of success has anything to do with the mainstream audience, but the cult one. I’ve read a surprising number of reviews like Ed’s that take Grindhouse to task for not being good enough. This is shocking to me. Cult movie fans must be so coddled and catered to in this day of niche DVD releases, near-constant obscure superhero movies, cable channels, and devotional internet sites that the edge has been taken out of this miracle.

    And it is a miracle of a movie. Planet Terror is only the second legitimate gross-out exploitation movie to hit screens since the ’80s (and is vastly superior to the first, Slither). Death Proof, for all the traits it shares with Tarantino’s earlier work, is more than a 90-minute homage, but a tightly crafted and masterful blend of dialogue and action, that manages to recall cheapo ’70s drive-in films while also being, in the final analysis, better than them. In fact, I’d assert that both movies achieve what most b-movies only aspired to.

    And maybe that’s what leaves cult movie fans cold. Is the enjoyment of overlooking flaws (while nitpicking them) more important than the enjoyment of pulp genre fare?

    But then I get when people say the trailers were the best part. The trailers were funny, but they were all straight-up parody humor. Very conventional. I guess too many people went into Grindhouse expecting something like Scary Movie (Cult Movie?), so word-of-mouth and repeat viewings never took hold.

    Not that it matters. Tarantino’s career is as death proof as the car, and Rodriguez can turn profits in his sleep. People are analyzing the box office on this as if it matters, but it doesn’t. Nobody’s career is at stake (except for those, like Freddy Rodriguez and Zoe Bell, who will get a major boost out of it), and apparently cult movie fans don’t enjoy seeing new exploitation movies on the big screen anyway. Disappointing, but duly noted.

  • Ed Richardson

    I didn’t expect “Grindhouse” to open to figures anywhere near what “Transformers” is going to command on July 4th. But one would expect “Grindhouse” to open like a “Sin City” or “Kill Bill,” which it most certainly did not. I’m not sure this is a cult thing versus a mainstream thing – the movie’s not bad regardless of the retro love one holds for the material. But frankly, there’s nothing new for Rodriguez (blowing away hordes of monsters, uber-babes with guns) or Tarantino (homage to 70’s cinema) here. He’s genuflected to 70’s blaxploitation, 70’s martial arts movies, and now grindhouse fare. I just think he needs to pick up the script for “Inglorious Bastards” and shoot a killer WWII movie with Stallone or some other worthy whose career could use a good Tarantino defibrillator. Enough with the 70’s homage. Or fine, but let’s have an homage to the great WWII movies of the 60’s and 70’s. But already my hopes are getting dashed because I’ve just read that Quentin wants to shoot an “old-school Kung Fu movie in Mandarin with subtitles in some countries, and release a shorter, dubbed cut in others.” No. Really?

    And while I know Tarantino’s career is death proof (yuk yuk) I can guarantee you that his funding is not. You can usually bomb once in Hollywood, but you can’t bomb twice, I don’t care who you are. If you need $90 million to make a movie and your last effort dropped dead at the box office you’re going to have to look pretty hard for that money. David Twohy was all lined up to shoot the third film for the Riddick franchise until “Chronicles of Riddick” opened poorly at the box office and studio execs pulled that money and put it in the hands of Peter Jackson for another Kong film (Jackson is filming “Son of Kong). I know this because I watched one of them say as much on tv.

    “Chronicles of Riddick” had a global box office take of $115m and it cost $105m to make. That’s terrible. Twohy stated that any future sequel hinges on worldwide DVD sales.

    That’s a perfect example of a writer/director (“The Fugitive”, “Pitch Black”) getting a movie axed because of one box office lemon. This happens all the time, and Quentin’s not immune from it either and one imagines that a “Grindhouse 2” will be hinging on DVD sales. The studio is already in a Tour de France of backpedaling and trying to split the film to make it more marketable here and in Europe.

    Not. Good.

    But hey, it’s a nice bit of irony when a movie about cheap box office bombs….um, bombs.

  • I believe the carryover principle in Hollywood means that one success is worth three or four failures- hence, even after BRAZIL and ADVENTURES OF BARON MUNCHAUSEN (one of the biggest flops of all time, but really a good film) Terry Gilliam could get work because TIME BANDITS had been a hit.

    Twohy’s situation was probably different because he specifically wanted to make a sequel to RIDDICK, as opposed to something else altogether. It does seem like there’s not going to be another GRINDHOUSE double feature, which is a damn shame, but Tarantino can probably get something else going no sweat.

    But yeah, fine film(s) IMO. The shame about it not making money is that it really will lose something on DVD, so you need to catch it in theaters. Splitting the films won’t do much good either (I’m not sure PLANET TERROR’s missing reel was ever filmed- the whole joke is that the next scene keeps referring back to stuff we missed.)

  • Chris Magyar

    There’s a gulf of difference between Twohy and Tarantino. Twohy had a few hits, one of which was a complete surprise. Tarantino has managed to combine the rare blend of box office success and critical acclaim that makes studios drool, because it not only garners them money, but status. (This is what the morbid fascination with box office numbers misses. Yes, Hollywood is first and foremost a cash machine, but there’s more than money behind all that Oscar pomp: in H’wood, huge bank accounts are a dime a dozen, but stroked egos and “it” factors are the real prize.) Pulp Fiction is one of those touchstone movies that will come to define the ’90s, and I promise that no matter how many flawed films he churns out, Tarantino will have an era to himself (much the way Kubrick “owns” the ’60s, Scorsese the ’70s, Spielberg the ’80s). He also does not ask for $200+ million budgets. That’s why nobody needs to worry about him disappearing (unless he goes off the deep-end or puts together a string of critically-panned AND box-office bombing movies).

