XIXAX Film Forum

The Director's Chair => Quentin Tarantino => Topic started by: MacGuffin on May 26, 2005, 12:11:11 AM

Title: Grind House
Post by: MacGuffin on May 26, 2005, 12:11:11 AM
Weinsteins' 'godfathers' set to 'Grind'
Source: Hollywood Reporter

Quentin Tarantino, whose "Pulp Fiction" helped turn Miramax Films into a powerhouse, and Robert Rodriguez, whose "Spy Kids" movies have been a lucrative franchise for Miramax's genre arm Dimension, are teaming up to make a film for Bob and Harvey Weinstein's new Weinstein Co. The film is scheduled for a spring 2006 release as part of a rapidly evolving release slate, further details of which the Weinsteins announced Wednesday. Tarantino and Rodriguez will each write and direct a 60-minute horror film, and the two films will be packaged together under the overall title "Grind House." The film, which is planned for a spring 2006 release, also will include its own trailers, bonus materials and added extras from other filmmakers that will be packaged together between the two horror flicks in a tribute to the old, big-city movie houses like those on New York's 42nd Street that earned the moniker grindhouses for programming genre pics back to back. An aficionado of grindhouse, Tarantino sampled grindhouse genres in his recent "Kill Bill" films. He said "Grind House" could be the first in a series of films. In a statement, the Weinsteins said, "We couldn't imagine anything more exciting than a film being made together by the two godfathers of our companies, Quentin and Robert."
Title: Grind House
Post by: Ghostboy on May 26, 2005, 02:09:05 AM
The part about the fake trailers and all that sort of has me sold on the whole thing already.
Title: Grind House
Post by: modage on May 26, 2005, 09:36:53 AM
horror :yabbse-thumbup:
gimmick  :yabbse-thumbdown:
Title: Grind House
Post by: socketlevel on May 26, 2005, 12:36:00 PM
at least the gimmick opens up future possibilities for filmmakers.  if the audience is willing to watch something that breaks, even if slightly, the mainstream way of telling the story then i'm more than happy.

-sl-
Title: Grind House
Post by: SiliasRuby on May 26, 2005, 02:28:21 PM
Interesting idea but I am sick of waiting, if tarantino is going to quit before he becomes an "old person" he better start working on these films right away and stop getting distracted.
Title: Grind House
Post by: Pubrick on May 26, 2005, 07:15:15 PM
there's nothing new about this gimmick. it's exactly the same as Two Evil Eyes just with the fake trailer thing. like all other multi-director endeavors, expect this to suck.
Title: Grind House
Post by: Ronen on June 05, 2005, 04:53:34 AM
Rodriguez already filmed his... it's a zombie movie with his collaborator from El Mariachi.. I don't remember the name of the movie.  If anyone does, here's your chance to show off your knowledge...
Title: Grind House
Post by: MacGuffin on June 10, 2005, 01:37:29 PM
Harry Knowles from AICN spilled some news about the upcoming Tarantino/Rodriguez grindhouse horror madness:
 
The next thing Quentin is shooting will be here in Austin, Texas with his buddy Robert Rodriguez and it's called GRIND HOUSE. [.. ]I got to chat with Rodriguez about GRIND HOUSE quite a bit and this is really going to be a hardcore geekgasm of a flick. First - They'll be getting very cool directors to create GrindHouse style trailers for fictional films to put between and before the film. As to who goes first? It seems that in California - Quentin's hour will play first... In Texas - Robert's hour will play first... and everywhere else - it'll be projectionists' discretion. Same with the order of the trailers before and between the "featured attractions". They will be shot digitally - but in post - they'll be made to have that flawed dirty, nappy - film stock changing at the "reel breaks" faded, pink, saturated 70's film look. Sometimes there'll be a "bad splice" to purposefully cause a missing piece of dialogue. In otherwords... it'll be exactly like a GRIND HOUSE experience... only without the piss on the floor and rats residing in old discarded popcorn buckets in the theater.
Title: Grind House
Post by: Pubrick on June 11, 2005, 05:39:14 AM
Quote from: Harry 'beyonce' Knowles
In otherwords... it'll be exactly like a GRIND HOUSE experience... only without the piss on the floor and rats residing in old discarded popcorn buckets in the theater.

and in even more other words.. a completely manufactured idea of "cool" that will get the teenagers thinking they hav street cred and salivating out of their daddy's credit cards to obtain all the merchandise which will make them "totally down", or sumsuch bullshit. the whole idea of tarantino is beginning to go from "obvious" to "manic" to "give a rest, dude, u'll be 50 one day, and pathetic".. a victim of his own image.
Title: Grind House
Post by: SiliasRuby on June 11, 2005, 08:55:14 AM
I'm sure this will be visually dazzling but you made a good point, p.
Title: Grind House
Post by: w/o horse on June 11, 2005, 04:57:47 PM
Although I see what you're saying Pubrick, I think that's more of a fallout of Tarantino becoming so big so fast.  There's not anything manic about wanting to revitalize a style of film that was influential or pleasing to you, in fact it must be one of the most sane things I can think of a film lover to do.  Which is what Tarantino has always expressed himself as first and foremost, a lover of film.

I argue that it is good how he energizes people to see movies, how he attempts to raise the standards, and that his place in film, especially right now, is crucial.  While the Grind House movie may be blatant, it is nevertheless uncommon, and although his endeavor might not be completely altruistic, it is beneficiary to film fans as far as I can tell.  QT might be a bit out there, he might not be making the films we want him to make at all, but he is setting a precedent and a mark that is going to followed, and if I may quote Hunter, "I shared a vagrant optimism that some of us were making real progress, that we had taken an honest road, and that the best of us would inevitably make it over the top."

I think you're making a brash judgement here, and perhaps even judging QT by his fans.
Title: Grind House
Post by: eward on June 11, 2005, 05:23:52 PM
Quote from: Losing the Horse:
a lover of film.


he doesn't really seem to love anything but that, though.  that's the whole problem.
Title: Grind House
Post by: w/o horse on June 11, 2005, 05:32:56 PM
Quote from: eward
Quote from: Losing the Horse:
a lover of film.


he doesn't really seem to love anything but that, though.  that's the whole problem.


Agreed.  Perhaps it's a matter of perspective, because to me that's not so bad.  There are worse flaws to have, and moreso at least his is advancive to the nature of film (albeit by consuming the history of film).  As in - I would rather QT have his stature than Michael Bay have the same stature, or I agree with QT's stature more than Ron Howard's.  While QT might not be a spark under film in a creative sense, he is in a fundamental sense.  He is there to say:  look what came before me, look what you can do with it.  And both those ideas, those purposes, are worthy of admiration from the film community.
Title: Grind House
Post by: matt35mm on June 11, 2005, 07:01:59 PM
Quote from: Losing the Horse:
Quote from: eward
Quote from: Losing the Horse:
a lover of film.


he doesn't really seem to love anything but that, though.  that's the whole problem.


Agreed.  Perhaps it's a matter of perspective, because to me that's not so bad.  There are worse flaws to have, and moreso at least his is advancive to the nature of film (albeit by consuming the history of film).  As in - I would rather QT have his stature than Michael Bay have the same stature, or I agree with QT's stature more than Ron Howard's.  While QT might not be a spark under film in a creative sense, he is in a fundamental sense.  He is there to say:  look what came before me, look what you can do with it.  And both those ideas, those purposes, are worthy of admiration from the film community.

Until it becomes redundant.

I would never argue against his talent and ability to generate excitement in filmgoers (which is all fantastic), but he IS becoming stale because of how redundant his most recent work has become.  I saw half of the CSI episode, and couldn't believe that I was supposed to take that buried alive thing seriously.  In fact, I did think it was a joke... until I saw that it wasn't.  It wasn't even an elaboration on an idea that he previously started in Kill Bill, it was just taking the same thing into I-Don't-Care-Anymore territory.

His whole thing is EXCITEMENT for and in cinema!  It's just that the excitement is going down.  We need something new from him, not something rehashed from something old, and not something cute like pink, scuffy-looking 70s style movies with trailers in the middle.  It's a cute idea, no doubt, but cute can only take you so far.

Pulp Fiction and Jackie Brown (and to a lesser extent, Reservior Dogs) were exciting, a jolt to the heartbeat of cinema.  Kill Bill was thrilling, another something fresh that was needed at the time.  So I'd never say that QT wasn't or even isn't awesome, but I fear of growing weary of him, and this movie idea doesn't do much to squash that fear.
Title: Grind House
Post by: eward on June 11, 2005, 07:05:17 PM
i suppose i wouldn't mind him as much if he didn't care about his celebrity or act like he was the greatest director to have ever walked the earth.  i recall an interview with him, when asked what he wants to remembered as he replied with something like "i wanna be remembered as one of the greatest directors to have ever lived."

it's things like that that have caused me to turn my back on him.
Title: Grind House
Post by: w/o horse on June 11, 2005, 09:17:14 PM
Quote from: matt35mm
Quote from: Losing the Horse:
Quote from: eward
Quote from: Losing the Horse:
a lover of film.


he doesn't really seem to love anything but that, though.  that's the whole problem.


Agreed.  Perhaps it's a matter of perspective, because to me that's not so bad.  There are worse flaws to have, and moreso at least his is advancive to the nature of film (albeit by consuming the history of film).  As in - I would rather QT have his stature than Michael Bay have the same stature, or I agree with QT's stature more than Ron Howard's.  While QT might not be a spark under film in a creative sense, he is in a fundamental sense.  He is there to say:  look what came before me, look what you can do with it.  And both those ideas, those purposes, are worthy of admiration from the film community.

Until it becomes redundant.

I would never argue against his talent and ability to generate excitement in filmgoers (which is all fantastic), but he IS becoming stale because of how redundant his most recent work has become.  I saw half of the CSI episode, and couldn't believe that I was supposed to take that buried alive thing seriously.  In fact, I did think it was a joke... until I saw that it wasn't.  It wasn't even an elaboration on an idea that he previously started in Kill Bill, it was just taking the same thing into I-Don't-Care-Anymore territory.

His whole thing is EXCITEMENT for and in cinema!  It's just that the excitement is going down.  We need something new from him, not something rehashed from something old, and not something cute like pink, scuffy-looking 70s style movies with trailers in the middle.  It's a cute idea, no doubt, but cute can only take you so far.

Pulp Fiction and Jackie Brown (and to a lesser extent, Reservior Dogs) were exciting, a jolt to the heartbeat of cinema.  Kill Bill was thrilling, another something fresh that was needed at the time.  So I'd never say that QT wasn't or even isn't awesome, but I fear of growing weary of him, and this movie idea doesn't do much to squash that fear.


This is probably the side in which the opposition of my opinion is going to head towards, but I invite you to consider what you're saying.  I think that perhaps this current generation of film snobs has its nose too close to the mirror when QT is concerned.  If QT made Reservoir Dogs tomorrow instead of yesterday, it would be hated, it would ridiculed as pretentious and derivative.  There is a group of people who would still say that of the movie now, but the group would be much larger if the film came out tomorrow.  It is not QT who is becoming less exciting, but it us that has become less excited for QT.

There's going to come a point in which the dust is going to settle and the finger pointing is going to end, and that will be his legacy.  It's just too thick right now, it's being attacked from too many sides, the man is being cannibalized right now from certain crowds.

As for eward's post, that's ridiculous.  But then I don't give a flying fuck if Tom Cruise is jumping on couches, Russell Crowe is throwing phones, etc.  I don't criticize the personalities of people I know from the media.
Title: Grind House
Post by: meatball on June 11, 2005, 10:01:33 PM
I turned my back on QT when he stated during a Kill Bill interview, "I wanted to test the limits of my talent," or something along those lines. But I don't blame him for being so into himself as a maestro director, being carried on the shoulders of everyone for such a long time. He is overrated. He's a great spinmaster and has a great publicity team, but he believes in all of his publicity so much that he's cannibalized himself.

Horse, don't call out eward's post as ridiculous then dive into a long theoretical debate on "QT's greatness or non greatness." I remember the exact same thing he mentioned.

And you do criticize people/personalities in the media, or you wouldn't be talking about QT right now. I'm suspecting QT could be similar to Troy Duffy, but the successful version... if only documentary cameras would capture it and show it to us.
Title: Grind House
Post by: w/o horse on June 12, 2005, 04:07:46 AM
I think there's a difference between work and person, but I qualified my opinion with eward, and if it came off abrupt I apologize.  It wasn't a matter of if QT said it or not, however, it was a matter of the importance of that action.
Title: Grind House
Post by: Pubrick on June 12, 2005, 06:25:30 AM
Quote from: Losing the Horse:
I think you're making a brash judgement here, and perhaps even judging QT by his fans.

perhaps,. but i'm afraid QT has long been judging HIMSELF by his fans.
Title: Grind House
Post by: modage on August 08, 2005, 05:12:12 PM
Robert Rodriguez, Quentin Tarantino Teaming Up For Exploitation Flick 'Grind House' to be a double feature.
Source: MTV News

Robert Rodriguez ambled into the Four Seasons hotel wearing a black bandana, matching T-shirt with a skull on the front, and brandishing an acoustic guitar. He was there to discuss "Sin City," his comic-book blockbuster arriving on DVD August 16. But first, he wanted to talk about a few other things.

"I'm doing an exploitation movie with Quentin [Tarantino]," the one-man film crew said of his longtime friend and "Sin City" guest director. "It's a double feature called 'Grind House.' There'll be a lot of location stuff on that, but we're shooting it really fast because it's supposed to be like an old '70s drive-in-type movie."

The Texas-born filmmaker revealed that he's currently holed up at Tarantino's Los Angeles abode, and they're working both together and separately. "I'm at his house now writing it," Rodriguez said of the film that they expect to shoot "probably in the fall ... They're two different movies, but he reads me stuff and I tell him stuff that I do."

Rodriguez reported that "Grind House" will be made for former Miramax honchos Harvey and Bob Weinstein's new company, and that the two Miramax disciples came up with the idea for the film after a coincidence that could only happen to them. "Before 'Sin City,' I had an idea to do a double feature. I had kind of forgotten about an old double-feature poster I had — it was two movie posters on the same poster: 'Two Hot Rod Flicks Together: "Dragstrip Girl" and "Rock All Night," ' and I thought that's cool, that I should do something like that. Two truncated features, each one is like an hour. I forgot about it and went to Quentin's house to show him his 'Sin City' DVD, his section, and he had the same poster on his floor.

"I said, 'Hey, I thought about doing a double feature,' " he continued. "I'll do one and you should do the other one, and he was like, 'F--- yeah, we'll call it "Grind House" and we'll do fake trailers in between for movies that don't exist!' "

When asked about the plot for his half, Rodriguez answered, "I can't say," a statement he echoed when asked about Tarantino's tale, revealing only that "my part will probably be more violent."

The former "El Mariachi" indie sensation added that he will serve as director of photography on Tarantino's half, which will most likely be shot in Austin, Texas. To return the favor, Tarantino may appear on camera in Rodriguez's half. "He said if I had a part for him, he'd love to do it. He loves to work with people, like he did with me on 'From Dusk Till Dawn,' something different from what he normally does."

Insisting that "I've got probably the best character I've ever come up with in mind" for the script, Rodriguez beamed that "Grind House" will be "done like real Roger Corman-style, where some of my cast will show up in his movie, but as the characters in his movie. It's almost like this is our troupe of actors. One of the trailers will feature someone in the cast of his movie, in another movie that doesn't exist."

One such phony ad will include another former "Dusk" co-collaborator. "I'll tell you one of the ideas for a trailer," Rodriguez revealed. "It's an exploitation movie starring Danny Trejo. He's a Mexican, and he's the hero, and it's really cool."

Rodriguez then moved on to news about the "Sin City" sequels he announced earlier this year, saying that while he wasn't sure if Tarantino's schedule would allow him to guest direct again, graphic novel creator Frank Miller will definitely return. "He wants to [direct again]. He loves it. He said, 'Now I can see why you want to do this all the time.' He can't wait to get back on the set."

The second film, currently being written by Rodriguez and Miller, will largely focus on another popular installment of the series. " 'A Dame to Kill For' will probably be the basis of the second one," Rodriguez stated. "Marv [Mickey Rourke] comes back, because this is before he died; Dwight [Clive Owen] is in that one, Gail [Rosario Dawson] is in that one, both Goldie and Wendy [Jaime King, twice] together, she's still alive. Miho [Devon Aoki] is in that one, and then there are a bunch of new characters."

Although none of the original actors have signed on for a sequel, Rodriguez said he isn't worried. "They would come do it; it's only two days of their life. They'd be like, I can do that in a free weekend," he laughed, adding that scene-stealer Rourke's participation was a certainty. "He'd want to come do it. He had fun.

"We're still writing the script to see if there's enough for a third one, or if we're just going to do a second one," Rodriguez concluded. "We're supposed to shoot in January, but we might do it earlier if we keep working at this clip."
Title: Grind House
Post by: 72teeth on August 08, 2005, 05:16:57 PM
sounds cool, hopefully it pays off
Title: Grind House
Post by: JG on August 08, 2005, 05:24:10 PM
I'm sure this will be somewhere between cool and awesome, but after this enough with the homage stuff.  Just make a regular movie without making a point of paying tribute to 60s and 70s cinema.

And I swear If QT's movie involves someone in a coffin I'll be mad.   I'm thinking it will be a summer 06 release, pushing back Inglorious Bastards even farther.
Title: Grind House
Post by: w/o horse on August 08, 2005, 05:32:12 PM
QT should swallow his pride and ask someone for help in naming movies.  Once Upon a Time in Mexico, Kill Bill, Grind House.  Jesus fuck.  He'll probably name his kid Hamburgler.
Title: Grind House
Post by: Brazoliange on August 08, 2005, 05:34:20 PM
what a dirty shame for him  :violin:
Title: Grind House
Post by: 72teeth on August 08, 2005, 05:37:36 PM
Quote
after this enough with the homage stuff. Just make a regular movie without making a point of paying tribute to 60s and 70s cinema

Isn't Bastards going to be a war movie love letter all and all. I like Quentin, but he's a one trick pony, it just so happens that the trick is "mimic/tribute" therefore giving him an aray of material.
Title: Grind House
Post by: JG on August 08, 2005, 06:05:52 PM
Quote from: 72teeth
Quote
after this enough with the homage stuff. Just make a regular movie without making a point of paying tribute to 60s and 70s cinema

Isn't Bastards going to be a war movie love letter all and all. I like Quentin, but he's a one trick pony, it just so happens that the trick is "mimic/tribute" therefore giving him an aray of material.


Your probably right about Bastards, but it doesn't seem  quite as blatant as this grind house idea.  

Jesus, it seems like every interview in which Quentin says, "I got this new script I'm working on thats kind of a homage."  

I still have to see the movie that Reservoir Dogs supposedly ripped off, but it seems that his first couple films were pretty original.
Title: Grind House
Post by: hedwig on August 08, 2005, 07:29:54 PM
Quote from: JimmyGator
it seems that his first couple films were pretty original.


do you mean films he wrote?  or films he wrote/directed?
Title: Grind House
Post by: JG on August 08, 2005, 10:05:22 PM
i was specifically thinking of reservoir dogs and pulp fiction which he wrote/directed, but would the validity of my statement change if i said true romance as well?
Title: Grind House
Post by: MacGuffin on August 10, 2005, 11:04:10 PM
...
Title: Grind House
Post by: MacGuffin on August 10, 2005, 11:05:35 PM
Rodriguez Talks Grind House
Filmmaker discusses Tarantino collaboration.

