Early estimates put the Robert Rodriguez/Quentin Tarantino double feature Grindhouse at around $14 million for it’s opening weekend, far below the $20-$25 million predictions. Last year it was one of the most hyped movies on the internet. It’s a great movie. A cinematic experience. The best reviewed wide release of 2007 thus far. So why did Grindhouse fail?
So it came to my surprise that the film is showing only three times daily at some theaters. Sure, the double feature is over three hours long, and that limits the turnover of that screen. I also noticed that the new film is only being given one screen in a couple theaters in San Francisco (and most other cities). As opposed to a super summer release like Spider-Man, which in some theaters will own 7-8 screens per theater for its opening weekend. The film was originally scheduled for a nationwide midnight release but a week before opening that was downgraded to only 13 cities (13 theaters?).
We live in an age where movie studios can buy the number one spot opening weekend. It’s easy. You just need to put your movie on 3,500 screens. Grindhouse supposedly opened on 2,500 screens, which is not great for a big release (especially considering the film’s screen turn around time). To give you another example, Martin Scorsese’s The Aviator (a slightly shorter movie, with a slightly faster screen turn) made only $7.5 million when it expanded into 2,500 screens.
April 7th, 2007 at 11:54 am
Easter weekend may be part of the problem as well. I know a lot of people that planned to see it, but had to hold off because of family.
April 8th, 2007 at 12:55 pm
Wow, boxofficemojo.com has weekend estimates even lower ($11,591,000). I’m surprised “Grindhouse” did as poorly as it has opening weekend. Sure, I assumed fewer screens, longer running time, and the Easter weekend to play a part, but it still underperformed well below expectations. Maybe the pool of film geeks interested in seeing it (and dragging along their significant others) isn’t as large as Rodriguez/Tarantino/Weinstein thought it was. It’s hard to say at this point, though.
From what I could tell locally, everyone I rant into wanted to see Grindhouse, but they cited the running time (and yes family committments) as reasons for not seeing it this weekend. They hoped to see it next weekend or the weekend after that (under the assumption that a trip to the local multiplex would be a waste of time). Hope that it didn’t underperform because people assumed they wouldn’t be able to see it opening weekend. I’d assume the number of screens wouldn’t have an impact, since only diehards like us check the number of screens.
Maybe when all is said and done, Grindhouse will do really well on DVD. If you recall, Kingdom of Heaven made more $$$$ in the first week the DVD went on sale than it did in its entire run. Kill Bill Vol. 1 made about $70 million at the box office and about $40 million the first week the DVD went on sale.
April 8th, 2007 at 1:36 pm
I think that what hurts my pride the most is that “Are we Done Yet” beat Grindhouse.
Now I understand the family aspect… But come on!! I always thought a Tarantino release was as serious an event as a Scorcese’s….The DVD will be huge im sure, but i am a tad disappointed. I thought everone was as excited as me.. Hot Fuzz and Spiderman 3 here I come!
April 8th, 2007 at 1:57 pm
Sure Grindhouse opened at #4, but you know that its shelf-life will be a lot longer than
Are We Done Yet?
April 8th, 2007 at 5:11 pm
How will the shelf life be very long? It won’t ever be in 3000 theaters and it did as well on Saturday and Sunday as it did on Friday. Everyone who wanted to see it has seen it. I think they just overestimated who would spend money to see a three-hour homage to bad movies.
Grindhouse, despite everything in its favor, is pretty much DOA. It certainly won’t make another $12 - $15 million next weekend.
April 8th, 2007 at 5:57 pm
Colin, I think you misunderstood the preceding comments. “Shelf life” refers to DVD and cable, and not just the theatrical run. I don’t think anyone here will argue that Grindhouse will bring in $12-15 million dollars next weekend, but rather that it’ll be watched and re-watched by an ever-expanding fan base over the next 5-10 years. I don’t think the same thing can be said about Are We Done Yet? (as Volbeck suggested upthread).