    Rodriguez, on the other hand, simply works cheaply. His status is more precarious, but he really only needs one hit every five movies or so to justify himself, so I think he’ll survive.

    The most vulnerable entity in all this is the studio. The Weinstein Bros. offerings have not set the world on fire, and this movie was supposed to be their big marquee coming out party. If anyone gets hosed by the “unexpected” lack of receipts here, it’s them.

    And I think you’re right that it would be nice to see Tarantino do something different next time out. Don’t be too annoyed with the martial arts movie, though. It seems like he enjoys announcing a handful or projects for every one that he actually makes, and I wouldn’t be surprised if he’s just fantasizing in public about that one.

  • Ed Richardson

    I like Tarantino, but really, any comparison of him being an auteur anywhere near the level of a Stanley Kubrick is fundamentally, egregiously incorrect. And I would argue that Kubrick “owned” a good deal of the 70’s (“Clockwork Orange,” “Barry Lyndon”) and the 80’s (“The Shining” – regarded as one of the greatest horror films ever – “Full Metal Jacket” – regarded as one of the greatest war movies ever).

    Sentiments echoing the above resounded from virtually every film critic when “Jackie Brown” hit theaters to a tepid reception. One can argue that Quentin is an auteur, but unlike Kubrick, Tarantino’s personal vision is no more than reliving the glory days of working in a video store and munching on junk food 70’s schlock. I love “Pulp Fiction” as much as everyone here and, in a way, it really does represent a 90’s American zeitgeist, but doing this stuff over and over – the pop culture monologues, the stylized violence, the film geek references to Spaghetti Westerns, Wuxia, blaxploitation, the retro soundtracks, etc…it just seems a bit tired and very mainstream.

    If he does “Inglorious Bastards” I would welcome the Quentin humor, I would welcome the stylized violence being shifted to a war setting rather than slickly dressed guys with guns, and I would welcome the absolute absence of pop culture references and a 70’s based soundtrack.

    He is clearly influenced by everything 70’s cinema, but I welcome an homage to “The Dirty Dozen,” “The Great Escape,” and “Where Eagles Dare” than to the schlock. I know the schlock can be entertaining, but it’s time for a change.

    I agree that he’s always going to be working. He’s as much a writer (“True Romance,” “Natural Born Killers,” “From Dusk till Dawn”) as a director and he’s worked a good bit in television, so he will never want for work. He will always find money to direct and actors who will work cheaply for him, I just think you’re getting the fever dream of a Los Angeles video store clerk. Tarantino’s artistic progeny consists of directors like Rodriguez and Rob Zombie for chrissake. The older he’s gotten, the more he’s slowed down a bit and I enjoy the slower, more character-building moments of “Kill Bill 2” than the “Game of Death” slash and burn of “Kill Bill.” I think what hurt “Death Proof” is that he brought that temperance to a movie (“Grindhouse”) that was the absolute last place where it should be.

    The cool thing about him shooting “Inglorious Bastards,” at least for me, would be to see how he handles war. His violence so far is stylish, often funny, sometimes pop nihilism bubblegum stuff. When I think of great war movie moments I think of the slow motion helicopters whipping over the napalm to “The End” in the opening to “Apocalypse Now” (much less the wicked Duvall scenes in that movie). I think of the killer boot camp half of “Full Metal Jacket,” the foxhole firefight in “Platoon.”

    I’m sure he’s totally up to the task of handling large scale violence and I know he knows the trick of great war movies is to make the violence close and personal (otherwise it’s ranks of nothingness shooting at each other a’la “Glory”).

    I would so much like to see this than him remaking “Vanishing Point” or dabbling in giallo more or doing an homage to “Rolling Thunder” or something.

  • Charlie Hustle

    I am just desperately hoping they leave it intact on DVD and don’t mess with it. (From what I’ve read, the “missing reels” weren’t actually filmed.)

    One thing I did read that gave me confidence was in an interview with Simon Pegg promoting the excellent “Hot Fuzz”, he said that in the “Don’t” trailer, he had a 2 second cameo. Sadly it was cut for timing reasons, but he said it’ll be put back in on the DVD release. He spoke as if he knew for sure it was going to be there.

    If they release it as it was released theatrically, I’ll buy it in a heartbeat. If they mess with it and cut it up, remove the trailers, or put them as extras, the Weinstein’s can, to be blunt, go to hell.

  • Ed Richardson

    I don’t think the world would be lacking in greatness if, God forbid, seconds or even minutes from “Grindhouse” were lost to fate on the (ahem) DVD release.

    I don’t mean to sound like a highbrow but really, watch “The Prestige” or “300” or “Casino Royale” or “Apocalypto” and get back to me about how “Grindhouse” stacks up.

    What you’re watching with “Grindhouse” is a fanboy who’s a great cinematographer (Tarantino) who lauched a career during the birth of the Indie film era and his student (Rodriguez) who is little more talented than any other MTV director.

    Seriously, watch “The Prestige” – watch Nolan’s other great film “Memento” – watch “300” and if you’ve already watched these then ask yourself, do you want another Tarantino 70’s comic book, or do you want an original film.

    ?

    I’m sure he’ll go about writing a zombie movie or a vigilante script or something. The simple fact is: he really has done the same thing since “Reservoir Dogs.” That was a strong movie and “Pulp Fiction” was brilliant, but he needs to not rest on his laurels and he needs to CHANGE. That’s the trick.

  • “…do you want another Tarantino 70’s comic book, or do you want an original film.>

    Actually, if I could compel one film, it would be a Tarantino Luke Cage movie shot in the style of a ’70s blaxploitation flick.