During the recent press day for the DVD release of Sin City, Robert Rodriguez mentioned an upcoming project that he's working on with Quentin Tarantino, called Grind House. The project, which was announced last month, will feature two truncated films connected by a series of movie trailers that Rodriguez says will be for "movies that don't exist." Here's what the filmmaker told us about Grind House…

IGN FILMFORCE: Will your future projects, like the Sin City sequels, feature the same green screen production style?

ROBERT RODRIGUEZ: Uh, probably. It depends; there might be a couple of sets. We did the bar set, and some other stuff in the bar, but you couldn't get the same look, so yeah. The look will be so stylized, even more probably, in the second one, that we would have to shoot it green screen.

IGN FILMFORCE: How are you adapting that technical approach to new or different projects?

Rodriguez: I'm doing an exploitation movie with Quentin, a double feature called Grind House, and there will be a lot of location stuff on that, but we will shoot it really fast because it's supposed to be like an old '70s drive-in-type movie. We would have to shoot it quick.

IGN FILMFORCE: When will that go into production?

RODRIGUEZ: As soon as we finish the script. I'm at his house right now writing, so we're writing our scripts, so probably in the fall.

IGN FILMFORCE: Do you have any casting ideas?

RODRIGUEZ: Nah. We threw a few ideas out, but nothing yet. It's really great. They are two different movies. I mean, he reads me stuff… he reads and acts out his stuff and reads the stuff that I do. We're just doing our own thing, but I've got probably the best character I've ever come up with in mind, so I'm excited (laughs). They're separate movies, but it's like you're seeing a double feature. I'm going to D.P. his movie.

IGN FILMFORCE: Is it easier for you to work at this accelerated pace since you are outside of Hollywood?

RODRIGUEZ: Well, that one was one I was thinking of doing before Sin City; I had an idea to do a double feature. I had an old double feature poster that had two movie posters on the same poster, saying 'Two Hot Rod Flicks Together,' Drag Strip Girl and Rock All Night or something like that, and I thought I should do something like that; they are truncated features, like each one is an hour. I forgot about it and went to show [Tarantino] his Sin City scene, and he had the same poster on his floor (laughs). I said, 'Hey! I was thinking about doing a double feature - you should do one and I'll do the other one.' He was like, 'Oh, f*** yeah, we'll call it Grind House and we'll do fake trailers in between for movies that don't exist.' So we're just having so much fun. It will be [released through] the new Weinstein company.

IGN FILMFORCE: What's the basic plot of your half?

RODRIGUEZ: I can't say, but it's just got some really cool stuff - I'm so excited to do this!

IGN FILMFORCE: Where do you and Tarantino meet creatively, and where do you part ways?

RODRIGUEZ: I think we just have an enthusiasm for the material, and we've got our own approach to it, but we borrow from each other all of the time. He likes to learn from me and the things that I'm doing and vice versa. I think we're willing to try anything at this point. We had dinner with Tony Scott last night and he was talking about that same thing; he was trying to pull out of us how we make these movies (laughs). We're trying to figure out how he makes his, and he's trying to figure out how we make ours. 'I don't understand how you do it on green screen and all of this other stuff - I want to get into some of that.'

(Rodriguez is briefly interrupted by a call from Greg Nicotero of KNB Effects.)

IGN FILMFORCE: Are you and Greg planning on working together?

RODRIGUEZ: He's probably wondering what we're doing on Grind House. There's a lot of work to do, but we don't know what it is yet.

IGN FILMFORCE: Does Tarantino have a cameo in Grind House?

RODRIGUEZ: He said if I have a part for him he'd love to do it. He'd love to work with people like he did on From Dusk 'Til Dawn, something just different than what he normally does. [But] I'm finishing writing the script first and then I'll say, 'See if any of these guys are for you.' I wrote the Danny Trejo part in Mexico for him to play - that's why I came up with the line 'Are you a Mexi-can or a Mexi-can't?' So that he could say 'I'm a Mexi-can.' But he couldn't do it. He was doing Kill Bill, so Danny did it. But originally that was for Quentin; he was going to have a fu Manchu [moustache] and everything. It's fun.

IGN FILMFORCE: What about the El Mariachi franchise - do you have any future plans for that?

RODRIGUEZ: I thought about doing a PSP game that would follow [Johnny Depp's character]. That would be cool, a Once Upon a Time in Mexico video game for the PSP - The Man With No Eyes. He would be a blind gunfighter.

IGN FILMFORCE: Do you have any interest in following Tarantino's lead and directing any television?

RODRIGUEZ: Well, I might direct an episode of the George Lopez Show for George, just because it sounds like fun.

IGN FILMFORCE: Would you try to stay true to the format of the show, or would you put your own spin on it?

RODRIGUEZ: You would know I was there (laughs).
Title: Grind House
Post by: Fernando on September 21, 2005, 10:37:33 AM
From mtv.com (http://www.mtv.com/movies/news/articles/1510005/09202005/story.jhtml)

Tarantino Gushes About 'Grind,' Says Next 'Kill Bill' Is 10 Years Away.
Director also mulls pairing John Travolta, Michael Madsen for 'Vega Brothers.'

BEVERLY HILLS, California — When filmmaker Quentin Tarantino speaks, movie lovers listen. So when he turned up in Beverly Hills recently to promote "Daltry Calhoun," the Johnny Knoxville golf comedy/drama he executive produced, MTV News took on the "Pulp Fiction" role of Jules Winnfield to his Frank Whaley, sticking him in a chair and grilling him with rapid-fire questions about his upcoming projects.

Tarantino shed some light on his upcoming double-feature film, "Grind House," which he'll soon film with friend and frequent collaborator Robert Rodriguez. Last month Rodriguez said the two were working together in Tarantino's home in Los Angeles and that his half of the movie would be more violent than Tarantino's (see "Robert Rodriguez, Quentin Tarantino Teaming Up For Exploitation Flick"). The "Reservoir Dogs" mastermind, renowned for his unapologetic carnage, agreed. "It actually might, the way it's all turning out," he said.

"His movie is called 'Planet Terror,' and mine is called 'Death Proof,' " Tarantino revealed. "Mine is sort of a slasher film, but instead of a knife, it's a car. ... His, he's dealing with zombies and all that stuff. I think his might end up being more violent, but I'm not finished with my [script] yet, so you never know."

The former video-store clerk, clad in a white button-down shirt depicting a dragon attacking a tiger, said he and Rodriguez are particularly excited about shooting fake "trailers" that will enhance the "Grind House" experience. "That's one of the things we're looking the most forward to, shooting the phony trailers that will play in between the movies. I'm working out my blaxploitation trailer, and possibly a kung-fu trailer, a sexploitation trailer, a spaghetti-western trailer. I just need to kind of work them out a little bit. I'm just getting them down there, but I think for sure I'm going to do the sexploitation trailer, which is called 'Cowgirls in Sweden.' "

Adding that the phony "Sweden" trailer will probably star some of the women already cast in "Death Proof," Tarantino said they plan to shoot their irreverent trailer-within-a-movie-within-a-movie double feature at the beginning of next year.

In other Rodriguez-Tarantino news, the director commented on Frank Miller's recent statement that Tarantino's hectic schedule may keep him from participating in the second "Sin City" film (see " 'Sin City' Co-Directors Working On Sequels, Eyeing A Tarantino Replacement"). "Well that might not be the case, actually," the enthusiastic auteur insisted. "I'll be in Austin [Texas] for a long time on 'Grind House' ... so [Rodriguez and I will] be doing a thing together, then after that he goes right into 'Sin City 2,' so they just have to offer me a scene. Maybe there's not a scene for me this time, but I can't imagine that I wouldn't make myself available if they wanted me [to]."

Beyond that, the future gets a bit fuzzy, but Tarantino was still willing to address some of the projects surrounding him. "['Inglorious Bastards'] will probably be the next thing I do after I finish 'Grind House' with Robert," he said of the long-gestating World War II film viewed by many as his "Dirty Dozen"-influenced project. "That will be my next big Mount Everest, climb-the-mountain kind of project."

"I've got a big portion of it done," the Oscar-winning screenwriter said of his "Inglorious" script. "I've been waiting for all the 'Kill Bill' stuff to be over with, and then to maybe chill on it a little bit, and then [get] ready to finish writing it. ... I have like five years of writing behind me now, and I just need to add one more year to it."

While Tarantino did confirm that longtime leading man Michael Madsen will be in "Inglorious," he denied rumors of uniting former action-film competitors Sylvester Stallone and Arnold Schwarzenegger in the film. "No, I never said that. I'm a big fan of both those guys, but all that is just rumors. All these casting things that everyone's been saying is just complete speculation."

What isn't speculative, however, is Tarantino's desire to someday make a third "Kill Bill" epic, this time following the story of the Bride's daughter, B.B. (actress Perla Haney-Jardine), when she becomes an adult and confronts the violence that surrounded her youth. "That would be the third one," Tarantino enthused. "I'd have to wait about 10 years. Uma's got to get 10 years older, the little girl has to grow up and everything. And then we'd do the next chapter in the 'Kill Bill' series."

Then there's another long-term project, the tentatively titled "Vega Brothers" film that would team Vincent Vega (John Travolta in "Pulp Fiction") with his brother Vic Vega (Madsen in "Reservoir Dogs") in a prequel-ish story featuring the original actors. "I could do it," Tarantino said. "I've actually figured out a way, even though the characters have gotten older, to do it. I just have to have the ambition to write it."

Asked what this ingenious twist would be, Tarantino would only flash his famously mischievous grin: "If I told you that, then I would never write it at all."
Title: Grind House
Post by: Pubrick on September 21, 2005, 11:06:19 AM
Quote from: Fernando
Tarantino Gushes About 'Grind,' Says Next 'Kill Bill' Is 10 Years Away.

that's still too soon..
Title: Grind House
Post by: modage on September 21, 2005, 11:30:02 AM
Quote from: Pubrick
Quote from: Fernando
Tarantino Gushes About 'Grind,' Says Next 'Kill Bill' Is 10 Years Away.

that's still too soon..

10 years away... aka his next film.
Title: Grind
Post by: modage on February 02, 2006, 08:46:36 AM
Tarantino & Rodriguez Begin Grind
Source: Variety February 2, 2006

The Weinstein Company's Grind -- for which Quentin Tarantino and Robert Rodriguez are each set to direct a 60-minute horror tale -- is headed into production in the coming weeks, with Rodriguez readying to shoot his segment on his home turf of Austin, Texas.

Variety says Rodriguez's part, "Planet Terror," will be a zombie movie, while Tarantino's section, "Death Proof," will a slasher film. Casting hasn't been announced for either segment.

The two filmmakers are hammering out concepts for some of the faux trailers and ads that will run between the two pics as an intermission.

Tarantino is keen this time on shooting a fake trailer for a sexploitation movie titled "Cowgirls in Sweden." Other possibilities include a blaxploitation film and a kung-fu movie.

The trade says that Grind will be shot in the tradition of the '70s exploitation films that influences both helmers.

The studio is targeting a September 22 release for Grind.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

september is such a pussy date for this.  i cant believe after sin city and kill bill they wouldnt go out in summer or october or something?  though i guess those had pussy release dates as well april, oct but not as bad as sept.  i guess the whole anthology thing is a risky proposition but as hostel & sin city can tell you anything with tarantino's name slapped on it will make money.

Title: Re: Grind
Post by: Alexandro on February 02, 2006, 02:31:41 PM

"All Quentin Tarantino and Robert Rodriguez want to do is wallow in comfort. To them it's all about hangin' back in the parlors of grindhouse, guns, babes and blood...in style and pizazz and dime-store machismo. Neither wants to reach deep inside and create something half-original about love and desire and struggle on the planet earth. They obviously don't have the temperament to do this, but I'm starting to formulate an idea that they don't even have the nerve. The latest wallow is going to be funded by the Weinstein Co., with both Tarantino and Rodriguez planning to direct a 60-minute horror tale. Rodriguez's will be a zombie thing called "Planet Terror," and Tarantino's, to be called "Death Proof," will a slasher piece. They're a pair of middle-aged teenaged wankers...wasting their time and pissing away their talent."

--Jeffrey Wells. www.hollywood-elsewhere.com

Title: Re: Grind
Post by: matt35mm on February 02, 2006, 05:29:41 PM

"All Quentin Tarantino and Robert Rodriguez want to do is wallow in comfort. To them it's all about hangin' back in the parlors of grindhouse, guns, babes and blood...in style and pizazz and dime-store machismo. Neither wants to reach deep inside and create something half-original about love and desire and struggle on the planet earth. They obviously don't have the temperament to do this, but I'm starting to formulate an idea that they don't even have the nerve. The latest wallow is going to be funded by the Weinstein Co., with both Tarantino and Rodriguez planning to direct a 60-minute horror tale. Rodriguez's will be a zombie thing called "Planet Terror," and Tarantino's, to be called "Death Proof," will a slasher piece. They're a pair of middle-aged teenaged wankers...wasting their time and pissing away their talent."

--Jeffrey Wells. www.hollywood-elsewhere.com


I don't like this guy's attitude.  He speaks as if talented people owe it to the world to make something "deep."  First of all, "love and desire and struggle on the planet earth?"  he seems to be acknowledging the silliness of his point as he's making it.  Second of all, did he forget who these two guys are?  Their portrayal of "struggle on the planet earth" have always including slashing of some sort.

Tarantino and Rodriguez have no obligation to anyone but themselves with regard to what they do with their time and talent, and this random fellow is silly for suggesting that they do.  Or he just phrased it poorly, and meant to say that he would like if they used their time and talent to produce something that he would enjoy more.
Title: Re: Grind
Post by: polkablues on February 02, 2006, 07:02:26 PM
I predict that Quentin's segment won't be done for another three years, while Rodriguez's will be written, shot, edited, scored, premiered, and playing on HBO by this weekend.
Title: Re: Grind
Post by: Alexandro on February 03, 2006, 04:26:08 PM

"All Quentin Tarantino and Robert Rodriguez want to do is wallow in comfort. To them it's all about hangin' back in the parlors of grindhouse, guns, babes and blood...in style and pizazz and dime-store machismo. Neither wants to reach deep inside and create something half-original about love and desire and struggle on the planet earth. They obviously don't have the temperament to do this, but I'm starting to formulate an idea that they don't even have the nerve. The latest wallow is going to be funded by the Weinstein Co., with both Tarantino and Rodriguez planning to direct a 60-minute horror tale. Rodriguez's will be a zombie thing called "Planet Terror," and Tarantino's, to be called "Death Proof," will a slasher piece. They're a pair of middle-aged teenaged wankers...wasting their time and pissing away their talent."

--Jeffrey Wells. www.hollywood-elsewhere.com


I don't like this guy's attitude.  He speaks as if talented people owe it to the world to make something "deep."  First of all, "love and desire and struggle on the planet earth?"  he seems to be acknowledging the silliness of his point as he's making it.  Second of all, did he forget who these two guys are?  Their portrayal of "struggle on the planet earth" have always including slashing of some sort.

Tarantino and Rodriguez have no obligation to anyone but themselves with regard to what they do with their time and talent, and this random fellow is silly for suggesting that they do.  Or he just phrased it poorly, and meant to say that he would like if they used their time and talent to produce something that he would enjoy more.

I agree with the "half original" part. And I do think is sad that an extremely talented guy like Tarantino prefers to play it safe with this kind of material, what happened to Inglorious Bastards?
Title: Re: Grind
Post by: matt35mm on February 03, 2006, 05:15:23 PM

"All Quentin Tarantino and Robert Rodriguez want to do is wallow in comfort. To them it's all about hangin' back in the parlors of grindhouse, guns, babes and blood...in style and pizazz and dime-store machismo. Neither wants to reach deep inside and create something half-original about love and desire and struggle on the planet earth. They obviously don't have the temperament to do this, but I'm starting to formulate an idea that they don't even have the nerve. The latest wallow is going to be funded by the Weinstein Co., with both Tarantino and Rodriguez planning to direct a 60-minute horror tale. Rodriguez's will be a zombie thing called "Planet Terror," and Tarantino's, to be called "Death Proof," will a slasher piece. They're a pair of middle-aged teenaged wankers...wasting their time and pissing away their talent."

--Jeffrey Wells. www.hollywood-elsewhere.com


I don't like this guy's attitude.  He speaks as if talented people owe it to the world to make something "deep."  First of all, "love and desire and struggle on the planet earth?"  he seems to be acknowledging the silliness of his point as he's making it.  Second of all, did he forget who these two guys are?  Their portrayal of "struggle on the planet earth" have always including slashing of some sort.

Tarantino and Rodriguez have no obligation to anyone but themselves with regard to what they do with their time and talent, and this random fellow is silly for suggesting that they do.  Or he just phrased it poorly, and meant to say that he would like if they used their time and talent to produce something that he would enjoy more.

I agree with the "half original" part. And I do think is sad that an extremely talented guy like Tarantino prefers to play it safe with this kind of material, what happened to Inglorious Bastards?
It is sad, sure.  I know I'm not really holding my breath for Grind House.  I just disagree that Tarantino (and to a lesser extent, Rodriguez) should be attacked like that for not doing what we want him to do.  I would hate if anyone suggested that I owe it to them to produce work that excites them.  For whatever reason, Tarantino wants to do this little whatever movie, and I'm glad that he exists in a world (his own head) where he feels free to express himself however he chooses.  And I have the right to buy or not buy a ticket depending on my interest.  I don't feel I'd have much of a right to bash Tarantino for not producing something that I would buy a ticket for.  At the very least, he may be saving me a few bucks.

But for this Wells guy to declare that Tarantino and Rodriguez are time-wasting wankers that should be capitalizing on their talent to the fullest extent instead of doing what interests them... I dunno, it just rubbed me the wrong way.
Title: Re: Grind House
Post by: pete on February 03, 2006, 09:07:41 PM
man, that guy's criticism of QT and RR were only half-original as well.  They make flashy genre movies, flashier than most genre films allow...and somehow everyone considers that less original than who knows what filmmakers they glorify.  I don't think QT and RR are any less original...I have never seen no knifefight between two moms inside a suburban home that ended with a gun in a cereal box and a flying knife...nor thumb warriors fighting little children.  I think these two guys are really good at branding themselves as the lovechildren of older movies, but that's all just media gimmicks, anyone bashing these dudes on those grounds obviously don't look deep enough.  I also hate it when they say like these guys are playing it "safe" or whatever.  There is nothing safe about shooting a kungfu scene, anyone who has tried can tell you that it's harder than anything else physically.  If RR was so safe, then why don't they have just a slew of mariachi westerns line up in the b-movie section? 
There is a lot of exhuberance coming out of these guys' movies--if that emotion is deep and profound enough for Jeffery Wells, they're a couple of dudes ecstatic to be making movies, and the ecstasy is so loud that even teenaged boys can pick it up.  People who write of these guys (as well as the City of God pair) as all style and no substance forget about guys like McG and Michael Bay--it's like calling high IQ autistics retarded. 
Title: Re: Grind
Post by: jigzaw on February 03, 2006, 09:13:05 PM

"All Quentin Tarantino and Robert Rodriguez want to do is wallow in comfort. To them it's all about hangin' back in the parlors of grindhouse, guns, babes and blood...in style and pizazz and dime-store machismo. Neither wants to reach deep inside and create something half-original about love and desire and struggle on the planet earth. They obviously don't have the temperament to do this, but I'm starting to formulate an idea that they don't even have the nerve. The latest wallow is going to be funded by the Weinstein Co., with both Tarantino and Rodriguez planning to direct a 60-minute horror tale. Rodriguez's will be a zombie thing called "Planet Terror," and Tarantino's, to be called "Death Proof," will a slasher piece. They're a pair of middle-aged teenaged wankers...wasting their time and pissing away their talent."