April 8th, 2007 at 7:10 pm
Let’s hope the film bombed because Tarrantino and Rodriquez and the Hollywood establishment FINALLY underestimated the taste of the American public in opening such a piece of filth on Good Friday. I doubt it, though - I suspect it had more to do with the three hour run time, the lack of “bankable” stars and the 2500 vs 3500 screens. My local newspaper did their part to get people in, plastering it all over the weekender section of (Good) Friday’s paper. Wouldn’t it be nice of people really WERE sending Tarrantino, et al a message that they are tired of such filth? (If you think I am a right-wing knee-jerk or something, guess again: I worked for the Kerry campaign and am as liberal as anyone reading this blog - but I am sick, sick, sick of Tarrantino and his generation chipping away at the morals of our society in order to satisfy their sadistic fantasies and fill their purses. Abu Ghraib is the result of one generation weaned on their “art” - what will two or three generations sprout?
April 8th, 2007 at 7:39 pm
Fyodor -
What ever-expanding fan base? Tarantino’s? If he had a growing group of fans, then doesn’t it follow that it would’ve happened over the last dozen years or so? You know, to some point beyond a million-and-a-half people on opening weekend?
Planet Terror is a good, campy flick weighed down by the absolute drudgery of Death Proof. The writing is incredibly stilted and uninteresting and even the car chase gets old quickly because it’s so repetitive. And I say this as a guy who had Kill Bill 1 and 2 on his top ten lists for the year and Sin City in his top five two years ago.
It’s just not worth conducting the experiment to a lot of people, obviously.
April 8th, 2007 at 7:56 pm
Colin, interesting that you disregard most of my comments, but zero in on just one small part (the “ever-expanding fanbase” comment). Again, you’ve misunderstood what I and others meant, so let’s try it again.
As things stand, Grindhouse is and will be perceived as a box office failure, but in five or ten years time, the opposite might, just might be the case, thanks to a second life on DVD where it’s likely to gain “cult” status.
If you know anything about movie history, then you know that quite a few acknowledged classics failed at the box office (and note that I’m NOT calling “Grindhouse” a future classic, not yet anyway). For example, Citizen Kane failed at the box office. It consistently hits the number 1 spot on critics and directors lists over and over again (since the early 1960s, in fact). Blade Runner? Critics and audiences preferred ET back in 1982. Guess what? It’s considered a classic of the sci-fi genre. John Carpenter’s The Thing? Same thing. If all you go by is a how a movie did when it got released, then you’d have to stick to blockbusters and not much else.
As for this J Davis fellow upthread and his rude “filth” comments, it’s deeply sad to read such incredibly obnoxious, intolerant views on a message board. You may have worked on the Kerry campaign (kudos to you), but you are arguments are as backward and conservative as they come. Bringing down our culture? Responsibility for Abu Ghraib? You’ve got to be kidding. Bush, his neo-con toadies in the administration, and the defense establishment got us into Iraq (and won’t get us out). Don’t blame popular culture and if you do, you better be prepared to back up your statement with evidence and not just emotion.
AND I can’t help but ask, J Davis: what are you doing on a movie site on Easter Sunday? Seems like your priorities are out of whack. Shouldn’t you be watching King of Kings or something?
April 8th, 2007 at 8:42 pm
J Davis you talk filth and Good Friday in the same sentence. What was so good about Friday? I had to work like most Americans. I didn’t have fish I had a nice bloody steak and I think I cracked one or 2 Jesus jokes.
So stop hiding behind the religious curtain of what’s good and moral. Stop trying to tell all of us what to say and think. I mean if I want filth and violence I’ll read the bible most things can’t touch god on the vengeance kick or do you skip over those parts? Who gives a crap if your a grown man and still believe in a guy walking on water and some other all powerful being living in the sky then you got bigger problems then an R rated movie. You need to get in touch with reality.
If religion makes you feel better and gives you some false belief of why we are here then more power 2 you. The simple fact we are here because our parents got horny one night and forgot to strap on a condom. Pretty much goes back to caveman days. People get horny and babies are made.
Just because uptight a-holes like you in the middle ages decided that they needed to put an end to decadence and made up religion as their tool doesn’t mean in the 21st century you can keep using as the all might shield against everything unholy.