--Jeffrey Wells. www.hollywood-elsewhere.com



Wrong.  Wrong wrong wrong.  I'm not getting into Rodriguez since I'm not too into his work, but if you want "love and desire and struggle" look no further than Jackie Brown which was a poignant piece of work about aging and lonliness and the struggle for prosperity and yes, love.  Are you going to tell me that the relationship between Tim Roth's  and Harvey Keitel's characters in Reservoir Dogs isn't complex and moving?  How about that final scene between Beatrix and Bill?  Were you not transfixed when Bruce Willis almost walks out the door but then turns around and risks his life to save his sworn enemy who was just trying to kill him??  Tarantino's work is full of love and desire and struggle, all told with masterfully stylized dialogue and visual flair. 
Title: Re: Grind House
Post by: Redlum on February 04, 2006, 10:38:12 AM
That guy sounds like an arsehole but I half agree with him. I really disliked Sin City and I see this ever-growing partnership with RR taking Tarantino down a path further and further away from Inglorious Bastards.
Title: Re: Grind House
Post by: Gold Trumpet on February 05, 2006, 03:23:34 AM
Well, obviously, I agree with the guy.

I'm not going to get dragged into a big Tarantino argument but there is sense to this type of criticism. Even if you love Tarantino's films these days you have to admit he carries a personality and attitude that will draw less serious comment and more bullshit remarks like this one.
Title: Re: Grind House
Post by: Alexandro on February 09, 2006, 12:14:15 PM
Well, sorry, but for me, making kung fu and zombie movies is a very safe place to be as a filmmaker after you made a masterpiece landmark film that changed the face of cinema in the 90's, and I'm talking only about Tarantino here. I was not saying that shooting kung fu sequences were not risky phisically, I meant as an artist. All this b-movie exercises are a safe place because no matter what, you can't really take this movies seriously. It's not a disrespectful thing, but in my view, Quentin Tarantino could be like a Kubrick or an Scorsese, not like George A. Romero. I hope anyways, that this zombie thing breaks free of the genre, instead of only being another homage. I wanna see Tarantino giving the finger to his references for once.
Title: Re: Grind House
Post by: jigzaw on February 09, 2006, 06:09:12 PM
Well, sorry, but for me, making kung fu and zombie movies is a very safe place to be as a filmmaker after you made a masterpiece landmark film that changed the face of cinema in the 90's, and I'm talking only about Tarantino here. I was not saying that shooting kung fu sequences were not risky phisically, I meant as an artist. All this b-movie exercises are a safe place because no matter what, you can't really take this movies seriously. It's not a disrespectful thing, but in my view, Quentin Tarantino could be like a Kubrick or an Scorsese, not like George A. Romero. I hope anyways, that this zombie thing breaks free of the genre, instead of only being another homage. I wanna see Tarantino giving the finger to his references for once.

Though I love each of his films, I'm kind of with you here.  He really is too in love with the trash movies.
Title: Re: Grind House
Post by: pete on February 10, 2006, 11:45:40 AM
Well, sorry, but for me, making kung fu and zombie movies is a very safe place to be as a filmmaker after you made a masterpiece landmark film that changed the face of cinema in the 90's, and I'm talking only about Tarantino here. I was not saying that shooting kung fu sequences were not risky phisically, I meant as an artist. All this b-movie exercises are a safe place because no matter what, you can't really take this movies seriously. It's not a disrespectful thing, but in my view, Quentin Tarantino could be like a Kubrick or an Scorsese, not like George A. Romero. I hope anyways, that this zombie thing breaks free of the genre, instead of only being another homage. I wanna see Tarantino giving the finger to his references for once.

but then you show your preferencial treatment to different genre movies--like gangster movies are somehow less generic than zombie movies, and somehow gangster/ heist movies are more "serious" than the so-called b-movies.  B-movies is not a genre, it's a mode of production--if the production value and method is serious enough than it's just a kunfu movie or a zombie movie or a cowboy movie.  It's really strange that people who love Tarantino, who've never seen the films he's praised aside from maybe Goddard and Scorsese, would criticize his inspirations this harshly--like Tarantino really enjoys watching "trash", that's really patronizing, like he's some kinda genius with really low standards for films.
And I wasn't just talking about the "risk" of shooting a kungfu scene physically like for the actors and the stuntman, I'm saying, to shoot an entire sequence, in sequence, to shoot no masters, and everything in pieces, with hundreds of cuts and setups, and everything improvised on the spot, but still maintaining the same energy and story and continuity, is really difficult.  It's not just putting actors in front of a camera and have they swing at each other and film it with four cameras and cut everything together.
I still don't think kill bill was somehow safer than Pulp Fiction.  Pulp Fiction could bank on a lot of things, like a solid script, catchy dialogues, and the brilliant structure--the biggest risk it faced was the acting--if the actors were somehow not badass or hip enough then they'd seem really laughable, but an epic like Kill Bill really could fall on its face.  Once Upon a Time in Mexico did.
Title: Re: Grind House
Post by: Alexandro on February 13, 2006, 05:48:14 PM
Well, sorry, but for me, making kung fu and zombie movies is a very safe place to be as a filmmaker after you made a masterpiece landmark film that changed the face of cinema in the 90's, and I'm talking only about Tarantino here. I was not saying that shooting kung fu sequences were not risky phisically, I meant as an artist. All this b-movie exercises are a safe place because no matter what, you can't really take this movies seriously. It's not a disrespectful thing, but in my view, Quentin Tarantino could be like a Kubrick or an Scorsese, not like George A. Romero. I hope anyways, that this zombie thing breaks free of the genre, instead of only being another homage. I wanna see Tarantino giving the finger to his references for once.

but then you show your preferencial treatment to different genre movies--like gangster movies are somehow less generic than zombie movies, and somehow gangster/ heist movies are more "serious" than the so-called b-movies.  B-movies is not a genre, it's a mode of production--if the production value and method is serious enough than it's just a kunfu movie or a zombie movie or a cowboy movie.  It's really strange that people who love Tarantino, who've never seen the films he's praised aside from maybe Goddard and Scorsese, would criticize his inspirations this harshly--like Tarantino really enjoys watching "trash", that's really patronizing, like he's some kinda genius with really low standards for films.
And I wasn't just talking about the "risk" of shooting a kungfu scene physically like for the actors and the stuntman, I'm saying, to shoot an entire sequence, in sequence, to shoot no masters, and everything in pieces, with hundreds of cuts and setups, and everything improvised on the spot, but still maintaining the same energy and story and continuity, is really difficult.  It's not just putting actors in front of a camera and have they swing at each other and film it with four cameras and cut everything together.
I still don't think kill bill was somehow safer than Pulp Fiction.  Pulp Fiction could bank on a lot of things, like a solid script, catchy dialogues, and the brilliant structure--the biggest risk it faced was the acting--if the actors were somehow not badass or hip enough then they'd seem really laughable, but an epic like Kill Bill really could fall on its face.  Once Upon a Time in Mexico did.

Its cool that you say that about genre pictures because people like Scorsese do exactly what I said, which is break free of the genre but at the same time play with their rules. Good Fellas is a gangster picture, and Pulp Fiction is one too, and both of those movies leave the genre behind at some point. Kill Bill is great, but it never surpasses the homage level, everything is filtered through other movies, everything is a reference, sometimes things are references of references. Tarantino can do whatever he wants and I'm sure he will keep being a great director, but he seems to be so interested in proving all of us the rest of the people who don't watch kung fu movies that kung fu movies, zombie movies, midnite tv shows and on and on can be great too. And not only that has been proven, it's also an unnecesary thing to prove. However I gotta say, I love Kill Bill 1. I had my problems with volume 2, but 1, for me, is terrific, and precisely for those reasons. But now this guy seems to just be around to give us vintage retro trips with movies, and he's capable of way much more than that.

The other thing is, every movie is a genre movie at heart. Even Taxi Driver is kind of a western, that's not the point. 2001 is a science fiction movie, and no one accuses kubrick of being in love with trash. But Tarantino seems to prefer to travel back in time and make you go: "oh, like in that movie" instead of showing you something, as the welles put it: "half original". But like I sai before, maybe his zombie movie will be the best fucking zombie movie ever, and maybe we will all shut up.

And Once Upon a Time in Mexico was supposed to be THAT bad. According to Rodriguez, it was a "churro" with a big budget. If you wanna see some "churros", check out movies by Mario Almada, or any of the Almada brothers, check out "Lola la Trailera", or movies with "Los Tigres del Norte". Those are mexican trash movies, and just because we have a good time with them and laugh at them, doesn't mean they're good or worthy of such reverence.
Title: Re: Grind House
Post by: modage on March 10, 2006, 09:28:59 PM
Grind out a new date
Source: Weinstein Co

Those foaming at the mouth for Quentin Tarantino and Robert Rodriguez's double-feature GRIND HOUSE (which apparently has switched back to using the original title) will have to wait a little while longer.

According to distributors the Weinstein Co., the film's release date has been bumped back a few months from September 22nd to December 1st, which just makes for fun holiday horror. It's wierd how the previous film that Tarantino was involved with (that would be Eli Roth's HOSTEL) had its own release date confusion before it was released. I wonder if we'll be bombarded with promo stuff for GRIND HOUSE like we were for HOSTEL? All things come to those who wait, it seems.

Quentin Tarantino and Robert Rodriguez each will direct a 75-minute horror tale including fake movie trailers in between both movies. Rodriguez's part, "Project Terror," will be a zombie pic, while Tarantino's section, "Death Proof," will be a slasher segment. Alicia Rachel Marek, John Jarrett and Danny Trejo are (so far) set to star.

Title: Re: Grind House
Post by: modage on March 26, 2006, 10:26:18 AM
not-very-positive script review of tarantinos half Death Proof...

http://www.aintitcoolnews.com/display.cgi?id=22846
Title: Re: Grind House
Post by: MacGuffin on March 26, 2006, 11:56:36 PM
GRIND THE BIEHN
Source: CHUD.com

Quentin Tarantino and Robert Rodriguez have remained remarkably tight-lipped when it comes to announcing cast members for their horror hybrid Grind House, and until we hear some official word we'll have to settle for rumors like this.

Robert Rodriguez is currently shooting his segment Project Terror down in Austin, and it seems as though he'll have none other than Terminator-hater Michael Biehn among his live humans. Sure it's not exactly an A-list catch, but both Rodriguez and Tarantino are renowned for reviving veteran genre actors, and tossing Biehn in the mix is a minor thrill for those of us who spent the 90s wearing out VHS copies of Aliens. And Hog Wild.

Rodriguez's half of the exploitation-style double-feature is a zombie tale (or "sickos" as they're apparently being called), and should provide plenty of messy bloodshed. Which is surprising, since it comes from the guy who demonstrated the subtleties of vampirism with From Dusk Til Dawn.

We previously heard that Sin City hottie Marley Shelton, Josh Brolin, Tom Savini and Danny Trejo are also among the cast, with Greg Nicotero and company handling all the glorious gore. Sadly, the movie has reportedly been shoved back to a December release.
Title: Re: Grind House
Post by: I Don't Believe in Beatles on April 15, 2006, 11:47:33 AM
http://bloody-disgusting.com/index.php?Show=6190&Template=newsfull

'Project Terror' Officially Shut Down... for Good?
Get more on Dimension | Posted 04.13.06 @ 09:24 pm ]

One of regular (and most reliable) scoopers dropped us a line this afternoon with some depressing news. According to our source Robert Rodriquez's "Project Terror" was officially shut down for good as of yesterday- the crew was let go and everything. It may gear up again next year, but who knows. Until then, there's no word on the fate of Tarantino's "Death Proof", which is scheduled to shoot in LA this summer. WeinsteinCo.'s Grind House double feature was scheduled to hit theaters December 1st, but it looks like we may be waiting until next year- but who knows maybe they'll pull a "Kill Bill" and 'Project Terror' will end up being a Volume 2 so to speak. Watch for an official statement in the coming weeks for official word. Rodriguez's part, "Project Terror," will be a zombie pic, while Tarantino's section, "Death Proof," will a slasher seg.
Title: Re: Grind House
Post by: Ghostboy on April 15, 2006, 11:49:42 AM
Word on the street is, he's getting a divorce and having a nervous breakdown.
Title: Re: Grind House
Post by: MacGuffin on April 15, 2006, 12:29:00 PM
Breaking News: Grind House NOT in trouble 
Source: Tarantino Archives

Several sources indicate, that the recent split of Robert Rodriguez from his wife and co-producer Elizabeth Avellán, possibly due to an affair with Rose McGowan, who is the lead actress of Rodriguez' Grind House half, has further consequences. Aside from Rumors, that Rodriguez is also battling health problems (which seems unrealistic, and as of now nothing of that has been confirmed), rumors are gathering up that Grind House's Planet Terror (Rodriguez' half) is up for an indefinite halt - which was already rumored earlier (Source (http://www.bloody-disgusting.com/index.php?Show=6190&Template=newsfull)). "Rodriguez apparently has fired most of, if not all of his crew after an assumed crew member leaked the affair to his wife, with whom he has 5 children. Tarantino, who has been in New York auditioning people for "Death Proof", flew down to Austin, TX today to attempt to sort out the shit storm that has resulted." (Source (http://www.bloody-disgusting.com/forums/showpost.php?p=313138&postcount=120)) The Quentin Tarantino Archives, yours truly, would like to emphasis at this point that all we are dealing with is rumors. Rodriguez official denies his affair with McGowan (Source (http://www.contactmusic.com/new/xmlfeed.nsf/mndwebpages/rodriguez%20denies%20mcgowan%20romance_11_04_2006)) and so far, there has not been official confirmation about another halt of production. Some say that with this 'affair', Robert might be subject to revenge and therefore had to shut down production (his wife is the co-producer, if she got angry she might have caused the halt). In the meantime, more information came to light about the film. Zoe Bell (she was Uma Thurman's stunt double in Kill Bill) is reportedly one - if not the - lead actress in Tarantino's part, and Lucy Lawless (earlier reported to play a bigger part) just a minor role. "Zoe Bell is the star of Quentin's next movie and they are considering me to play one of her buddie"(Source (http://www.lucylawlessfanclub.com/)). Also tipped for roles are Woody Harrelson (Source (http://www.bloody-disgusting.com/index.php?Show=6166&Template=newsfull)) as well as Jeff Fahey and Mickey Rourke (Source (http://www.bloody-disgusting.com/index.php?Show=6175&Template=newsfull)). Michael Parks is reportedly set to revive his role as Earl McGraw, while being infected with a virus from his own wife (Source (http://cinemawhore.proboards60.com/index.cgi?board=rrh&action=display&thread=1145013503&page=1)). We try to get more on the developments as the news come in. Stay faithful!

UPDATE: Our own sources indicate now that much of the shutting-down rumors are not true. Seems like Tarantino is set to start shooting in May and they need time in between to rebuild sets. Filming is still going on, and there are 2 days a week where the production pauses. The rumor that Tarantino flew down to Austin is bullshit because he's been there all the time. And the McGowan rumors seem to be pure tabloid rambling.
Title: Re: Grind House
Post by: ElPandaRoyal on April 19, 2006, 05:45:47 PM
I just read all these news and was starting to feel a little disappointed, mainly because I feel this has the potential to be one of the funniest, most regarding film experiences of the past few years.
Title: Re: Grind House
Post by: MacGuffin on April 21, 2006, 08:01:43 PM
Grind House progress update 
 
As reported earlier, Grind House is neither shut down, nor is anyone over budget or anything else. Several sources, among those MovieHole.net, say that Rodriguez just pretty much finished his half of the film and Quentin's half is in preparations (The QT Film Fest starts this weekend so he's gonna start shooting some time after it). There are also some casting news to report. Seems like John Jarrat - saying “Things are looking promising but I can’t say much more than that. I will eventually but not now” - is indeed in QT's half, as well as Cassandra Hepburn (Find me Guilty). "I actually just met with Quentin Tarantino about [a role in his segment]. ... It's in talks now" she sais, according to MTV and adds:  "At least I wouldn't die in the film. My character wouldn't. That's a good thing. ... When I met with him, he was just this really down-to-earth, really nice, simple man who loves to make films, just like me." For now, Hepburn will be sitting by the phone and keeping her summer open: "I was told it starts shooting mid-June", which goes in line with moviehole reporting "Tarantino’s half of the movie won’t be shooting until the Summer, which explains why Jarratt hasn’t been spotted in the Qantas Club Lounge yet."
Title: Re: Grind House
Post by: modage on April 23, 2006, 03:58:27 PM
(http://www.aintitcoolnews.com/pics/DeathProofScriptCvr.jpg)
Title: Re: Grind House
Post by: Pozer on April 23, 2006, 11:07:38 PM
 :sleeping: :sleeping: :sleeping: :sleeping: :sleeping: :sleeping: :sleeping: :sleeping: :sleeping: :sleeping: :sleeping: :sleeping: :sleeping: :sleeping: :sleeping: :sleeping: :sleeping: :sleeping: :sleeping: :sleeping: :sleeping: :sleeping: :sleeping: :sleeping: :sleeping: :sleeping: :sleeping: :sleeping: :sleeping: :sleeping: :sleeping: :sleeping: :sleeping: :sleeping: :sleeping: :sleeping: :sleeping: :sleeping: :sleeping: :sleeping: :sleeping: :sleeping: :sleeping: :sleeping: :sleeping: :sleeping: :sleeping: :sleeping: :sleeping: :sleeping: :sleeping: :sleeping: :sleeping: :sleeping: :sleeping: :sleeping: :sleeping: :sleeping: :sleeping: :sleeping: :sleeping: :sleeping: :sleeping:
Title: Re: Grind House
Post by: MacGuffin on May 19, 2006, 11:01:57 AM
Easter Bunny Visits Grind House
Dimension takes Tarantino-Rodriguez team-up.

Dimension Films announced today that it will distribute the Quentin Tarantino-Robert Rodriguez collaboration Grind House. Dimension topper Bob Weinstein said the horror film will open in theaters Easter weekend 2007.

"The Easter holiday was a record-breaking weekend for Dimension this year with Scary Movie 4, and we are confident that Grind House will do extremely well in this slot," said Weinstein.

Grind House will be composed of two individual genre films, Rodriguez's Planet Terror and Tarantino's Death Proof. Both films will be homages to 1970s exploitation flicks with fake movie trailers interspersed.

Rodriguez's zombie pic, Planet Terror, will star Freddy Rodriguez (Poseidon), Rose McGowan (Charmed), Josh Brolin (Into The Blue), Marley Shelton (Sin City), Michael Biehn (Aliens), Stacy Ferguson (also known as Fergie of the Black Eyed Peas), Jeff Fahey (Wyatt Earp), and Michael Parks (From Dusk Till Dawn).

The cast for Tarantino's Death Proof is expected to be announced shortly.



Grind House takes a Black Eyed Pea

Variety finally announced today – months after we movie news sites reported such news – the casting for Robert Rodriguez’s wedge of the “Grind House” project.

Most of the cast, you’ll already have heard about - Freddy Rodriguez, Rose McGowan, Josh Brolin, Marley Shelton, Michael Biehn, Jeff Fahey, & Michael Parks – but there is one new name on there: Stacy ‘Fergie’ Ferguson.

Yep, seems the bootie-shakin’ lead singer of “The Black Eyed Peas” has scored another juicy movie role, hot on the heels of he small turn in the “Poseidon” redo, and with Rodriguez playing camera-daddy, it’s no doubt going to be a goodie.

The 31-year-old singer’s first big acting stint was in the early 80’s kids TV show “Kid’s Incorporated”. Besides “Poseidon”, she’s appeared in such films as “Be Cool” (as herself), and TV shows like “Las Vegas” (not surprisingly, since her lover, Josh Duhamel, stars on it) and “Married with Children”.

“Grind House” will be in theatres Easter Weekend next year.
Title: Re: Grind House
Post by: Split Infinitive on May 19, 2006, 11:41:28 PM
Rodriguez and Tarantino have sure picked an elaborate way of telling the public they're run out of good ideas.
Title: Re: Grind House
Post by: modage on June 07, 2006, 09:40:12 AM
Naveen Andrews Finds Grind House
Source: Variety
June 7, 2006

Lost star Naveen Andrews is set to join Dimension Films' Grind House, for directors Robert Rodriguez and Quentin Tarantino.

The film has Rodriguez and Tarantino each helming a 60-minute horror tale, with faux trailers and ads in between.

Andrews takes on the role of "a badass military scientist" in "Planet Terror," the zombie movie that is Rodriguez's portion of the project, says Variety. The film is heading into production in Austin, Texas, this summer.

The film's cast already includes Freddy Rodriguez, Rose McGowan and Josh Brolin.

Tarantino's segment -- a slasher pic called "Death Proof" -- has yet to be cast.
Title: Re: Grind House
Post by: modage on June 22, 2006, 10:23:52 PM
Source: MTVNews

Quentin Tarantino and Robert Rodriguez have already combined on several memorable projects that could best be described as the good ("Sin City"), the bad ("Four Rooms") and the gloriously ugly ("From Dusk Till Dawn"), so it's no surprise that their next collaboration, "Grind House," is equal parts humorous, horrific and hokey. "It's awesome," Rodriguez reported last week of the flick, which is actually two smaller films with tongue-in-cheek trailers littered among them. "I was just filming last night. Quentin operates the second camera, and I'll be done shooting soon and then I'll be shooting his movie. It's going to be wild." The longtime friends are helping each other out with their respective films and expect the unorthodox project to hit theaters in April. Speaking about the trailers, Rodriguez added: "I can't say anything about it because those are really surprises. Danny Trejo ['Con Air'] is in one, but there's another one that's huge. People are going to wish that one was the movie." Finally, Rodriguez dropped the bombshell that there is already talk of a "Grind House" sequel, which would bring the fake ads from the first flick to fruition. "If those trailers are great enough," he revealed, "they might be part of the feature we do for the next 'Grind House.' "
Title: Re: Grind House
Post by: MacGuffin on June 24, 2006, 12:00:47 AM
'House' Mates
Directors Quentin Tarantino and Robert Rodriguez tell Chris Nashawaty about ''Grind House,'' their double-feature tribute to the '70s genres they love
 
(http://img.timeinc.net/ew/dynamic/imgs/060621/161949__tarantino_rodriguez_l.jpg)

Best friends since the early '90s, dardevil directors Quentin Tarantino and Robert Rodriguez are curently shooting Grind House (due in 2007), a tribute to the zombie romps, slasher flicks, and women-in-prison extravaganzas the two were weaned on. Each will direct a one-hour film, and the two will be bridged by a bunch of fake trailers. EW got Tarantino and Rodriguez together on a conference call and asked them about their new film and the films that inspired it.

ENTERTAINMENT WEEKLY: How did the two of you meet?
QUENTIN TARANTINO We first met at the Toronto Film Festival, and we talked for about an hour and a half in a crowded hotel lobby.
ROBERT RODRIGUEZ He had Reservoir Dogs, and I had El Mariachi. We were on panel discussions together about violence in the movies. And when we first met, he said to me, ''My next project, you're gonna like. It's called Pulp Fiction!'' And then I got back to Sony and found we had offices next to each other. That's how we hung out. He would read me stuff from Pulp Fiction, and I would show him storyboards for Desperado.

Where did the idea for Grind House come from?
RODRIGUEZ I used to go to Quentin's house and he'd show me these movies in his home theater. He'd always program the night with some really great trailers from the era and then a feature, then a few more trailers, and then another feature. And I was like, ''Man, we have to re-create these nights for the rest of the world!'' And right then, he was like, ''We have to call it Grind House!''

How did Harvey and Bob Weinstein (whose Weinstein Co. will release Grind House) react when you pitched it to them?
TARANTINO Truthfully, they're always happy whenever we want to do another movie. [Laughs]
RODRIGUEZ It's always hard for Quentin and myself to say What are we going to follow up our last movie with? Because he did Kill Bill, and I did Sin City. What was nice about this is mentally, we could get ourselves off the hook of a follow-up, because we were like, ''It's an exploitation movie, it's a double feature, it almost doesn't count. It's like a throwaway.''
TARANTINO And because we wrote it with that attitude, I was surprised, because I think it's one of the best scripts I've ever written. This isn't going to be like Twilight Zone: The Movie. This is a legitimate double feature. With the trailers we're doing, it's gonna be like an alternate film universe. Me and Robert are going to do some trailers, but also Eli Roth [Hostel] is doing a trailer, and Edgar Wright [Shaun of the Dead] is doing one.
RODRIGUEZ It's like, ''What?! We get all of that for 10 bucks!?'' It's like five movies in one.

Why do you love the exploitation movies of the '70s so much?
RODRIGUEZ A lot of these movies, when Quentin would show them, the prints would be in disrepair. So sometimes you'd miss key lines of dialogue, or you could tell whole scenes were cut out because the film broke there.
TARANTINO We were watching this Oliver Reed-Richard Widmark movie called The Sell-Out, and it was missing a reel right in the middle. And I've come to like it that way. I don't even want to know what happens in the missing reel. I like having to figure it out. Richard Widmark has this girl, and you can't tell if Oliver Reed had sex with her in the missing reel or not. Maybe he did, and that's why they're all mad at each other. It was Rick [Dazed and Confused] Linklater's idea that we do the missing reel.
RODRIGUEZ We tried to use that stuff to our favor. In my film, we have a missing reel. A sign comes up in the second-half that says ''Missing Reel.'' It's like you went on a 20-minute bathroom break and you come back and all hell's broken loose.

Tell me about each of your Grind House films...
TARANTINO Our original idea was to do a horror double feature. The genre I wanted to tackle was slasher films, because I'm a big fan of late-'70s, early-'80s slasher films. The only thing was, what makes them so good is the genre is so rigid. And I had an idea about a guy who kills girls with his car as opposed to a machete, and I put it in a slasher-film structure. Other than the big car moments, though, my thing could be a Eugene O'Neill play. These girls just talk and talk and talk. If it wasn't for the car stuff, I could do my thing on stage.

So it's like Christine meets Long Day's Journey Into Night...
TARANTINO Yeah, but with more slasher elements! [Laughs] It's called Death Proof. I'm casting right now; more than likely the killer will be Mickey Rourke.

Quentin, what's your favorite slasher movie of all time?
TARANTINO Well, since mine is a hybrid of a slasher movie and a car-chase flick, I'll give you one of each. The benchmark for this kind of car-chase flick is Vanishing Point. And as far as slasher films go, of course, I love Halloween and all those. But as time's gone on, I think My Bloody Valentine may be my favorite.

Robert, tell me about your film.
RODRIGUEZ Mine's a zombie movie called Planet Terror. It feels like a John Carpenter movie that took place between Escape From New York and The Thing. I wanted to do a zombie script a while back because there hadn't been any good zombie movies in a while. I got about 30 pages into it, and then all these zombie movies came out. So I thought, Well, I don't have to make them zombies — there could be other reasons why they're like this. They're infected people. Quentin, what's that story?
TARANTINO There was this Umberto Lenzi zombie movie in the '70s called Nightmare City, and a while ago some friends of mine were going to meet him in Rome, and I told them to tell him how much I loved Nightmare City. And they told him. And he goes, ''Zombies? What's theees zombies? They're infected people!''

Robert, since you're doing a zombie movie, what's your favorite zombie film?
RODRIGUEZ I still love Romero's Dawn of the Dead.

When did you develop your love of these movies?
TARANTINO When I was little they'd have TV ads for these movies on Saturday mornings. You'd be watching Soul Train and then a commercial would come on for a blaxploitation movie like Three the Hard Way or Brotherhood of Death. And as soon as I got old enough to look like I could get into an R-rated movie, I'd go to the ghetto theater in my neighborhood — the Carson Twin Cinema in Carson, Calif. — and I saw every kung-fu movie that came out from '76 on, every Italian horror film, pom-pom girl films. I would sit through movies I didn't even care for three times. Even as a kid I knew I would get things from The Girl From Starship Venus that I wouldn't get from the Hollywood films.
RODRIGUEZ What made these exploitation movies great is that they were low-budget, they were trying to compete with major studios, they couldn't afford big stars. So they had what you would call ''exploitable elements'' like sex and violence. And then you would see it in this grind-house setting where they'd have two or three movies showing at once. The people going to those theaters got a whole different sense of American filmmaking because they were seeing things that weren't in the mainstream. And Quentin, of course, saw all of them.

So is the point of Grind House for the two of you to make the best ''crappy'' movie you can?
TARANTINO You're bringing all the judgment there. That's your adjective. I never use the term crap. Ever! These are not so-bad-they're-good movies. I love this stuff! And that's what we want to re-create. For lack of a better word, we want Grind House to be a ride. I think we could both go out with our movies and have them stand on their own. But what's so good about this is it's two movies, and trailers, and bad prints, and if a little bit of gang violence breaks out in the theater, all the better! It just makes the whole experience more interactive!

Are you working on each other's Grind House films at all?
RODRIGUEZ Quentin's directing second unit on mine and I'm going to be his DP.

The two of you have collaborated in the past — Quentin directed a sequence in Sin City and acted in From Dusk Till Dawn and Desperado, and I know you show each other the scripts you're working on. How important is it to have a friend and collaborator like that?
RODRIGUEZ We're really great friends first and we just happen to make movies second.
TARANTINO One of the things that's really nice about it is we're great audience members for each other's movies.
RODRIGUEZ I almost just make movies now so I can see them at Quentin's house.

Do you give each other criticism? Are you honest and ever say, ''This sucks''?
RODRIGUEZ I probably would have to be honest with him if that ever came up.
TARANTINO If I ever said that to Robert, he'd go, ''Great, rewrite it!''
RODRIGUEZ When Quentin read my script for Four Rooms, he added a bunch of lines and was like, ''I hope you don't mind.'' And then it became expected after that. Now, I'm like, ''Hey, when you read my script, if you have any ideas, pry them in there!'' There was one big speech in Planet Terror that I was trying to write to lure an actor for the part, and I just wrote in the script ''To be rewritten by QT.''
[Both crack up]
Title: Re: Grind House
Post by: modage on July 17, 2006, 11:04:32 AM
Grind cast news
Source: Joblo

Well, damn. Word comes from Film Ick and the Grind House Forum that Mickey Rourke has left the Stuntman Mike role in Quentin Tarantino's DEATH PROOF segment of GRIND HOUSE. That's a shame, but it'll be interesting to see who takes over the part... but, really, is QT gonna find anybody else who, because he finds it an unnecessary appendage,...CUTS OFF HIS OWN LITTLE FINGER!!? Yeah, that's right; Mickey Rourke will eat you and shit you out whole. I don't even know what that means, sucka.

It's also been revealed that Rose McGowan will appear in DEATH PROOF as Cherry, her PLANET TERROR character, and apparently there will be some crazy stuff going on with her legs but I'm not going to look any further into that business.

Finally, Tarantino himself will be appearing in Robert Rodriguez's PLANET TERROR, in a scene that's reportedly already been shot (the segment is pretty much done shooting as a whole), as a character simply called "The Rapist." Word his he wrote his own dialogue, as well. GRIND HOUSE is set to hit theaters April 6th, 2007.
Title: Re: Grind House
Post by: edison on July 20, 2006, 02:56:39 PM
From Comic-Con

(http://www.aintitcool.com/images2006/CCplanetterror.jpg)
Title: Re: Grind House
Post by: MacGuffin on July 22, 2006, 04:07:40 PM
Russell to Star in Tarantino's Half of Grind House

Here at the Con, Quentin Tarantino announced that Kurt "Snake Plissken" Russell will star as Stunt Man Mike in his upcoming slasher film Death Proof. Tarantino inked the deal with Russell last night, he said.

"I've always wanted to work with Kurt Russell," Tarantino said. "One of the things that was so great about his John Carpenter movies is the fact that there are alot of serious actors who wouldn't do them. There's a playfulness about him going that way. Snake Plissken is one of the most iconic characters in the last 20 years, it's fuckin' balls man. I think Stunt Man Mike is one of the best characters I've ever written."

Rodriguez showed footage from Planet Terror, his half of the Grindhouse double feature, which he hopes to finish filming in a few days.Tarantino plans to start production on Death Proof in four weeks. Rodriguez's footage, featuring Rose McGowan wearing a machine gun leg, earned a standing O.

Comic Con's director of the programming asked Rodriguez and Tarantino to stay an extra 30 minutes because Kevin Smith is late. They happily obliged. "You guys are really special, you come down here, stand in line, and it's so fucking hot down here, so we wanted to show you something special," Rodriguez said.

An audience member just asked the directors to respond to the old film vs. digital debate (Rodriguez is shooting his movie digitally and Tarantino is shooting on film). "Fuck the recording device," Tarantino replied. "It's about the magic."

Tarantino's t-shirt, in AC/DC type, reads: RR [lightingbolt] QT 'Back to Back'

Tarantino also elaborated on his long rumored pet project in downtown Los Angeles. "I've got the rights to one of the last Chinese language movie theaters: the Tsing Lee," Tarantino said. "I plan on showing Chinese language films there."

(http://reporter.blogs.com/./photos/uncategorized/qt_rr_con1_1.jpg)
(http://reporter.blogs.com/./photos/uncategorized/qt_rr_comicon.jpg)
Title: Re: Grind House
Post by: matt35mm on July 22, 2006, 04:39:27 PM
Kurt Russell!!??  Now I'm kinda interested in the movie.  I love Kurt Russell.
Title: Re: Grind House
Post by: Gold Trumpet on July 22, 2006, 04:43:37 PM
Good for Kurt Russell. Seems like a stand up guy who deserves more work.
Title: Re: Grind House
Post by: modage on July 22, 2006, 04:53:35 PM
i just watched Big Trouble In Little China again last week and boy, is he great in that.  so this is great news.  he's exactly the sort of actor who deserves a comeback via a tarantino film.  rourke already had his comeback with sin city so hopefully this will get russell back into some good films.  i cant remember the last time he was in a movie i really loved. 
Title: Re: Grind House
Post by: modage on July 22, 2006, 04:57:35 PM
Rodriguez and Tarantino Present Grindhouse!
Source: Blake Wright July 22, 2006

Quentin Tarantino just announced at the San Diego Comic-Con that Kurt Russell will play the slasher in his part of Grindhouse. Russell will play Stuntman Mike in "Death Proof." It was the first time Tarantino had been allowed to talk about the casting. "You've never seen him like this before," said Tarantino regarding Russell in the role. "Never, ever, ever!"

He also confirmed that Rosario Dawson and Mary Elizabeth Winstead are in the film. The other half of the movie, "Planet Terror," was directed by Robert Rodriguez.

Grindhouse, which also features faux trailers and ads will run between the two pics as an intermission, opens on April 6.

Directors Robert Rodriguez and Quentin Tarantino world premiered footage from their new exploitation double feature Grindhouse at the San Diego Comic-Con on Saturday. The clip shown was cobbled together from the first of the two features – the Rodriguez-directed "Planet Terror" – a zombie flick.

The footage shown – with an intentional grainy, camp-like effect – kicked off with a sheriff's deputy busting into his cop shot ranted about just having his finger bitten off by a suspect he arrest. The other deputies and sheriff in the office all grab guns and proceed out to the cruiser. The cops stalk the cruiser but the detainee has escaped through a shattered rear window. The deputy asks if they see his finger. They don't... but they do find his ring.

From here the clip cuts to trailer-type piece for an anti-hero named Machete! – a tough looking biker type that wears a trench coat lined with very long knives and swords.

Then bam! – another segway, but this one goes into full on zombie action. It is unclear where the zombies are coming from, but a hospital seemed to play a central role. Freddy Rodriguez and Rose McGowan are there. Rose's character, Cherry, had an unfortunate scrape and has lost her right leg above the knee. When Rodriguez tries to get her to flee the now undead infested hospital, she exclaims "I don't have a leg!" This moves Rodriguez to walk over to a nearby table, break off one of its legs and jam it on the end of McGowan's bandaged stump. "You do now!" he says.

More zombie action follows as the two escape the hospital. In a later scene, Rodriguez offers McGowan a gift – a heavy-duty machine gun that clips onto her stump. Now with a machine gun as a leg, McGowan mows down several zombies with one, effective round-kick spray!

Tarantino, whose "Death Proof" (a slasher movie and the second of the Grindhouse features) starts shooting in about four weeks, told attendees at the Con that he always wanted to make a exploitation film that lived up to the cool poster artwork that accompanied most of the vintage exploitation movies.

"We're going to make two, sleazy grindhouse movies that will deliver on the posters… and beyond!" said Tarantino. "This isn't some Twilight Zone the Movie f*cking thing. This is not a faux double feature. This is two f*cking movies for the price of one! You're $10 will be well spent at the Grindhouse, baby!"

Rodriguez said the "Planet Terror" shoots were solely at night and that he is talking with John Carpenter about providing music for the feature.

Tarantino also added that he would like to make two anime "Kill Bill" prequels. The first would be an origin film about Bill and his mentors, while the second would be another tale including The Bride.

(http://www.xixax.com/images/grindposter1.jpg)
(http://www.xixax.com/images/grindposter2.jpg)
(http://www.xixax.com/images/grindposter3.jpg)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

you know, with those amazing posters and this news i am FINALLY really looking forward to this movie.
Title: Re: Grind House
Post by: edison on July 22, 2006, 10:04:10 PM
So if Poseidon was Kurt's Look Who's Talking Now....hopefully Death Proof will be his Pulp Fiction.

Can't wait!!
Title: Re: Grind House
Post by: Weak2ndAct on July 23, 2006, 03:25:46 AM
My friend went to the comic-con panel and called with nerdy excitement-- he said the 'Planet Terror' footage was fantastic, and the machine-gun-leg is ridiculously awesome.  I still am waiting for the annoucement that it will be two separate movies-- there's no way this is gonna be released as a 4 hour extravaganza.  And if it really is-- I'm gonna have to find a place to smoke/drink while watching.
Title: Re: Grind House
Post by: modage on July 23, 2006, 11:37:25 AM
The Full Cast for Grindhouse
Source: The Weinstein Company July 23, 2006

Quentin Tarantino has cast Kurt Russell (The Thing, Escape from New York), Zoe Bell (Kill Bill), Rosario Dawson (Sin City, Rent, Clerks II), Vanessa Ferlito ("24," "CSI: NY," Shadowboxer), Jordan Ladd (Waiting, Cabin Fever), Rose McGowan ("Charmed," Scream), Sydney Tamiia Poitier ("Veronica Mars," "Joan of Arcadia"), Marley Shelton (Sin City), Tracie Thoms (Rent) and Mary Elizabeth Winstead (Final Destination 3, upcoming Bobby and Black Christmas), in his segment of Grindhouse, the highly anticipated double feature he is making with Robert Rodriguez, which will include two films joined by faux ads and trailers. Rodriguez's "Planet Terror," will be a zombie film, while Tarantino's section, "Death Proof," will be a slasher flick.

The ensemble cast for Rodriguez's "Planet Terror" includes Freddy Rodriguez (Poseidon, "Six Feet Under," Dead Presidents), Rose McGowan, Josh Brolin (Into the Blue, Hollow Man), Naveen Andrews (ABC's "Lost"), Marley Shelton, Michael Biehn (Alien, The Abyss), Stacy Ferguson (also known as Fergie of the Black Eyed Peas, Poseidon), Jeff Fahey (Darkhunters, Wyatt Earp), and Michael Parks (Kill Bill, From Dusk Till Dawn).