The only unholy thing is christens who preach forgiving and morals and turning the other cheek & Judge not thou thee shall be judged. Yet it’s fine to tell us what we should watch and every damn thing else under the sun.
Well F U and the horse you rode in on. Go tell Jesus he can blow me and goose the holy mother for me. After all how bad could Jesus be he had a hooker as his best friend.
April 8th, 2007 at 10:16 pm
Fyodor -
Would you like me to address your comment that Grindhouse, a flick made to never be shown on television, will have a better life on cable than a benign family movie sequel that ABC Family could show ad infinitum? Grindhouse may do well on DVD by comparison to its stagnant opening weekend, but to say that it will somehow transform into some kind of classic that everyone watches over and over again is premature. I frankly think the movie is too self-indulgent and too long to find an uninitiated audience, which is what it would need to attain the kind of status you want it to have.
Grindhouse is an interesting experiment and audiences have and always will treat it as one.
You’ve disregarded my comments, as well, notably that nobody wants to see Grindhouse. It came in at roughly 35% of what Box Office Mojo predicted; they’re never off like that.
The case of Citizen Kane is an odd choice, in my opinion. For one thing, that film was so reviled by the industry that it actually got booed when its Oscar nominations were announced at the ceremony. And, of course, let’s not forget the role of the Hearst newspaper chain in the initial failure of Kane. Grindhouse didn’t have an obstacle like the largest syndicate of newspapers in the country wanting to buy every last print and burn them.
It’s also odd that you’d compare an homage to bad movies to Citizen Kane. Just saying.
What I do not misunderstand, though, is that you’re making excuses for why this film has failed to connect with an audience, which happens as often as a movie like Wild Hogs really does register with them. Rather than accept that maybe, just maybe, the majority of moviegoers don’t want to watch a three-hour homage to bad movies with the staggering box office potency of Kurt Russell and a bunch of names they’ve never seen before, you’re saying that one day they will, that in five years its true glory will be seen by all.
I was as surprised as anyone that it failed, but as for why? Well, don’t blame Easter. The holiday weekend didn’t seem to bother any other film. Hell, Blades of Glory only lost 30% of its audience, and it outperformed expectations last weekend. It should’ve dropped to $18 million this weekend.
Until I see convincing evidence to the contrary, I’ll stick with the “nobody cares about Grindhouse” angle. Disprove it.
April 9th, 2007 at 7:34 am
Nobody cared about Fight Club either when it opened in theaters, but I doubt anyone can see that it failed. I think it is very premature to say Grindhouse failed. Also, I think it is juvenile to rate a movie’s worth by how much money it makes and not be how it effects what comes after it. True. most studio executives would rather be attached to Wild Hogs than Fight Club, or Are We Done Yet than Grindhouse. Oh well…
April 9th, 2007 at 9:01 am
I think it’s more premature to say Grindhouse will be a success. And I haven’t judged its worth based on its box office. I judged its worth based on seeing it and wanting to walk out during Death Proof, because it’s an awful wankfest.
April 9th, 2007 at 1:44 pm
Look guys, the bottom line is did you enjoy it? I think we all did. And if not the overall payoff of the film in general, im sure there was a certain aspect somewhere inthe film that someone dug. I for one, loved it through and through, the trailers were my fave but I like Quentin’s talky shit, and I loved all the zombies being mowed down by the truck. Pure Army of Darkness dummies being slammed! It was fun! Stop analyzing it to the point of bickering and lets all bask in the fact that sometime soon, this movie will get its due.
April 9th, 2007 at 8:52 pm
Wow, some of you are just plain asses. Bad dialogue?? Come on, Tarantino’s writing is fantastic. His dialogue is natural and it progresses like conversations do in real life. It lets you understand the character more. The whole point to not having “bankable” actors is that you focus on the characters, not the fact that your favorite $20m a movie actress is kicking ass and taking names. The point is that it’s an homage. If you’ve ever seen a solid grindhouse movie you’d realize it’s very true to the genre.
I work at a theater, you guys talking about the bad dialogue and the “filth”and whatnot are probably the same bunch of retards who kept asking “hey, this film’s missing a reel…can I get a refund??” I’ve seen people coming out of Are We Done Yet? angry and frustrated, asking for a refund because the movie was so bad. Every single person coming out of Grindhouse was grinning huge and laughing and quoting it and everything.