Grindhouse will be shot in the tradition of the '70s exploitation films that have significantly influenced both Rodriguez and Tarantino.

Rodriguez is currently in production on "Planet Terror" in Austin, Texas, with Elizabeth Avellan serving as producer. Tarantino is scheduled to begin shooting "Death Proof" in Austin in August. Erica Steinberg and Elizabeth Avellan are serving as producers.

Grindhouse will be released in theatres nationwide on Easter weekend - April 6, 2007.
Title: Re: Grind House
Post by: MacGuffin on August 13, 2006, 12:01:47 PM
From Comic-Con:

Featurette 1
"How Grind House Came To Be" (http://download.ifilm.com/qt/portal/2760418_300.mov)

Featurette 2
"Cast of Grind House" (http://download.ifilm.com/qt/portal/2760419_300.mov)

Featurette 3
"Music of Grind House" (http://download.ifilm.com/qt/portal/2760420_300.mov)

Featurette 4
"Girls of Grind House" (http://download.ifilm.com/qt/portal/2760441_300.mov)
Title: Re: Grind House
Post by: Pubrick on August 14, 2006, 09:07:46 AM
Featurette 5
"Sick of Grind House"
Title: Re: Grind House
Post by: polkablues on August 14, 2006, 05:07:47 PM
Quentin Tarantino must be exhausting to hang out with.  He's like the kid in class who can't stop tapping his pen on the desk.
Title: Re: Grind House
Post by: modage on September 04, 2006, 12:17:26 PM
(http://www.aintitcool.com/pics/deathproof-car.jpg)
Title: Re: Grind House
Post by: RegularKarate on September 05, 2006, 12:33:53 PM
I go to Austin Film Society screenings a lot and they're on the Austin Studios lot and I've seen this car there.  There's also always a row of five or six of the same kind of old, ratted out car in different stages of destruction.
Title: Re: Grind House
Post by: modage on September 07, 2006, 09:29:45 AM
http://www.kxan.com/Global/story.asp?S=5351322&nav=menu73_2_15_1

click on the video link for an on-set video with kurt russell and qt about a minute in.
Title: Re: Grind House
Post by: MacGuffin on September 09, 2006, 01:03:14 AM
Trio Joins Grindhouse
Tarantino finalizes his cast.

Three actors have been added to the cast of Death Proof, Quentin Tarantino's movie segment of Grindhouse. Robert Rodriguez's segment is titled Planet Terror.

Tarantino has cast Michael Bacall (CSI: Crime Scene Investigation), filmmaker Eli Roth (Hostel) and newcomer Omar Doom in his slasher movie.

Death Proof also stars Kurt Russell and Zoe Bell, Rosario Dawson, Vanessa Ferlito, Jordan Ladd, Rose McGowan, Sydney Tamiia Poitier, Marley Shelton, Tracie Thoms and Mary Elizabeth Winstead.

Filming on Death Proof commenced August 21 in Austin.

Rodriguez's Planet Terror, which has wrapped shooting, stars Freddy Rodriguez, Rose McGowan, Josh Brolin, Naveen Andrews, Marley Shelton, Michael Biehn, Stacy Ferguson (also known as Fergie of the Black Eyed Peas), Jeff Fahey, and Michael Parks.

Grindhouse is being shot in the tradition of the '70s exploitation films that have significantly influenced both Rodriguez and Tarantino. The two films will be joined by faux ads and trailers.

Dimension Films will release Grindhouse on April 6, 2007.
Title: Re: Grind House
Post by: MacGuffin on October 04, 2006, 11:15:47 AM
Jarratt was dumped from Grind House

John Jarratt has revealed that Quentin Tarantino discourteously dumped him from the filmmaker’s upcoming pic, “Grind House”.

Tarantino met Jarratt – who is on the trail of a comeback since the success of last year’s “Wolf Creek” – in Australia last year, and gushed over the veteran Oz talent. The Australian actor was reportedly one of Tarantino’s favourite actors, and he looked forward to working with Jarratt in the future. Later, it was said that Jarratt was offered a role in Tarantino’s “Grind house”.

Talking to Woman’s Day, Jarratt says he was contacted in March about doing a role in the film, but never heard another word about it.

"My wife Cody was excited. We'd got the passport thing sorted out and we were all ready to set off for the States with our two kids, just waiting for a start date, so it was a real kick in the guts when nothing happened,'' he told the Aussie mag.

"I'm really bewildered. God knows, Quentin might ring up next week and say he's ready to start, 'Get over here'. And I might do it but I might not. I kind of wish he'd left me alone and it had never happened.''

Jarratt next appears in Greg ‘Wolf Creek’ McLean’s giant crocodile thriller, “Rogue”.
Title: Re: Grind House
Post by: Neil on October 04, 2006, 03:21:09 PM
Jarratt next appears in Greg ‘Wolf Creek’ McLean’s giant crocodile thriller, “Rogue”.

Fuck QT when you've got a film about giant crocodiles, i mean honestly, this was the best move for his "career."
Title: Re: Grind House
Post by: Pubrick on October 04, 2006, 11:53:25 PM
quentin probably realised he was a pussy and decided he didn't wanna work with him anymore.
haha are you serious? do you really think QT is "tough" or "cool" or any of that crap ppl feed him? he's a nerd, man. a nerd who has believed the hype about himself. nerds can be cool when they're smart enough to not fall victim to the image created by the douche bags who kept them from being "cool" in the first place. a good nerd: conan o brien.

if anything, QT was probably told that Jarratt's "coolness" has fallen below acceptable levels, and on the advice of his hangers-on decided to move on. actually that sounds sort of like what you're saying, which is pathetic if true. it wouldn't surprise me.
Title: Re: Grind House
Post by: RegularKarate on October 05, 2006, 01:11:00 AM
if anything, QT was probably told that Jarratt's "coolness" has fallen below acceptable levels, and on the advice of his hangers-on decided to move on. actually that sounds sort of like what you're saying, which is pathetic if true. it wouldn't surprise me.

my bet is that he just "spaced" the whole Jarratt thing.
Title: Re: Grind House
Post by: grand theft sparrow on October 11, 2006, 09:19:48 AM
Trailer here (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bUuuBe4Glmk).

I'm sold.
Title: Re: Grind House
Post by: modage on October 11, 2006, 09:27:41 AM
yep, this will be the greatest movie of all time!
Title: Re: Grind House
Post by: diggler on October 11, 2006, 11:49:48 AM
they called him "machete"

i'm there
Title: Re: Grind House
Post by: gob on October 11, 2006, 01:42:44 PM
Sleazy genius.
Title: Re: Grind House
Post by: Pozer on October 11, 2006, 02:42:10 PM
i'm out
Title: Re: Grind House
Post by: A Matter Of Chance on October 11, 2006, 03:37:28 PM
i'm out
Title: Re: Grind House
Post by: Gold Trumpet on October 11, 2006, 07:53:43 PM
The film world just got a little nerdier
Title: Re: Grind House
Post by: RegularKarate on October 11, 2006, 10:04:42 PM
The film world just got a little nerdier

Yeah, NOW it's nerdy
Title: Re: Grind House
Post by: Gold Trumpet on October 12, 2006, 02:46:30 AM
The film world just got a little nerdier

Yeah, NOW it's nerdy
Title: Re: Grind House
Post by: Pubrick on October 12, 2006, 02:51:52 AM
what?

quoting the shit that's just been said without adding anything makes no sense.

anyway, here's the thing with QT: in the end i don't care if all he wants to be is cool especially if that's all he CAN be, poor guy has no choice, but goddamn at least actually BE cool this time. kibble was fucking boring and the dialogue was pathetic, there was no momentum to the story and about half the scenes went on too long or were not necessary.. that's not good and therefore not cool. Pulp was cool and it was also GOOD. be good quentin. be good tanyas.
Title: Re: Grind House
Post by: Pubrick on October 12, 2006, 10:54:35 AM
enough to know i don't need to see them again.
Title: Re: Grind House
Post by: Pozer on October 12, 2006, 01:52:54 PM
anybody watch those scream awards?  god, he's gotten worse. 
Title: Re: Grind House
Post by: MacGuffin on November 01, 2006, 01:44:30 AM
Fergie Helping Tarantino, Rodriguez 'Grind' Out Horror Flick
Scene with Kurt Russell touching Rosario Dawson's feet also building buzz for double-edged flick.
Source: MTV

HOLLYWOOD — If you're the type of horror fan who's always searching for the next evolution in the genre, there's a good chance you've fallen in love with the buzz-building "Grindhouse" footage making waves on the Internet. If you're the other kind of horror fan — the one who longs for the old days of grainy footage, gore and gratuitous sex — there's also a good chance that "Grindhouse" has been rocking your world lately. And if you haven't seen the clips of Rose McGowan with a machine-gun leg, the Crazy Babysitter Twins painting each other's toenails or cult favorite Danny Trejo as tongue-in-cheek hero Machete, then somebody needs to introduce you to the wonders of a Web browser, post-haste.

A long time ago, in a distant era called the Mid-Nineties, precocious young Hollywood filmmakers Robert Rodriguez and Quentin Tarantino combined forces to create "From Dusk Till Dawn," an ultra-violent flick that reinvented the horror genre by bringing in elements of comedy, exploitation and gangster flicks. Now, a decade later, they've each filmed about an hour of new footage — and judging by the "Sin City"-like buzz that's building around this April release, either of these short movies might be better than most full-length ones. A wide cast has already assembled for the affair: In addition to McGowan and Trejo, Rosario Dawson, Kurt Russell, Josh Brolin — and Black Eyed Peas' Fergie — have hopped onboard.

Sydney Tamiia Poitier — daughter of film legend Sidney Poitier — appears in "Death Proof," Tarantino's slasher movie about a homicidal stuntman. "I play Jungle Julia. ... She's a drive-time DJ in Austin, Texas," Poitier said, referring to a character that Tarantino junkies might find somewhat similar to Steven Wright's "Reservoir Dogs" disc jockey. "She's kind of a local celebrity; she's an aficionado of music ... what Quentin Tarantino is to movies, Jungle Julia is to music. So, she plays all her own collection and she is just a really cool chick, and she rolls with her little posse of girls and they go out and have a good time."

One of Julia's loyal listeners is an aspiring actress played by Mary Elizabeth Winstead ("Final Destination 3"). "I play Lee, who's this up-and-coming starlet starring in my first big movie. Rosario Dawson plays my makeup artist, and Zoe Bell is a stunt woman, and Tracie Thoms is also a stunt woman, and we're hanging out together, having a good time," Winstead said of the setup. "There's a lot of really funny dialogue and funny scenes, and then Kurt Russell ends up stalking us. He's a very deranged madman, but we turn the tables on him."

In case that quasi-"Kill Bill" plotline doesn't sound like enough to watch, "Grindhouse" also includes "Planet Terror," a new movie from "Sin City" director Rodriguez. "I play Dakota McGraw-Locke, an anesthesiologist who is on the run," actress Marley Shelton said of her role in the second feature. "I'm planning to make a huge life change, but then our little town in Texas gets overrun by zombies and everything goes in a whole different direction!"

In the middle of all this madness are a number of movie trailers for films that you'll most likely never see, teasing you with such alluring titles as "They Call Him Machete" and "Cowgirls in Sweden." You see, the unusual film format — and the "Grindhouse" name under which it all appears — references a beloved genre of '70s flicks that had a "screw it, let's just have fun" attitude that heavily influenced both Tarantino and Rodriguez.

As a whole, "Grindhouse" promises plenty of carnage, the hallmark dark humor of both directors and even some musical performances. "I actually get to sing in the movie, which I have never gotten to do before," Winstead beamed. "So I had a lot of fun the day I got to belt out a song [and] get really into it. The song is called 'Baby It's You,' it's this '60s soul-funk song," the 22-year-old actress added. "And while I'm singing it, Kurt Russell is, in a very creepy way, sneaking up on Rosario Dawson and touching her feet."

As anyone who remembers Mia Wallace's plush carpet in "Pulp Fiction" or the Bride's coma recuperation technique in "Kill Bill" knows, the sequence continues a tradition of Tarantino's fetishistic affection for his leading ladies' feet. "[The scene] is this really strange but really cool moment," Winstead added. "It's black-and-white and it's really creepy, just the fact that I'm singing so innocently while that really strange thing is happening at the same time. [Filming it] felt like a really classic movie moment."

From Michael Madsen's "Stuck in the Middle With You" dance to "You Never Can Tell" inspiring John Travolta to do the Batusi, old music has always been a key element of a Tarantino flick, and the DJ's playlist in "Death Proof" will once again allow the director to display his record collection. "I'm not allowed to say what the songs are, he keeps that pretty under wraps," Poitier shrugged, "but I can say it's an amazing soundtrack. ... There's a lot of '70s music in there, but not all."

Meanwhile, Shelton says, a modern-day hitmaker will take on her biggest acting role yet in Rodriguez's flick: Fergie. Insisting that she couldn't reveal Fergie's top-secret character, Shelton was then asked whether the Dutchess will unleash a song of her own. This caused Shelton to run over and ask her director for permission to discuss it — after Rodriguez shook his head, she returned with a smile and said, "Sorry, no dice."

Read into that whatever you would like, but if Fergie didn't perform a song, it doesn't seem like there'd be much to ask Rodriguez about.

One thing these leading ladies are eager to discuss, however, is the unusual techniques that their directors use to get such strong performances out of actors."[Tarantino] really is an actor's director," Poitier said. "We had two weeks of rehearsal before we even started shooting, which is almost unheard of nowadays ... he got all these girls together, the seven of us, and I think part of his ploy was just to get us all to bond and have that connection before we even started shooting; that was really key to our scenes."

The directors also afforded their stars the rare luxury of shooting scenes in near-sequential order, which most actors prefer since it helps them develop their characters naturally. "Only in Robert Rodriguez's world can I shoot the last scene of the movie, on the last day, as my last shot for the film. ... So, I had a full moment of closure, for my character and my experience," Shelton said.

"My favorite day of shooting was probably the first day," Poitier countered. "It was three of us — me, Jordan Ladd and Vanessa Ferlito — in a tiny little Honda Civic, crammed on one of those giant rigs going up and down the biggest street in Austin. ... We did that all day long, and people were yelling out things. They were going to cut the sound, because we got a lot of cat calls and crazy things."

If the footage that's surfaced so far is any indication, the noise is only just beginning.
Title: Re: Grind House
Post by: MacGuffin on November 06, 2006, 01:11:35 AM
Mickey Rourke talks Grind House exit
Source: Moviehole

There’s been much speculation as to why Mickey Rourke was dumped from the part of Stuntman Mike – later replaced by Kurt Russell – in Tarantino/Rodriguez’s “Grind House”.

In an interview with Radar, Rourke – who worked with Quentin and Robby on the fucktastic “Sin City” – hinted that there might have been a bit of a kafuffle between him and old banana-chin.

“You know what? He hasn't made any comments about it. And until he makes a comment about it, I'm not going to say anything. It just didn't work out. And I hope that's what he has to say. I'm just going to wait”, says Rourke, who was supposedly QT’s first choice for the film’s villain.

The interview hints that it was Rourke himself who passed on the role of the scoundrel in Tarantino’s film – and it’s not a case of anyone being fired. It wouldn’t be the first time, if its accurate, that the 80s icon has turned down an offer to feature in one of QT’s films – back in the early 90s he also gave the birdie to a role in a little pic called “Pulp Fiction”.

http://www.radaronline.com/features/2006/10/humble_fish.php
Title: Re: Grind House
Post by: MacGuffin on November 06, 2006, 07:47:15 PM
Rodriguez Talks Grindhouse
Freddy, not Robert, on Planet Terror

Actor Freddy Rodriguez is a busy man. Perhaps best known for his role in the HBO original series Six Feet Under, the young performer is in the midst of a budding film career. This month alone boasts two movies that feature him in a leading role — Harsh Times, where he stars opposite Christian Bale and Eva Longoria, and Bobby, where he stars opposite a slew of Hollywood A-listers too numerous to mention.

But the Rodriguez-starrer that genre fans are perhaps most anxiously awaiting is the Robert Rodriguez/Quentin Tarantino collaboration Grindhouse, hitting theaters in April 2007.

"It's an homage to the 1970s exploitation films that were really popular back then, and also an homage to the double feature," explains Rodriguez. "It was big where I'm from in Chicago. You would go to the movies, you would pay one fee and you would see two films. And that's what this is going to be — when you go see this film, Robert Rodriguez is going to direct one and Quentin Tarantino is going to direct the other. And I star in Robert's. In all of Robert's films in the past, he always has a quintessential action hero and that's who I play in the film."

For those who've only just emerged from that rock they've been living under, the two films that comprise Grindhouse are Rodriguez' Planet Terror, a shoot 'em up zombie flick, and Death Proof, more of a traditional slasher film. So it's safe to assume that lots of blood and lots of action are par for the course.

"It's a horror film, so you're going to get a little bit of gore in it. But it's gore with taste, if you can even associate both words," notes Rodriguez of his installment, Planet Terror. "It's gore with class. It's Robert Rodriguez; this guy puts out the good stuff. So you know anything he has his hand in is going to be good. And also Quentin — anything he has his hand in is going to have that certain level of quality to it."

Known more for his dramatic turns, Rodriguez found the intense action required of him for the project challenging, but manageable.

"It was hard, but thank God I have a dance background and I've always tried to stay in shape," says Rodriguez. "Thank God for that because if I didn't, it was the most physically demanding film I've ever done in my life. And we were working nights for four months, which would mean I would go to work at 7 p.m. and get out at 7 a.m., which is just hard. But nevertheless, [it was] a great, great experience."

With two "segments" (as Planet Terror and Death Proof are referred to) comprising one film, not to mention the numerous fake movie trailers interspersed in-between, it's a wonder what the final running time for Grindhouse will clock in at.

"I'm not sure," comments Rodriguez. "It started off as like, 'Oh, we're going to shorten this up.' But, come on. You have Quentin and Robert. Those guys are not going to make small movies. At this point, I don't even know how long the movies are going to be."
Title: Re: Grind House
Post by: modage on December 14, 2006, 10:31:36 AM
(http://img.timeinc.net/ew/dynamic/imgs/061213/171522__grindcar_l.jpg)
(http://img.timeinc.net/ew/dynamic/imgs/061213/171522__grindcrash_l.jpg)
(http://img.timeinc.net/ew/dynamic/imgs/061213/171522__gringkurt_l.jpg)
(http://img.timeinc.net/ew/dynamic/imgs/061213/171522__grindhouse_l.jpg)
(http://img.timeinc.net/ew/dynamic/imgs/061213/171522__grind_2_l.jpg)

''The whole idea behind Grindhouse was to pay tribute to the movies that we grew up on,'' says Tarantino. ''I call them 'boner movies' because they get you so excited.'' 

''The best thing about Grindhouse is how easily it can be a franchise,'' says Rodriguez. ''We can do kung fu, blaxploitation, you name it.''

i'm going to assume we'll be seeing a trailer very soon.
Title: Re: Grind House
Post by: matt35mm on December 14, 2006, 11:46:40 AM
(http://img.timeinc.net/ew/dynamic/imgs/061213/171522__gringkurt_l.jpg)

This is the reason why I might go see this movie.
Title: Re: Grind House
Post by: The Perineum Falcon on December 14, 2006, 12:48:55 PM
i'm going to assume we'll be seeing a trailer very soon.
i'm going to assume we'll be seeing many sequels very soon.
Title: Re: Grind House
Post by: JG on December 14, 2006, 08:02:03 PM
wait...wait...nope still stupid. 
Title: Re: Grind House
Post by: Pubrick on December 15, 2006, 03:22:15 AM
[hot chicks]

This is the reason why I might go see this movie.
Title: Re: Grind House
Post by: soixante on December 16, 2006, 08:08:29 PM
Kurt Russell looks like he's doing his best Mickey Rourke imitation.
Title: Re: Grind House
Post by: squints on December 16, 2006, 11:13:28 PM
Kurt Russell looks like he's doing his best Mickey Rourke imitation.

that's exactly what my first reaction was
Title: Re: Grind House
Post by: MacGuffin on December 20, 2006, 11:24:16 AM
Source: MTV

Quentin Tarantino has been known to bring out the best in his cinematic muses, who have included Uma Thurman, Pam Grier and Bridget Fonda — but is his latest obsession with Lindsay Lohan? Well, kinda. "I play a makeup and hair artist for Lindsay Lohan — that's pretty insane," actress Rosario Dawson revealed this week, talking about her character in Tarantino's upcoming double-feature with Robert Rodriguez, "Grindhouse." But here's the weird part: Lohan isn't actually in the movie at all. "[We] talk about her, but she's not in it," clarified Mary Elizabeth Winstead, who co-stars with Dawson in Tarantino's half of the movie. "[Dawson] plays Lindsay Lohan's makeup artist, and I play her co-star in a fictional movie." Even weirder is the fact that neither star could confirm whether Lohan even knows her name is being used in the film. "I know [Lohan] met Quentin on a few occasions, but I don't know if he's actually told her about it," Winstead said. With or without the "Mean Girls" star's consent, "Grindhouse" will open April 6.
Title: Re: Grind House
Post by: socketlevel on December 20, 2006, 01:45:17 PM
Kurt Russell looks like he's doing his best Mickey Rourke imitation.

that's exactly what my first reaction was

kurt russell is holywood's best kept secret, at least that's what Robert towne once said, and i can't help but feel that way too.  i love kurt russell, even when he's bad, he's enjoyable to watch.

russell and carpenter owned the 80s
Title: Re: Grind House
Post by: modage on December 20, 2006, 10:12:40 PM
standee coming soon to a theatre near you...

(http://www.aintitcool.com/images2006/GHSTANDEEsm.jpg)
Title: Re: Grind House
Post by: modage on December 21, 2006, 10:10:19 AM
i'm going to assume we'll be seeing a trailer very soon.
in 4 hours soon...

TRAILER: http://movies.yahoo.com/feature/grindhouse.html
Title: Re: Grind House
Post by: grand theft sparrow on December 21, 2006, 01:47:28 PM
Trailer's up a little early. 

It's not going to convert the skeptical but it'll get the rest of us excited.  I would rather a 5 minute trailer consisting of the Rodriguez trailer that was on youtube a couple of months ago with a Tarantino trailer to match.  But the subliminal Bruce Willis was the best.

2007 is definitely shaping up to be the fanboy equivalent of 1999.
Title: Re: Grind House
Post by: RegularKarate on December 21, 2006, 01:58:36 PM
I like the trailer... I'm hoping this will premier here and if not, then at least run at SXSW.  Even if it wasn't Rodritino, I would want to see this just because I've been seeing that car here and there and it just looks so cool.

2007 is definitely shaping up to be the fanboy equivalent of 1999.

Don't we say that about every year?
Title: Re: Grind House
Post by: grand theft sparrow on December 21, 2006, 02:52:50 PM
True but it seems like 2007 has more than its share.  Like almost every legendary and/or cult director that didn't release a movie in the last 3 months is releasing one next year.
Title: Re: Grind House
Post by: Gold Trumpet on December 21, 2006, 06:22:44 PM
I'm interested in how this will go over with fans of Tarantino. At my university, there are only a few film buffs but the two biggest ones I know are both die hard Tarantino fans. They have been apologetic about his recent efforts and consider him the best filmmaker going. I got one to say Tarantino may be going too far with Grindhouse but I'm curious what the other one will think.

The funny thing is they both want to be critics over filmmakers. Haha, I'm definitely thinking of another career.
Title: Re: Grind House
Post by: nix on December 23, 2006, 01:57:07 PM
Has anyone visited the website? It's pretty well put together. Minimal spoils, but enough to wet your appetite.
Title: Re: Grind House
Post by: MacGuffin on December 27, 2006, 02:27:43 PM
Details on Zombie and Roth’s GRINDHOUSE trailers

A source slipped Fangoria some news about the faux trailers that’ll play between Robert Rodriguez’s PLANET TERROR and Quentin Tarantino’s DEATH PROOF when Dimension releases GRINDHOUSE nationwide April 6. As he gears up for his new HALLOWEEN movie, Rob Zombie is shooting a coming attraction called WEREWOLF WOMEN OF THE S.S., and we’re told it’ll feature Nicolas Cage playing Fu Manchu! Eli Roth’s contribution (in addition to an onscreen cameo in DEATH PROOF) will be the promo for a slasher opus called THANKSGIVING. These sound like they should be as much fun as the movies surrounding them.
Title: Re: Grind House
Post by: MacGuffin on January 06, 2007, 12:50:04 PM
SHAUN OF THE DEAD director joins GRINDHOUSE
Source: Fangoria

There’s a new addition to the GRINDHOUSE family: SHAUN OF THE DEAD director Edgar Wright. As Robert Rodriguez puts the finishing touches on PLANET TERROR and Quentin Tarantino pushes through postproduction on DEATH PROOF, Wright has joined the team of guest filmmakers at work on the faux trailers that’ll be sandwiched between GRINDHOUSE’s two features. As we previously reported here, Eli Roth and Rob Zombie are creating previews for THANKSGIVING and WEREWOLF WOMEN OF THE SS, respectively, and now Rodriguez tells us that Wright is lending a coming attraction all his own. What he has up his sleeve is unknown at this time, but we’re looking into it!

Wright and his SHAUN cohorts Simon Pegg and Nick Frost have HOT FUZZ, a cop comedy with lots of splatter hitting theaters April 13 from Rogue Pictures. Fango’s in-depth coverage of GRINDHOUSE (which roars into cinemas April 6) begins this month in #260 and will continue with feature pieces on PLANET TERROR and DEATH PROOF in subsequent issues!
Title: Re: Grind House
Post by: modage on January 06, 2007, 03:23:39 PM
AWESOME.
Title: Re: Grind House
Post by: Pubrick on January 08, 2007, 10:48:24 PM
hype house.
Title: Re: Grind House
Post by: MacGuffin on January 14, 2007, 11:51:42 AM
More details: Rob Zombie’s GRINDHOUSE trailer
Source: Fangoria

Usually in lycanthropictures, it’s the men who do the howling—unless you’re one of Rob Zombie's WEREWOLF WOMEN OF THE SS. The writer/director is busy in preproduction on HALLOWEEN, but he has reserved a weekend to shoot WEREWOLF, one of the series of fake trailers audiences will see between Robert Rodriguez’s PLANET TERROR and Quentin Tarantino’s DEATH PROOF when they check out GRINDHOUSE beginning April 6. Eli Roth, Edgar Wright, Rodriguez and Tarantino all take their own crack at preview-makin’ too.

Zombie dropped some WEREWOLF casting news on Fango’s front step overnight: In addition to Nicolas Cage donning creative facial hair as Fu Manchu, he tells us that genre legend—not to mention perennial creepy German guy—Udo (BLOOD FOR DRACULA) Kier and blonde knockout Sybil (THE HOWLING II) Danning, a grindhouse gal herself, are ready for some sinister experimentation. The director has also brought in HOUSE OF 1000 CORPSES and DEVIL’S REJECTS pals Bill Moseley, Tom Towles and wife Sheri Moon Zombie. WWE wrestlers Test (a.k.a. Andrew Martin) and Vladimir Kozlov are providing the trailer some required testosterone.

Sounding like he’s taking the inspiration of Don Edmonds’ ILSA, SHE-WOLF OF THE SS quite literally, Zombie says his trailer “is the story of Hitler’s plan to create a race of superhuman werewolf women to win the war—based on actual documents found in Hitler’s bunker.” How Fu Manchu fits into this scheme, I guess we’ll just have to see, right?
Title: Re: Grind House
Post by: RegularKarate on January 15, 2007, 10:31:17 PM
The South by Southwest (SXSW) Film Festival is putting out a call to filmmakers who would like to submit their best "grindhouse trailer," in honor of the April release from Robert Rodriguez and Quentin Tarantino, Grindhouse. A sample of the best submissions will be judged by Rodriguez himself, and presented during SXSW, on March 11, 2007.

Filmmakers have a deadline of February 12 to submit their "grindhouse trailer" (no longer than two minutes in length) to SXSW. The trailer should be made for a fictional feature-film, just like those being made by celebrity directors Eli Roth and Rob Zombie for Grindhouse. From those submissions, Rodriguez will determine the best of the bunch, and it will screen during a special presentation entitled "Robert Rodriguez's Grindhouse 101" on Sunday, March 11. During the presentation, Rodriguez will share stories and footage from the making of the upcoming Dimension Films release.

"We really want filmmakers to come up with something fun, scary, freaky, and out-of-this-world for the competition," says SXSW Festival Producer Matt Dentler. "This competition, like Grindhouse itself, is in the true spirit of innovative and fast-paced filmmaking."

Submissions must arrive no later than February 12, to: "SXSW Grindhouse Trailers," P.O. Box 4999, Austin, TX 78765. There is no application fee, but the trailers must be under two minutes in length, and made within the last 12 months. Films that have already been submitted to SXSW for 2007 consideration, are not eligible. The 2007 SXSW Film Festival occurs March 9-17 throughout downtown Austin, TX. Grindhouse will open nationwide on April 6, 2007.
Title: Re: Grind House
Post by: Neil on January 22, 2007, 03:37:06 PM
hype house.
Title: Re: Grind House
Post by: Ghostboy on January 22, 2007, 03:44:19 PM
That trailer contest sounds like too much fun to pass up! Especially seeing as how I'm more excited about the fake trailers than the actual films themselves.
Title: Re: Grind House
Post by: squints on January 22, 2007, 09:47:18 PM
That trailer contest sounds like too much fun to pass up!

Yeah! and it'd be easy too. All you have to do is slightly alter the title of some cult film from the seventies just like Rob Zombie and his Ilsa, "werewolf women of the SS" crap!
Harem Keeper of the Oil Barons!
Title: Re: Grind House
Post by: MacGuffin on January 24, 2007, 01:28:21 PM
(http://www.aintitcool.com/images2007/grindhouse-poster.jpg)
Title: Re: Grind House
Post by: MacGuffin on January 29, 2007, 12:49:55 AM
(http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2007/01/28/arts/28join600.1.jpg)

Directors Who Go Together, Like Blood and Guts
Source: New York Times

AUSTIN, Tex.

STUCK in traffic here some months ago, the director Robert Rodriguez — many of whose films had already dabbled in cannibalism, torture and murders of every degree and then some — began wondering how to get attention for his next effort. The answer, he decided, was a machine-gun leg.

As Mr. Rodriguez’s notion evolved, the leg became a stump on the body of the 33-year-old actress Rose McGowan. Ms. McGowan’s character, a go-go dancer, has lost her limb to zombies. Her ex-boyfriend, played by Freddy Rodriguez (no relation to the director), helps her fight back, attaching an automatic weapon to what’s left. The result is spattered throughout “Planet Terror,” a movie within the forthcoming meta-movie “Grindhouse,” from Mr. Rodriguez and his collaborator Quentin Tarantino, both of whom have been laboring for months to shock and amaze an audience that thinks it has seen it all.

“I thought, ‘Nobody’s ever thought of that before,’ ” Mr. Rodriguez said of his high-caliber epiphany during an interview at his Troublemaker Studios here last month. “Your mind just goes to the craziest idea to lure people into the theater, and then you write your script around those elements.”

For Mr. Rodriguez and Mr. Tarantino, the central problem of “Grindhouse,” due from the Weinstein Company on April 6, is a nettlesome one: how to top yourself when you’ve built a career on going over the top. Mr. Rodriguez had already tried killing as fast as he could — most recently in “Sin City” — as had Mr. Tarantino with a guest-directing spot in that film and his own “Kill Bill.” Lethal stump notwithstanding (and, yes, the director Sam Raimi played with a similar idea in “Darkman”), the solution, they perceived, would lie not simply in violence but also in breaking through the walls of the medium.

“Grindhouse” is being billed not as one movie, but two for the price of a single ticket. “Planet Terror,” from Mr. Rodriguez, is 80 minutes long, and tells a story of, well, biochemical terror. Mr. Tarantino’s “Death Proof,” clocking in at 90 minutes, has to do with a murderous stuntman and his car. The films are connected by trailers for four movies that do not exist, by four directors who do — Eli Roth (whose most recent real film was “Hostel”), Rob Zombie (“House of 1,000 Corpses”), Edgar Wright (“Shaun of the Dead”) and Mr. Rodriguez himself.

The experiment, if it works, will be a triumph both for the filmmakers and for Weinstein, which is readying the largest promotional push since its founders, the brothers Bob and Harvey Weinstein, established the studio on their exit from the Walt Disney Company’s Miramax unit in 2005. To hear Bob Weinstein tell it, the industry itself has something riding on the exercise. “The whole theatrical business is looking for something new, a little showmanship,” he said recently. “These guys took something old and are making it new.”

Even in the era of all-knowing fandom, the reinvention to which Mr. Weinstein refers may take some explaining, a process that will get help from a partnership with Yahoo and “as big a TV and marketing campaign as possible,” Mr. Weinstein said. The film also stands to benefit from a series of grindhouse movies currently appearing every Friday on IFC.

By the filmmakers’ lights “Grindhouse” is a gift to moviegoers who miss, or missed, the experience of watching B-grade genre pictures of the sort that in the ’50s, ’60s and ’70s sold what the big studios wouldn’t: usually sex and gore. The films, often shown back to back, were plugged with garish posters that promised more than their pathetically low budgets could deliver. (In that spirit “Planet Terror” isn’t about another planet at all, but our own, at a particularly bad moment.) The theaters too were sometimes a fright.

“Grindhouses were usually in the ghetto,” Mr. Tarantino said in a phone interview. “Or they were the big old downtown movie theaters that sometimes stayed open all night long, for all the bums. At the grindhouse that I went to, every week there was the new kung fu movie, or new car-chase movie, or new sexploitation movie, or blaxploitation movie.”

Audiences aren’t supposed to be comfortable with this new film. As part of the game, the two directors have “aged” their movies, adding scratches, dust and dirt to the prints. “That’s part of the lurid quality,” Mr. Rodriguez said. “It feels like it’s a popular film that’s been screened a bunch of times. The texture, all the scratches, makes it look really creepy, like you’re watching something you’re not supposed to, where anything could happen at any moment.”

And since the old grindhouse films were often missing reels, both filmmakers have purposefully cut out a segment of their movies. “My whole thing is to play with the audience,” said Mr. Tarantino. “I guarantee you, when it pops up ‘Missing Reel,’ the entire theater is going to scream. They might very well be screaming my name: ‘Quentin, you bastard! We hate you!’

“And then the next reel starts, and all of the sudden, people who don’t like each other suddenly like each other now. ‘What happened to that guy?’ The only way to do a missing reel is, it’s got to be something you can’t wait to see.”

On visiting Troublemaker Studios, it became apparent that such self-conscious cinematic slumming takes a lot of work. Remains of the shoot were scattered about: supply trucks in military garb were huddled in one corner; across the lot a collection of smashed-up automobiles were piled on top of one another, defeated, while two menacing black muscle cars lurked nearby, white skulls painted on their hoods.

In a darkened office Mr. Rodriguez tinkered with one of his computers, deciding which sequences of “Planet Terror” to show. “This section is so creepy,” he said, cueing up a hospital scene in which Josh Brolin takes revenge on his wife, an anesthesiologist played by Marley Shelton, by slowly and deliberately pricking her hands with her own needles.

In the film a biochemical weapon is released from an abandoned military base — thus the Army trucks — in a small Texas town outside Austin. Residents quickly become infected and crowd the local hospital. The virus has a gruesome effect of course: Not only do the victims’ bodies start to disintegrate (lots of bubbly skin, pus-filled sores and tumors), but they become murderous zombies.

Mr. Rodriguez said “Planet Terror” was inspired by the early-’80s movies of John Carpenter, who directed seminal horror films (“Halloween,” “The Thing”) as well as action movies (“Escape From New York”). And like Mr. Carpenter’s movies, “Planet Terror” is “very brooding.”

Mr. Rodriguez added: “It takes place at night, and weird things happen, yet everything is played very seriously, so you buy into it. Even though she’s got a machine-gun leg, it’s not jokey in any way.”

Mr. Tarantino, when thinking about his contribution, was fresh from having viewed a run of slasher films. “I thought, ‘Wow, I want to do a slasher film,’ ” he recalled. “But what’s good about the slasher-film genre is that it’s so specific. This has to happen, then this has to happen. They’re all very similar, and that’s kind of what you like about them.”

Knowing he couldn’t just copy the classic format — a killer on the loose with a knife, the “final girl” left at the end (“That would just be too self-reflective”) — Mr. Tarantino devised his own version. “Part of my fun in doing genre cinema, since everyone knows the rules well, whether unconsciously or not, is leading you down a road and giving you all the information that you’ve gotten in other movies, and then using your own information against you,” he said.

In “Death Proof” a sociopathic stuntman played by Kurt Russell stalks and kills women with his car, the black one with the white skull. “This was something I’d had in the back of my mind from making movies: that stuntmen can reinforce a car and pretty much make it death-proof,” said Mr. Tarantino. “You could drive it 100 miles an hour into a brick wall just for the experience.”

Citing the fast and furious 1971 car-chase film “Vanishing Point” as inspiration, Mr. Tarantino said he hoped that “Death Proof” would include “one of the greatest car chases, if not the greatest car chase ever made. I’ll take Top Three.”

But most of “Death Proof” isn’t action or dismemberment. It lies in the interplay between women who, in the course of evening bar hopping in Austin or joy riding in rural Tennessee, meet the stuntman, Mike. “I always loved it in horror films when you actually got to care about the characters so much that you almost resented that the horror was going to come in,” Mr. Tarantino said. “You don’t want these people to die.”

His “girls,” as he lovingly refers to them, include the actresses Rosario Dawson, Sydney Tamiia Poitier, Mary Elizabeth Winstead, Jordan Ladd and Ms. McGowan, and the New Zealand stuntwoman Zoe Bell (Uma Thurman’s double in “Kill Bill”), who plays herself. Mr. Tarantino called his female characters’ dialogue, which simultaneously evokes both “Sex and the City” and teenage girls’ MySpace profiles, “some of the best dialogue I’ve ever written in my life.” After finishing the script he sent it to Bob Dylan, because he thought Mr. Dylan “would appreciate the wordplay.” He has not yet heard back.

The filmmakers are counting on younger viewers to be considerably more responsive to what Mr. Tarantino calls their “subversion from within.” They expect to direct or produce a series of such double features for the Weinsteins. “We’ve thrown around so many ideas, it’s just a huge concept to wrap our brains around,” said Mr. Rodriguez.

Mr. Tarantino was a bit more cautious about the likelihood of future installments. “Who knows if we’ll do it?” he said. “We say we’re going to do all this stuff. I was going to do a bunch of Japanese animation sequels and prequels to ‘Kill Bill.’ Haven’t seen them lately, have you?”