Who can blame the directors for the movie being in a smaller release?? It’s just a tad controversial, you know?? My theater is run by a rather conservative guy who refused to put up the cardboard display for Black Snake Moan because it was too racy and he thought it might inspire racial tensions in a quaint southern village like Atlanta. Frankly I’m surprised we’re getting 3 screenings of Grindhouse a day, three showings of 3 and a half hours apiece (previews, credits, etc) comes out to just over 10 hours of film and we take 30 mins between showings for cleaning. With The Departed we were just barely squeaking out 4 showings a day per screen (and the last one didn’t let out until 1:30am almost). Our friends J Davis and Mr. Colin don’t seem to get it. Poor taste?? A point of contention. Personally I think Mel Gibson’s Passion of the Christ was one of the least tasteful movies I’ve ever seen. Tyler Perry’s movies are distasteful. Police Academy is distasteful. An homage to bad films you say… Go watch any of the films mentioned in Death Proof (Dirty Mary, Crazy Larry…Vanishing Point…or Thriller for that matter, the 1974 Swedish grindhouse flick that had to be edited down to 74 minutes for US audiences, not the Michael Jackson music video). Bad is also a matter of opinion. It’s sheer pulpy fun. Grindhouse was easily the most entertained I’ve ever been by any movie.
It’s sleazy, it’s gory, it’s over the top, it’s hilarious, it’s fun, and it’s an all over good time. Maybe if you pulled the stick out of your ass you’d remember what cinema is all about, escapism, and having fun. In that respect, Grindhouse is far from a failure. No one ever said it was going to be The Godfather, or Forrest Gump, or The Departed, and if you were expecting something like that, then you’re even stupider than I thought. I can only cross my fingers and hope that the rumors about Machete being in the works are true and that it’s twice as over the top as the false preview insinuates.
If you don’t like it, fine. Everyone’s got their own thing. But don’t bitch about it and don’t call it a failure because it didn’t gross as much money as Spiderman. Somehow I doubt that Quentin and Robert did it for the money.
And as for proving you wrong about nobody caring about it?? Well, you managed to get a bunch of people with nothing better to do than call you an asshole for saying it sucked. Seems like it matters a bunch to some of us. You’ll probably call the Aqua Teen movie a flop too when it doesn’t open at $40m next weekend. Who gives a shit?? It’s not about money, it’s not about easter weekend, it’s about making entertainment, about having fun at the theater. Why don’t you got listen to some Creed and watch a Jesus movie you bunch of prudes.
April 10th, 2007 at 12:15 am
Vanishing Point is a great flick. Death Proof is far from it. It’s overbearingly self-important and half-formed, with completely unnatural dialogue (the Robert Frost poem? A lot of hot twentysomething chicks in Austin using that these days?) I have seen several Grindhouse movies and you’re underscoring the point with your argument: Most people haven’t, which is why most people avoided the double feature. Nobody cares about an homage to movies they didn’t see in the first place.
Yes, Tarantino is a master at writing dialogue; the Superman speech in Kill Bill 2 is some of the greatest dialogue I’ve ever heard. I don’t know what happened here, but the entire movie goes nowhere, primarily because it’s too much talk about nothing. And it’s badly constructed nothing.
He doesn’t have interesting characters to work with (outside of Kurt Russell), and say what you want about his dialogue, it’s better coming from Jules or Beatrix Kiddo than it is some anonymous college girl who’s interchangeable with the other college girls at her table.
I’m just trying to do is figure out why everyone on this thread is so damned positive that Grindhouse is a success when - what’s that? - Harvey Weinstein lost his nuts and is going to split the movies up, thereby effectively killing the double feature idea thereby admitting the Grindhouse experiment is a failure. The studio boss waited a day to not just decide to radically alter the most expensive cheap movie ever made but to announce it. That’s a bad sign.
For the record, I’ve never condemned the film for being in bad taste. I actually liked the things that were in the worst taste most of all. But the movie bombed, they’re already scrambling to fix the problem, and the grand experiment is DOA.