(http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2007/01/25/arts/28join650.2.jpg)
Title: Re: Grind House
Post by: Pubrick on January 29, 2007, 07:19:08 AM
this is probably going to be a lot of fun, and i'm going to enjoy it, despite the hype and QT and "git-r-done" Rodriguez.

the difference between this slick two-some and the indulgent piece of shit kill bill borefest is obvious. QT is not just wacking off for several hours here. the aim is still to be "cool", as dictated by his advisors, but he seems to be aware that the best element of "cool" is its fleeting nature.. there should be no time to fall asleep here, no narcoleptic plot development because the function of each shot is to get to the next cool part.. and not mistake every single shot for the epitome of cool.. "this guy walking to the car is SOOOO coool!".. "this worthless character is SOOO COOL", etc. none of that.

i don't even need to see the movie to know this, and that's why it'll be cool.

haven't all of his films been just one cool thing after another? the problem with Kill Bill was that he took one cool thing and stretched it beyond breaking point, it simply was not as cool as he thought. and worse, because of its long singular thread of cool, many fell into the trap of thinking it was more signficant than his previous efforts.. a grand statement or something. it was more like listening to "Cold as Ice" on loop for an hour. the yellow and black jumpsuit was a nice colour combination, that's the entire legacy that came out of those 7 years and 3 hours of waiting.. which he stole anyway right?

(http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y154/pubrick/simps/fg_082.jpg)
ah it's too hot today.
Title: Re: Grind House
Post by: Pozer on January 31, 2007, 01:08:31 AM
haven't all of his films been just one cool thing after another?

god yes.  his dialogue is what gets to me the most...

QT's mind of coolness in the writing stage:

"Instead of just handing him the car keys, alriiiight, I'll have Sam Jackson TELL HIM to hit the button and then he'll do that alarm sound with his voice, alriiiight!" 

"He'll say, 'wake up, bitch!'  Ha ha ha ha ha!  Ooo, no!  'Wakey, wakey, eggs and bakey.'  That fucking rocks the casbah, man!  Ooo, I've gotta file that 'rocks the casbah' line!"

"'My name's Ron, and I like to get it on...'  'My name's Zed, and I like gettin' head.'  Nooo, they can never have the same name.  Only having them refer to past characters from my other movies is cool."
Title: Re: Grind House
Post by: MacGuffin on February 05, 2007, 01:11:13 AM
New Sybil Danning Pic From Zombie's Nazi 'Werewolf Women'
Source: Bloody-Disgusting     

Today we've scored an exclusive image of Sybil Danning from Rob Zombie's Werewolf Women of the SS, his faux trailer that will play between Robert Rodriguez's "Planet Terror" and Quentin Tarantino's "Death Proof" in Dimension Films' Grindhouse, which hits theaters April 6. Danning is also cast in Zombie's Halloween remake.

http://www.bloody-disgusting.com/news/8138
 

EDIT: New image

(http://www.solaceincinema.com/wp-content/uploads/werewolfwomenb.jpg)
Title: Re: Grind House
Post by: MacGuffin on February 07, 2007, 11:25:47 AM
EXCLUSIVE INTERVIEW
"What Is Grindhouse?" - Directors Quentin Tarantino and Robert Rodriguez tell how the films of their youth inspired their new film here. (http://movies.yahoo.com/mv/mf/frame?theme=minfo&lid=wmv-700-p.1553108-183184,wmv-1000-p.1553109-183184,wmv-100-p.1553106-183184,wmv-300-p.1553107-183184&id=1809264218&f=1809264218&mspid=1809810664&type=m&a=0,15)
Title: Re: Grind House
Post by: MacGuffin on February 15, 2007, 08:10:57 PM
New Trailer here. (http://playlist.yahoo.com/makeplaylist.dll?id=1556654&sdm=web&qtw=480&qth=300)
Title: Re: Grind House
Post by: MacGuffin on February 19, 2007, 03:12:26 PM
Not the same old 'Grind'
Double-bill may be split for foreign auds
Source: Variety

Is "Grindhouse" an old-fashioned double feature or two separate films?

It depends on where you live.

Since the double-bill concept is alien to many filmgoers around the world, "Grindhouse" will be going out as two pics in some parts of the globe, while the U.S. and a few other English-speaking territories will see it as one singular experience.

The pic -- with a finished cost of $53 million, not the much higher figure incorrectly reported last week -- consists of two segments directed by Robert Rodriguez and Quentin Tarantino. It was envisioned as a salute to double- or triple-bills of the 1950s and '60s.

But most non-English-speaking territories have little tradition of a grindhouse double bill. So the central conceit of the film -- two short exploitation films, separated by faux trailers for upcoming cheapies -- would be lost.

When split, the two pics will be titled "Grindhouse: Planet Terror" (Rodriguez's seg) and "Grindhouse: Death Proof" (Tarantino's).

With the split, some additional footage could be added to each one.

Glen Basner, prez of Weinstein Co. international distribution, was at the Berlin fest discussing release patterns. The general plan is that the two films will be released three-five months apart, but there's no decision yet on which will be first.

They're also weighing the logistics of the faux trailers -- what will be attached to which pic. (In the united version, the pseudo-trailers will come between the two segs.)

The project was presold in a number of territories, including the U.K. (Momentum Films), Spain (Aurum), France (TFM), Germany (Senator Intl.), Italy (Medusa), Australia/New Zealand (Village Roadshow) and Thailand (Major).

In the non-English-speaking areas, the split pics will allow the Weinstein Co. and the local distrib to harness income for two pics, rather than one.
Title: Re: Grind House
Post by: Fernando on February 20, 2007, 09:40:22 AM
This is fucking bullshit, fuck the Weinsteins up their greedy arses.
Title: Re: Grind House
Post by: MacGuffin on February 20, 2007, 07:28:22 PM
This is fucking bullshit, fuck the Weinsteins up their greedy arses.

http://www.petitiononline.com/ghsplit/petition.html
Title: Re: Grind House
Post by: Pubrick on February 21, 2007, 10:36:03 PM
Since the double-bill concept is alien to many filmgoers around the world,
and therefore ungraspable. ha, they're basically saying it's the dumb foreign ppl's own fault they get charged twice as much. those are balls.

the concept is foreign to everyone born after the 60s. language has NOTHING to do with it. well i'm not complaining, i wouldn't pay twice again for anything with a QT credit. the cheapness of two films in one is not only the sole reason i'm watching this, it's also, uh, the whole gimmick.
Title: Re: Grind House
Post by: modage on February 25, 2007, 04:55:20 PM
Eli Roth talks his Grindhouse trailer
Source: ComingSoon.net

At this weekend's New York Comic Con Eli Roth talked about his mock trailer for the upcoming Quentin Tarantino-Robert Rodriguez horror anthology Grindhouse, his tribute to those great (and we use that adjective loosely) '80s slasher films based on holiday themes. Roth told us how that came about. "Quentin comes to me and he's like [at this point Roth goes into an impressive Tarantino impression] 'We're going to do this f*ckin' thing! It's going to be like so cool, right? It's going to be like Grindhouse and we're going to have fake fuckin' trailers! You gotta do one, cause Robert already shot his! Dude, check out the f*ckin' lobby cards!' It's like they talked about it, but Robert literally went and shot his while they were on the phone…and then he did f*ckin' lobby cards! This guy is unbelievable, like how did he do this? Then the lobby cards are what got everyone talking, they were so funny, and I was like, 'I gotta do one of these things.' There's this slasher movie my friend Jeff and I've been dreaming about, cause growing up in Massachusetts, Thanksgiving is the biggest f*ckin' deal, it's ALL you hear about. Every year, there was a new slasher movie and it was a different holiday… it was 'My Bloody Valentine', 'Friday the 13th', 'Halloween, 'Silent Night, Deadly Night.' I'm like, 'How can they not have done Thanksgiving?' I'm like, 'What are they going to start doing? Passover Massacre'? So when Quentin said, 'Dude, you gotta do a trailer!' and I was like 'Thanksgiving! It's my 1981 slasher movie, I've been dying to do it for years!' We had all the gags worked out.

"But first he put me in 'Grindhouse' which is a whole 'nother weird experience and then while I was shooting 'Hostel: Part II', I was writing the trailer and then I just added two days on after and we took like a decapited head here and a body part, and we kind of recycled everything we had and threw it all into this trailer, and had a great time doing it! It was so much fun. It's like two days of just money shots, every shot was like gore, nudity, no continuity, bad acting, just everything. 'Who cares If there's a light in the shot? It's Grindhouse!' It was so freeing to do something that was just fun and off-the-hook. I was like I really have to do something like this next, just something that's going to be nuts and insane and fun, almost like an old Woody Allen movie, just to switch it up a little."

We'll save Roth's hilarious analogy about being in Tarantino's segment of Grindhouse for our full interview from Comic-Con coming soon, then look for even more with Roth closer to the release of Hostel: Part II on June 8, but you can see Roth's homage to '80s holiday horror films two months earlier when Grindhouse, which opens on April 6.
Title: Re: Grind House
Post by: Pubrick on February 26, 2007, 09:54:17 AM
Eli Roth talks

yep. he'll do that.
Title: Re: Grind House
Post by: grand theft sparrow on February 26, 2007, 03:46:34 PM
But the trailers for his movies have thus far promised a much better movie than he delivers.  Let's hope this interview doesn't promise a better trailer than the one we'll get.

At this weekend's New York Comic Con Eli Roth talked about his mock trailer for the upcoming Quentin Tarantino-Robert Rodriguez horror anthology Grindhouse, his tribute to those great (and we use that adjective loosely) '80s slasher films based on holiday themes. Roth told us how that came about. "Quentin comes to me and he's like [at this point Roth goes into an impressive Tarantino impression] 'We're going to do this f*ckin' thing! It's going to be like so cool, right? It's going to be like Grindhouse and we're going to have fake fuckin' trailers! You gotta do one, cause Robert already shot his! Dude, check out the f*ckin' lobby cards!' It's like they talked about it, but Robert literally went and shot his while they were on the phone…and then he did f*ckin' lobby cards! This guy is unbelievable, like how did he do this? Then the lobby cards are what got everyone talking, they were so funny, and I was like, 'I gotta do one of these things.' There's this slasher movie my friend Jeff and I've been dreaming about, cause growing up in Massachusetts, Thanksgiving is the biggest f*ckin' deal, it's ALL you hear about.

Someone fell asleep at the Shift-8 keys.
Title: Re: Grind House
Post by: MacGuffin on February 27, 2007, 10:54:29 PM
The Soundtrack for Tarantino's "Death Proof"
Source:ComingSoon

Maverick Records will release the soundtrack to "Death Proof" - Quentin Tarantino's half of the new exploitation movie double feature Grindhouse - on April 3rd, three days before the two films hit theaters on April 6th. The second film, "Planet Terror," was directed by Robert Rodriguez. In between the two features, trailers advertising fake films, directed by Eli Roth and Rob Zombie, among others, will be shown.

"Death Proof" follows Austin's hottest DJ, Jungle Julia (Sydney Tamiia Poitier) as she sets out into the night to unwind with her two friends Shanna (Jordan Ladd) and Arlene (Vanessa Ferlito). Covertly tracking their moves is Stuntman Mike (Kurt Russell), a scarred rebel leering from behind the wheel of his muscle car, revving just feet away.

The soundtrack includes classic songs from the '60s and '70s, such as "Jeepster" from British glam rock band T Rex, "Staggolee" from San Francisco blues band Pacific Gas & Electric, "Down In Mexico" from doo-wop legends The Coasters, and "Good Love, Bad Love" by Stax R&B legend Eddie Floyd. It also features a haunting composition, entitled "Paranoia Prima," from legendary Italian film score composer Ennio Morricone. The songs are interspersed with dialogue voiced by the actors including Russell, Rose McGowan, Eli Roth, and Michael Bacall.

The music perfectly captures the feel of the exploitation films that became popular in American cinema in the late '60s and '70s. With their explicit sex and excessive violence and gore, the films were mainly shown in inner-city theaters, called "grindhouses," usually as back-to-back double features. "I grew up watching those type of movies and I loved them," Tarantino said. "The whole grindhouse experience, where you would see two horror films in these low ghetto theaters. Robert and I had the idea to actually do this film that is closer to a grindhouse ride and recreates the experience in one movie and in the best possible version ever presented."

The track-listing for the soundtrack to Quentin Tarantino's "Death Proof" is as follows:

"The Last Race" — Jack Nitzsche
"Baby, It's You" — Smith
"Paranoia Prima" — Ennio Morricone
"Planning & Scheming" — Eli Roth & Michael Bacall
"Jeepster" — T Rex
"Stuntman Mike" — Rose McGowan & Kurt Russell
"Staggolee" — Pacific Gas & Electric
"The Love You Save (May Be Your Own)" — Joe Tex
"Good Love, Bad Love" — Eddie Floyd
"Down In Mexico" — The Coasters
"Hold Tight" - Dave Dee, Dozy, Beaky, Mick & Tich
"Sally and Jack (From the Motion Picture Blow Out)" — Pino Donaggio
"It's So Easy" — Willy DeVille
“Whatever-However” — Tracie Thoms & Zoe Bell
"Riot In Thunder Alley" — Eddie Beram
"Chick Habit" — April March
Title: Re: Grind House
Post by: ©brad on February 28, 2007, 09:35:55 AM
seeing the track-listing of the soundtrack before the movie is kind of a spoiler.

The songs are interspersed with dialogue voiced by the actors including Russell, Rose McGowan, Eli Roth, and Michael Bacall.

i hate when soundtracks do this.
Title: Re: Grind House
Post by: MacGuffin on March 12, 2007, 12:44:44 AM
SXSW: Grindhouse 101
Source: Cinema Blend 

This morning South By South West went blood crazy and gave itself over to the grindhouse, when Robert Rodriguez showed up to teach class in Grindhouse 101. Except as he told us at the outset, he really doesn’t know a lot about grindhouse cinema. Unlike Tarantino, Robert had a normal childhood filled with movies like Gone With The Wind rather than freakish blacksploitation movies packed full of gloriously cheap T&A. To fill in the gaps, he had AICN founder Harry Knowles wheeled out on stage with him. But truthfully, Robert didn’t need him.

Maybe when he started out making Planet Terror (his half of the upcoming Tarantino/Rodriguez double-feature Grindhouse) he was something of a newbie. But he’s since become an expert, after being totally immersed in the cheesy, unrated world of classic crap cinema. And he’s obviously having a lot of fun.

Grindhouse 101 kicked off with a brief discussion of what grindhouse cinema is, but it wasn’t long before Robert threw us right into the middle of it with a group of back to back to back trailers for classic examples. It’s not for the faint of heart.


First up was The Green Slime. Watch it:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g79_ljVC5Wk


Next up, blacksploitation grindhouse with… um… Boss Nigger:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bTIklFsMjjU


Then the shocking, horrifying trailer for They Call Her One Eye:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2ZfPY3ZYKf4

You get the idea. So what is grindhouse? Rodriguez says that while filming Planet Terror, it came to represent freedom. Freedom to shoot whatever, whenever. Freedom to pack as many ideas in as possible, and damn the consequences. Freedom to put as much screwed up nudity, violence, gore and sex into his film as he wants without worrying about the MPAA. If they don’t like something, he’ll just remove it and add in a splice and call it atmosphere.

Atmosphere is really what Grindhouse is going to be all about. Rodriguez and Tarantino are brining grindhouse cinema back from the grave, complete with missing movie reels, grainy footage, and the kind of insanity you could only see before the ratings system. And they’re not stopping with simply making a grindhouse movie of their own, they’re taking that extra step and encouraging other filmmakers to get in on the fun.

At least that’s my explanation for their Grindhouse cinema trailer contest. Rodriguez has been taking specially made Grindhouse-style trailer submissions from hopeful filmmakers for months, with the intention of picking the best trailers to debut during Grindhouse 101 at SXSW. Hobo with a Shotgun took top prize, but the three best were shown. Here they are. Cover your kids’ eyes and hang on to your butts:


Hobo with a Shotgun

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1LlazPgxKrA


Maiden of Death

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6K-Micq6npM


The Dead Won’t Die

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CAFcQTdNPRM


All three of them are so cool, you can’t help but wish they’d actually get made into movies. Which brings us to the Q&A.

Grindhouse 101 Q&A With Robert Rodriguez

I’ll skip some of the weirder questions Robert got about the best ways to shoot cocks, and get right to the meat of the thing. With no easy way to record it, you’ll have to settle for me simply hitting the highlights.

As long as you’ve got grindhouse trailers on the brain, someone in the audience had the sense to ask Robert whether he’d be interested in helping Hobo with a Shotgun get made. Come on Robert, start a whole grindhouse label! Robert’s answer was non-committal, but seriously man, consider it. I’m dying to see the rest of Maiden of Death.

But the big scoop of the day came when Robert revealed that he’s planning a solo movie for actor Danny Trejo’s Machete character. If you’ve seen any of the kickass trailers for Grindhouse, then you’ve seen Trejo as Machete, a bad ass dude with, well, two machetes. Robert’s answer was, surprisingly, absolutely. He is doing a Machete spin-off movie, and it’s likely going to be direct to DVD. Rodriguez seemed pretty adamant about this, as if the film is already a done deal.

Of course one of the questions Robert almost always gets asked whenever he’s locked in a room with a bunch of movie geeks is whether or not he’ll ever do sequels to Once Upon a Time in Mexico He says, it’s not out of the question. It’s still something he wants to do. His plan was originally to make it the first of a trilogy of movies following Johnny Depp’s blind gunman character. Apparently he even cut fake trailers for sequels using footage from the first movie and showed it to Johnny Depp. Rodriguez says Depp was all in.

Eventually, the talk turned to the future of film, and where Rodriguez saw himself as part of the whole 3-D movement. Robert’s response was, pretty simply, that he started it. He takes credit for resurrecting 3-D and bringing it back to theaters with Spy Kids 3D and Sharkboy and Lava Girl, and he says Hollywood is all over him to do more of it. Though Planet Terror isn’t in 3-D, expect many of his future movies to be completely 3-D productions. James Cameron has competition.

Planet Terror Footage

Amidst all this talk of grindhouse cinema in general, Rodriguez managed to fit in footage from his grindhouse movie Planet Terror. He says the movie isn’t finished, apparently they’re still in sound mixing, but what he showed us was beyond awesome.

First he showed us a scene you’re likely to see in theaters when the movie hits. It’s a freakin kickass road-warrior zombie-fighting scene in which all of his heroes band together and ride down the road in a convoy, blasting zombies and mowing them down with their big truck from hell. Apparently this takes place shortly after Planet Terror’s simulated missing reel. See, Robert is really set on simulating the whole grindhouse experience, screwups and all. The film has been written as if an entire reel is missing. One moment everyone hates each other, the next there’s a jump and everyone has become friends, losers are suddenly awesome heroes, and the attacking zombies are about to be very dead. As Robert says, the section of a movie where everyone gears up to start kicking ass is boring. So he’s giving you the setup and then going straight to the payoff, skipping all the boring junk in between.

The second bit of Grindhouse footage we got a look at it is something you may never ever see. Frankly, there’s little chance it’ll get past the MPAA, not if they want a Rated-R. The footage is a fake movie trailer directed by Eli Roth, intended to run right before the actual movie begins. Eli tackles the one holiday never done up right by horror: Thanksgiving. Eli Roth’s Thanksgiving involves an ax wielding pilgrim who runs around town separating thankful Americans from their bodies. It’s also stuffed with all kinds of really sick sex and nudity. The whole thing peaks when a trampolining naked woman does the splits, and uh… well… comes down on a very large knife. Ouch. Yeah, no way the MPAA is letting any of this past. Wait for the DVD.