What I find most fascinating is the feckless excuses for why it could’ve bombed that aren’t related to the obvious fact that people didn’t care and people didn’t get it. The numbers support it, Weinstein’s admitting it, yet everyone here seems to be saying that its box office failure is due to its run time or Easter or limited theaters. Its per-screen average was less than Are We Done Yet? After all, if money weren’t important, why is this topic called “Why Grindhouse Failed”?
I’m just trying to point out why.
Why is it so hard to grasp that people aren’t interested in seeing this?
April 10th, 2007 at 9:51 am
You may be right that people didn’t want to see this movie, but, when you consider that the people your talking about ran out to see ” Are we done yet? ” the weekend of its release, does that really mean anything? I saw Grindhouse at Ten pm at a theater in NYC on Thursday, I saw roughly ten trailers for coming films and I wouldn’t pay to see one of them, these films will make money though. Point being that the average person who goes to see a wide release these days has no taste for film (good film that is), especially not films like Planet Terror and Deathproof. As for Deathproof, I actually ended up enjoying it more than Planet Terror and thought it was the more original film, the reason people like you have trouble with the dialogue in the film is that so often you encounter dialogue that is so bad, unrealistic, and poorly acted that you don’t know when your getting some good stuff. The bottom line is when you look at every movie available to you at the multiplex in Anytown, USA (with the exception of something like Blades of Glory or Ninja turtles and the like, which serve there purpose.), I think you’ll find that Grindhouse is the most original one playing (and that’s saying a lot considering the films are a homage to a genre). Grindhouse is worth the price of admission just for the trailers preceding the films (and Nicolas Cage as Fu Manchu).
April 10th, 2007 at 11:15 pm
Okay, well what about the Royale w/ cheese conversation?? Though a few mentions and allusions are made to it later in the film, it’s not exactly what one would call a central plot aspect. The dialogue in Death Proof is the same way. Though not necessarily relevant to the central plot, it’s overwhelmingly important in terms of character developement. Calling it half-formed is an ignorant oversight. That’s pretty much a central element of grindhouse b-movie flicks, that’s the point of the “missing reels”. You’re not supposed to know the full details of exactly what’s going on at all times. The point is that you fill it in for yourself and pretty much everyone who sees it gets a different view of what happened and comes away with an entirely different idea in some cases. After watching it me and my girlfriend asked each other what we both though could have transpired during the “reel missing” segments and we both had drastically different ideas. I think the reason you dislike this film is because it forces you to be imaginative and think for yourself. This is probably the only way it deviates from the grindhouse structure. It’s smarter than your average b-movie and more money went into it, but it sticks to the spirit.
As for splitting it up into two seperate features, that’s simple economics. For example, at my theater we had only one screen devoted to showing the double feature and we’re pushing it to try and get 4 screenings in a day. Splitting it up into two features does two things: 1) It cuts showtime and turnaround time in half, rather than showing the double feature 3 or 4 times a day, Death Proof and Planet Terror air seperately 6 times a day. 2) It doubles profits. Well…if everyone sees both it probably comes close to actually triples profits. Rather than paying $7 to see one movie, John Q. Public now pays $14 to see two pictures. Plus, maybe someone only wants to see one of the movies and feels like 3 and a half hours is a bit much to commit to a theater experience, well, now that’s one more person that’s going to see the movie that wouldn’t have gone before.
You’re making the claim that the low profits thus far prove that the b-movie homage was the cause, when in fact it seems a lot more that the issue is the double feature aspect of the picture. It just isn’t profitable anymore to do that, and in fact it never was, unless the movies had very low production values and could stay in theaters for longer times. These days your average movie is only in theaters for 3-4 weeks, and with 90% of theater-goers seeing movies exclusively on the weekends, that drastically reduces your target market.
If anything is a failure here it’s the double feature experiment. Clearly based on peoples’ responses and reviews all over, it’s not the quality of the films that is at issue. Why can’t you accept that the movie was well-liked by everyone who saw it and that the postive reviews and buzz surrounding it are genuine??
And finally, to answer your question, it’s titled “Why Grindhouse Failed” because someone (not unlike yourself), bases their assumptions of the quality and longevity of a film on it’s box office gross on opening weekend. If you want to act superior and call Blades of Glory a better film, that’s fine, but do it on your own time and a year from now ask a dozen people about Blades of Glory and Grindhouse and see which one more people remember. I’m not saying you’re going to see results in dollar figures now, but just watch, it’ll happen. You may never see a double feature make it to mainstream cinema again, but I can pretty much guarantee you that within a year you will see more grindhouse style homages. Sadly, you’ll probably also see another family-friendly Will Ferrell or Ice Cube movie that’s mildly funny have a good opening weekend.
Personally, I had a lot of fun watching Grindhouse and I look forward to the dvd release, and it certainly seems like a lot of other people share that opinion. You can remain narrow minded and pissy about it if that’s what you want, but arguing over the internet about the success or failure of a movie that’s been fairly well received seems like a pretty trivial thing to do. Maybe you and the author of this article can get together and share your opinions and whatnot, but frankly this is beginning to seem like a waste of time.
I don’t think you’re going to change anyone’s mind, so maybe you should commit yourself to something more useful. Perhaps you should go out and write a similar screenplay yourself. If you can write, produce, and market a double feature and have it perform better, then maybe I’ll entertain your belief that the movie was a flop, but until then, I bid you adieu.
April 11th, 2007 at 12:55 pm
“Royale with Cheese” is great conversation between two characters whose relationship is integral to the storyline. Jules and Vega are a common thread through the anthology of stories in the film. Also, “Royale with Cheese” illustrates how borderline ordinary these guys think their highly unusual job is. You couldn’t sympathize with the characters if all they talked about was killing their next mark.
The storyline in Grindhouse has nothing to do with the conversations between Ro Dawson, Tracie Thoms and Zoe Bell. What does any of it set up? All we need from their 30 - 40 minutes of chat for purposes of advancing the story is that Zoe Bell is a stunt performer, and frankly, I think without that knowledge the chase would’ve been a better surprise. Nothing that’s ever mentioned develops into anything later on (except the far-fetched “I found my dream car in mint condition in rural Tennessee” angle), and the ‘overwhelming importance’ this dialogue has on character development is useless, because again, the development of the characters is thrown away the second the chase begins. For the last 20 - 25 minutes of Death Proof, there is zero character interaction, much less development. You’re telling me a movie that devotes 3/5 of its time to character development and 2/5ths of its time disregarding the ‘overwhelming importance’ of the other 3/5ths is somehow well-written? It’s good writing to have characters engage in a long-winded debate about whether or not to surf on the hood of a car rather than just showing us that? “That’s the way the characters are, man” might be your response. OK, then in that case, let’s see them order their food in the diner, because knowing if they’re wishy-washy on menu items or are mean to servers will tell us a lot more about who they are.
I have no problem with character development, even some at the expense of a rigid storyline. But come on. That movie is anything but efficient. It’s needlessly languid and esoteric.
Experimental, yes. But that doesn’t always mean good, and in this case, I thought QT has playing slow pitch.
The missing reels in Death Proof had to do with cutting out the lap dance and other like performance pieces, specifically so more conversation and the car chase could be squeezed in, or so Mary Elizabeth Winstead told me (http://www.bigpictureradio.com/dailypodcast040607.mp3). So if that’s the case, why not trim the lengthy chase to make room for even more dialogue that leads nowhere, but gosh, sure gets us closer to characters the writer-director completely abandons at the end?
The “simple economics” argument doesn’t apply. They already made a double feature that “simple economics” dictated would be a tough sell. Then, “simple economics” would also tell you throwing half the amount of your film’s inflated budget on top of that already inflated budget to more aggressively market a film you don’t think people will understand (or so Weinstein said) is also a bad idea. So now you’ve got a film that’s supposed to look and feel cheap with a $100 million price tag. Simple economics?
Defending cutting it in half - which, by the way, renders moot the entire reason for making the film a double feature homage to movies typically seen as double features in the first place - is just another apologist stance, as if they wanted to do it that way all along. If they knew it was a tough sell, and they did, then “simple economics” would’ve kicked in long before now. This is the same company that delayed releasing Miss Potter by three months because ‘the market was too crowded.’ So to say they somehow had a stroke of genius here flies in the face of logic.
The movie wasn’t liked by everyone who saw it. That’s just not true. Hell, even on Yahoo! Movies it doesn’t get an A from critics or consumers. Well-sharpened argument there. Way to research. Its rating at Rotten Tomatoes has fallen so it’s not your coveted “Best Reviewed Wide Release of the Year” now, but what does that matter if “Everybody Likes It?”
I don’t think Blades of Glory or Are We Done Yet? are better films, incidentally, though I do think Blades served its menial purpose better than Grindhouse. I doubt we’ll see a lot of Grindhouse homages, as you indicate, unless there are bunch of them already in production. Do you know of any? They better hurry up and get crankin’ or you’re going to owe somebody something on your guarantee. Hey, good thing the iron is so hot right now for Grindhouse movies! This is the best week possible to get one into production!
As for what I’ll see if that happens, the answer is all of them. I’m a movie critic; it kind of goes with the territory.
April 12th, 2007 at 7:06 pm
As I sit reading everyone’s comments while listening to the Grindhouse Soundtrack I can honestly say that I feel everyone has made valid points. I’ve seen the movie twice and enjoyed the experience both times. In my opinion Grindhouse has been one of the best theater experiences I’ve ever had. I have never been a part of a movie audience that has been so vocal and animated about what they were witnessing on a screen. Much can be said about the content of this film as compared to the content of “traditional†movie. But one thing is for sure I’ve never sat in a “traditional†movie and experienced the same type of reactions and then walking away looking at the other movie goers laugh as though we were all leaving an amusement park.
With all of that said I feel as though “Death Proof†was not at the same level of creatively or in delivery as “Planet Terrorâ€. I feel it would fail even worse as a stand alone film. I like Tarantino, I really do, but I felt as though the dialog was over done and too much like other Tarantino films. It felt rehashed, stale, and at times just plain unnecessary. I did like the concept of “Death Proof†and laughed my ass off at Kurt Russell whining like a bitch while getting his ass kicked. I liked the contrast between the two sets of woman in how one set seemed to be weak and self absorbed while the others seemed independent and strong. But Tarantino himself said that he was paying homage to “slasher†type movies from yesteryear and if that was truly the intent I didn’t feel it or see it. I did however enjoy during my second go round the references to “Death Proof in “Planet Terror†that unless you had seen it before you wouldn’t have understood.
But regardless I will most likely see it again in theaters and will be buying it on DVD. I hope that they don’t break them apart in to separate movies as this will detract from the experience.
I would love to see Grindhouse 2 with four mini movies based off of the trailers that didn’t exceed two hours. That would be crazy…
April 13th, 2007 at 7:55 pm
What was the production cost of Grindhouse?
Rodriguez knows how to turn middling box office into tidy profits:
by keeping costs down. Death proof was hardly big budget, either.
April 13th, 2007 at 8:02 pm
The production plus P&A costs come out to over $100 million. The studio only makes around 40-50% of the box office gross, and who knows how much of the dvd sales. The movie will probably eventually break even (after tv deals, dvd and foreign box office) but, from what i understand, it’s doubtful that the film will ever become very profitable
April 16th, 2007 at 12:06 pm
Sorry guys, the movie(s) just weren’t that good. PT was not bad, but DP was pretty dull. So I’m sure word of mouth didn’t help.
April 17th, 2007 at 6:18 am
The timing was all wrong end of story. To spend 100 million on a movie released on Easter weekend when it should have been released in the summer is insane. This movie would work best at the drive inn for sure and would have made a tonne if timed right.
May 4th, 2007 at 3:06 pm
I know how to cheer everybody up!!
Go watch Hot Fuzz
July 7th, 2007 at 1:03 am
Watch the movie. If you like it… you like it. If you hate the movie… then you hate it. Just don’t bitch endlessly online to people that don’t care. I think people should just learn to shut the f**k up. That’s a better solution. Whether you liked the film or not… shut the f**k up. It will solve all problems :D.