With that, class was out. That’s it from the SXSW Grindhouse. Check back on CB late tonight for my coverage of… whatever it is I manage to see the rest of the day. Frankly, right now all I can think of is lunch.
Title: Re: Grind House
Post by: MacGuffin on March 16, 2007, 11:26:35 AM
New Trailer here. (http://www.themoviebox.net/movies/2007/DEFGH/Grindhouse/tvspots/grindhousetrailer3.html)
Title: Re: Grind House
Post by: ©brad on March 16, 2007, 12:38:57 PM
that was the worst one yet.
Title: Re: Grind House
Post by: Pozer on March 17, 2007, 11:51:58 AM
i have no idea why, but that one actually makes me want to see it more than ever.  this is one to see with my a$$hole friends nonetheless.

and still, f grind house.
Title: Re: Grind House
Post by: Gold Trumpet on March 17, 2007, 01:15:13 PM
Hell, I'm finding out Bruce Willis is in this with that trailer. Sign me up as now optimistic.
Title: Re: Grind House
Post by: grand theft sparrow on March 19, 2007, 12:04:07 PM
Too bad they had to ruin that cameo in order to get more people to see it.  He's not even listed in imdb for this.  They put him in 2 frames of one of the other trailers but the "Holy shit, it's Bruce Willis!" should have been saved for the movie.
Title: Re: Grind House
Post by: RegularKarate on March 19, 2007, 11:00:11 PM
They just announced that this is showing next week here.  I get my tickets at noon tomorrow.
Title: Re: Grind House
Post by: SiliasRuby on March 20, 2007, 12:21:13 AM
RK, where is 'here' for you? I'm in LA.
Title: Re: Grind House
Post by: RegularKarate on March 20, 2007, 03:37:44 PM
Yeah... sorry, I should have been more specific.  I live in Austin.

I just got my tickets this afternoon.  There were only about fifteen or twenty people ahead of me..  no internet sales, limited to Austin Film Society member, two tickets per person and yet somehow, there were only balcony seats left.

Oh well, I'll be seeing this next week... from the balcony.
Title: Re: Grind House
Post by: modage on March 20, 2007, 04:42:10 PM
Oh well, I'll be seeing this next week...
i will look forward to you dashing my hopes at that time.  until next week, then!
Title: Re: Grind House
Post by: Ghostboy on March 20, 2007, 05:01:33 PM
Man...I just got that AFS e-mail. I'll be back in Texas next week, but I guess there's no hope of getting into this.
Title: Re: Grind House
Post by: polkablues on March 20, 2007, 08:25:26 PM
I'll be back in Texas next week, but I guess there's no hope of getting into this.

two tickets per person

So you just have to convince RK that he's better off taking you than taking his wife.
Title: Re: Grind House
Post by: modage on March 24, 2007, 09:57:44 AM
(http://img2.timeinc.net/ew/covergallery/img/2007/mar302007_927_lg.jpg)
Bloodbath and Beyond
What happens when hungry zombies meet a psychopath in a killer car? Robert Rodriguez and Quentin Tarantino test the B-movie limits with ''Grindhouse,'' their racy -- and risky -- double feature
Source: EW

It should surprise absolutely no one that Quentin Tarantino's Hollywood Hills home is a shrine to arrested male development. The bright yellow ''Pussy Wagon'' that Uma Thurman drove in Kill Bill can often be found parked in the driveway. And more often than not, a riot of exploitation-movie posters covers his floors like some messy teenage boy's bedroom. But the place that truly symbolizes the 44-year-old director's raging bachelor id, the inner sanctum of his fanboy shrine, is his screening room.

On movie nights, Tarantino's guest list may include fellow directors like Boogie Nights' Paul Thomas Anderson, Shaun of the Dead's Edgar Wright, Hostel's Eli Roth, and Clerks' Kevin Smith. It may also be sprinkled with rappers and fellow kung fu movie aficionados like the Wu-Tang Clan's RZA, or old co-workers from Video Archives, the Manhattan Beach video store where the high school dropout got his unofficial Ph.D. in cinema studies.

Tarantino presides over these evenings like a gladhanding cruise director. There's popcorn and beer, and it's not uncommon for some audience members to bring their own smokable concessions. As for the films, they tend to center on Tarantino obsessions like blaxploitation flicks, madcap European sex comedies, and Italian zombie extravaganzas. Between movies, he unspools a selection of trailers from his private stash. Maybe a few women-in-prison pictures or a handful of teasers that all feature the same long-forgotten actor whose career never took off, but who was once huge in Denmark. By the time it's all over, it's usually light outside.

Grindhouse is the closest most of us will ever come (and perhaps want to come) to attending a movie night at Quentin Tarantino's house. Composed of two 85-minute movies — one by Tarantino and the other by Sin City director Robert Rodriguez — Grindhouse is a lovingly bloody tribute to the kind of low-rent double features that both directors were weaned on. The kind of movies that would literally grind out of movie projectors continuously at the seedy theaters on New York's 42nd Street.

To make the film look as authentically bad as possible, Tarantino and Rodriguez intentionally scratched their prints and edited out ''missing reels,'' so that a talky bit of onscreen exposition might, all of a sudden, hiccup into the middle of an action scene. They also included a handful of fake exploitation-movie trailers (directed by pals like Roth, Wright, and The Devil's Rejects' Rob Zombie) to run during the film's ''intermission.'' The end product may not be everyone's idea of a fun night at the movies, but you might not want to tell Bob and Harvey Weinstein that: The execs could really use a hit to silence the naysayers who've been dogging them since they parted ways with Miramax. In any case, for Tarantino and Rodriguez, Grindhouse is a chance to relive the kinds of films that made the two want to become directors in the first place.

Rodriguez and Tarantino met in 1992 at the Toronto film festival. Rodriguez was there with his Spanish-language action cheapie, El Mariachi; Tarantino with Reservoir Dogs. ''We did some panel discussions together about violence in the movies, and we were the only two people there dressed in black,'' recalls Rodriguez. Lifelong bonds have been formed on flimsier connections. Tarantino invited Rodriguez up to his hotel room and read him the first few pages of his next film, Pulp Fiction.

When the two directors returned to Los Angeles, they discovered that they had offices just a couple of doors down from each other on the Sony lot. Before long, Tarantino was barreling into Rodriguez's office and acting out scenes from Pulp Fiction, while Rodriguez would show Tarantino the storyboards for his next film, Desperado. And so it went for the next decade. Rodriguez would write roles into his films for Tarantino; Tarantino would donate nuggets of dialogue to Rodriguez's scripts.

Then, one day in 2003, Rodriguez was standing in Tarantino's living room when he noticed an old movie poster spread out on the floor. It was a one-sheet for the 1957 double feature Dragstrip Girl and Rock All Night. Rodriguez owned the same poster. (Click here to see 10 other posters they love.) ''I told Quentin that I'd always wanted to do a double feature,'' says Rodriguez. ''Then I said, 'Hey, why don't you direct one and I'll do the other?' Right away he said, 'And we've got to call it Grindhouse!' It happened that quickly.''

As Rodriguez finishes this story, he gets up from a director's chair and hollers at a bunch of zombies. Damn zombies. They never look as hungry as you want them to. It's 4 a.m. and we're in Austin, Tex., on a muggy July night. Rodriguez is shooting Planet Terror, his half of the Grindhouse double feature, and the first to go before the camera.

In keeping with the whole B-movie vibe, Planet Terror employs a decidedly B-list cast: There's Freddy Rodriguez (Six Feet Under) as a loner who's good with pistols; Marley Shelton (Sin City) as an emergency-room anesthesiologist; Josh Brolin as her psychotic husband; the Black Eyed Peas' Fergie as a hitchhiker who meets a particularly grim end; Jeff Fahey as a grizzled barbecue cook; Michael Biehn as a sheriff; and Charmed's Rose McGowan as a go-go dancer named Cherry Darling, whose leg, an early casualty of the zombie outbreak, gets outfitted with a machine-gun prosthetic. You'll either think this is the coolest thing you've ever seen or want to stay home and watch The Queen on DVD.

Either way, McGowan says the machine-gun leg was torture. She had to run for her life with her right leg in a cast so that a machine gun could be digitally added later. Oh, and in four-inch stiletto boots. ''It reminds me of that line about Ginger Rogers: She had to do everything Fred Astaire did, but backwards and in high heels.'' Of course, Astaire never had to gun down bloodsucking freaks either.

Just before sunup, Rodriguez finally sends his zombie actors home. He prepares the next scene, in which a convoy of trucks races through a gauntlet of zombies on a backwater road, sending blood and guts flying. Rodriguez sits in his director's chair strumming a flamenco guitar while the film's special F/X guys pour jugs of Karo syrup and red dye into the heads of dummies as if they were filling jelly doughnuts.

Rodriguez puts down his guitar and yells ''Action!'' The convoy speeds toward the dummies, and the F/X guys race into the bushes nearby like kids who have just lit firecrackers. The trucks get closer...and closer...then, splatttttt! Gore flies everywhere. Rodriguez runs over to assess the damage. There's a leg in one lane and a mangled head in the other. Rodriguez starts cracking up as he bends over to pick up a stray finger that's landed 20 yards from the point of impact.

Watching this, you can't help but wonder: How does a 38-year-old man with five kids find himself giddily pulverizing zombies at four in the morning? Rodriguez says it all goes back to one particular night at a San Antonio drive-in. He was 11 years old. And he and his nine brothers and sisters were piled onto the top of their parents' van watching harmless family films. ''My mom said to us, 'Don't look at the other movies!' But on the drive-in's other screen was Alien. And I remember sneaking a look at the exact moment when the alien popped out of the guy's chest.''

For his part, Tarantino insists that his passion for grind-house movies didn't grow out of being unathletic or unpopular as a kid, or out of the fact that he never really knew his dad when he was younger. ''That whole scenario is that there's got to be something wrong with me!'' the director says with a laugh. ''Really, it's just that ever since I was a kid, movies were the one thing I gravitated towards. If you go to any elementary school, there's a kid who's into cars, and if he's not talking about cars, he's drawing cars. And there's the kid who's into sports and the kid who's into comic books. I was into movies.''

Tarantino grew up in South Bay, a collection of blue-collar neighborhoods on the southern fringes of L.A. From the time he was 10, he was spending every weekend at the Carson Twin Cinema. When he was older, he'd venture to the dodgier theaters in downtown L.A. and sit through chopsocky triple bills, racy cheerleader movies, and anything else that promised the remote possibility of pimps, samurais, or nudity. ''When I give props to these movies, you have to understand — it's not like they were all good. There's an expression: You have to drink a lot of milk before you can appreciate cream. Well, with exploitation movies, you have to drink a lot of milk-gone-bad before you can even appreciate milk! That's what part of the love of these movies is — going through the rummage bin and finding the jewels.''

It's now Tarantino's turn behind the camera in Austin. His Grindhouse installment, Death Proof, is a slasher film — except the slasher uses a muscle car to kill young women instead of a knife. Depending on what mood you catch him in, Tarantino refers to it as ''my slasher film,'' ''my car-chase film,'' or ''my women's revenge film.'' On this October night, however, Death Proof is his head-on-collision film. Seven or eight identical black Chevy Novas and red Honda Civics sit quietly on the set, unaware of the twisted-metal fates that await them. Kurt Russell plays the Nova's owner — a sadistic stunt driver named Stuntman Mike who stalks two different groups of young women that include Rosario Dawson and Zoë Bell, a New Zealander who was Uma Thurman's stunt double in Kill Bill.

When asked why he cast Russell as his psycho, Tarantino replies, ''For people of my generation, he's a true hero. He was Snake Plissken in Escape From New York, MacReady in The Thing, and Jack Burton in Big Trouble in Little China. But now, there's a whole audience out there that doesn't know what Kurt Russell can do. When I open the newspaper and see an ad that says 'Kurt Russell in Dreamer,' or 'Kurt Russell in Miracle,' I'm not disparaging these movies, but I'm thinking: When is Kurt Russell going to be a badass again?''

Some might say he never stopped. After all, Russell isn't exactly the Travolta reclamation project that Tarantino paints him to be. And he truly is a macho guy's guy on and off the screen. Looking 20 years younger in person, the 56-year-old does just about all of his own stunt driving in Death Proof. And then there's the badass vein that throbs in his neck when he discusses the possibility of his most famous character, Escape From New York's Snake Plissken, being played in a remake by a Scotsman — 300's Gerard Butler. ''I do think that Snake was quintessentially one thing — and that is American.''

Russell has nothing but praise for Tarantino. When it comes to the director's fanboy love of the actor's early films, though, he's both flattered and a bit creeped out. ''He knows every scene of every movie I've ever done, which is a great feeling. But I don't really understand why Quentin is so fanatical about movies. They're just movies.''

As zydeco music blares over a loudspeaker and the stunt crew sets up the collision, Tarantino begins rattling off his favorite car-chase movies, like 1971's Vanishing Point and 1974's Dirty Mary Crazy Larry. A walkie-talkie informs him that they're ready to do the crash. The cars are being driven by remote control, and when they get up to ramming speed and slam nose to nose, glass flies in every direction.

Tarantino and Russell start giggling like little boys who just witnessed a magic trick. ''Good s---!'' says Tarantino. ''Good s---!'' says Russell. Then the two of them head over to the catering table for burgers. There's one left and Tarantino grabs it. Someone offers Russell a veggie burger instead and he just laughs: ''That's like riding a motorcycle with a helmet on...what's the point?!''

Just weeks before Grindhouse's release, the MPAA comes calling. Tarantino and Rodriguez are both bleary-eyed as they lumber into a private conference room in Los Angeles to hear the verdict on their film from the ratings board via speakerphone. They look like death-row prisoners heading to the gallows. The directors have been up all night trimming their film back from 3 hours and 15 minutes to just under 3 hours. But what the MPAA is concerned about is the film's over-the-top violence.

About 20 minutes later, Tarantino and Rodriguez emerge smiling. For the most part, they'll be getting away with murder (and cannibalism and severed limbs and arterial spray). The MPAA asked for only a few nips and tucks to guarantee the film's R rating, and they mostly involve Eli Roth's fake trailer for a slasher film called Thanksgiving, which featured a scene of a topless cheerleader being impaled on a knife while doing a split on a trampoline. Believe it or not, it's even nastier than it sounds, and it will be significantly trimmed back.

But there's still plenty left to worry about between now and the film's release. Like, who exactly is going to see this film? ''It's not a layup like 300,'' admits Harvey Weinstein. ''But that's what we're famous for.'' The Weinsteins, who have backed Tarantino and Rodriguez for the past 15 years and who have gotten filthy rich off films like Pulp Fiction and Spy Kids, have more riding on Grindhouse than its $53 million budget. Two years ago, the brothers left Miramax after prolonged battles with its parent company, Disney, and launched the Weinstein Co. Ever since, there has been no shortage of people in the industry watching intently as the brothers try to get their sea legs back.

While the Weinstein Co. has raised more than $1 billion from outside investors and released such films as Transamerica and Dimension's Scary Movie 4, they still haven't managed to regain their magic touch at the box office — or at the Oscars. And Tarantino and Rodriguez's movie is anything but a sure thing. After all, there's a reason that the films Grindhouse celebrates weren't widely seen the first time around. ''No one movie decides the fate of the company,'' says Harvey Weinstein, ''but this is very important because it's Quentin and Robert. If we get their audience, we're going to be thrilled.''

Of course, accounting ledgers were the last thing on Tarantino's mind a year ago, when Grindhouse was just a twinkle in its parents' eyes. Tarantino envisioned their film as a throwback not just to the milk-gone-bad movies he loved as a kid but to the moviegoing experiences that molded him into the cinema-mad man-child he is today. ''We want Grindhouse to be a ride. Two movies! Trailers! Bad prints! And hey, if a little bit of gang violence breaks out in the theater, all the better.... It just makes the experience more interactive.''


Killer babes, blood, and body parts!
A behind-the-scenes look with Quentin Tarantino and the cast of ''Grindhouse'' at the EW photo shoot
http://www.ew.com/ew/inspirations/video/player/0,,20018143,00.html

(http://img2.timeinc.net/ew/dynamic/imgs/070322/cover/open_l.jpg)
Title: Re: Grind House
Post by: MacGuffin on March 26, 2007, 01:33:10 AM
Tarantino on the Grindhouse Trailers
Source: ComingSoon

Of the exciting elements that collide in Dimension Films' upcoming Grindhouse (opening April 6th), the faux trailers directed by a trio of guest hotshots are generating plenty of hype all on their own. Rob Zombie (The Devil's Rejects), Eli Roth (Hostel) and Edgar Wright (Hot Fuzz) are all contributing two to three-minute trailers for Quentin Tarantino and Robert Rodriguez's love letter to '70s sordid filmmaking.

It has already been reported that "Machete" - Rodriguez's action-packed trailer starring Danny Trejo as the sharp and deadly titular character - is being developed as a feature (more on that below). But what are the chances of seeing Zombie's "Werewolf Women of the S.S.," Wright's "Don't" and Roth's "Thanksgiving" fully fleshed-out?

"Our whole thing is that we were actually going to let the fans dictate that," Tarantino explains to us while out promoting Grindhouse this weekend. "Machete could genuinely be done grindhouse[-style]. About a half-hour is already put together and [Rodriguez] could expand it and literally show up for just another six or seven days and just wrap it up. That'd be extremely New World Pictures style." (For those not up on the Tarantino reference, New World was established in the '70s by leading voice of independent genre filmmaking, Roger Corman, before changing hands in the early-'80s.)

Tarantino adds that bringing the filmmakers on board involved very little arm-twisting. With "Machete" completed early on, he says, "Edgar Wright and Eli Roth, both friends of ours, were at my house and I showed them 'Machete,' I even had the lobby cards Robert made. They really got what we wanted to do and they're just as knowledgeable when it comes to cinema and it just seemed like a perfect fit. Rob Zombie came aboard because of [Dimension Films'] Bob Weinstein - and he brought it up to Zombie because he's doing 'Halloween' for Dimension and I thought it was a really good idea."

"Werewolf Women of the S.S." - starring Sybil Danning, Sheri Moon Zombie, Udo Kier and Nicolas Cage as Fu Manchu - wound up filling a void Tarantino and Rodriguez had not originally considered for Grindhouse. "It's got a Jess Franco sleaziness that's not in the other movies. It was a vein we hadn't really hit on and we knew we had to go in that direction!"
Title: Re: Grind House
Post by: Gold Trumpet on March 26, 2007, 02:18:56 AM
Tarantino adds that bringing the filmmakers on board involved very little arm-twisting. With "Machete" completed early on, he says, "Edgar Wright and Eli Roth, both friends of ours, were at my house and I showed them 'Machete,' I even had the lobby cards Robert made. They really got what we wanted to do and they're just as knowledgeable when it comes to cinema and it just seemed like a perfect fit. Rob Zombie came aboard because of [Dimension Films'] Bob Weinstein - and he brought it up to Zombie because he's doing 'Halloween' for Dimension and I thought it was a really good idea."


Tarantino describes violence as 'pure cinema'

Washington, Mar 13: Director Quentin Tarantino thinks that violence is the important element in films, and that camera has been invented for capturing the excitement in bloodshed.

Writing in 'The Sunday Times', the ace film maker, known for themes on violence in films like 'Pulp Fiction' and 'Kill Bill', said that fierceness is the most visual element in films.

Tarantino added that it was almost as if scientists and pioneers of films invented the camera for capturing violence.

'Violence is one of the most cinematic things you can do with film. It's almost as if (Thomas) Edison and the Lumiere brothers invented the camera for filming violence,' Contactmusic quoted his column.

The director added that the most illustrative filmmakers, make films that thrill the audience.

'The most cinematic directors, they're taking cinema and exciting you. I really do think about it like that,' he said.



I didn't mind when this project was a blowjob fest and nobody (including the filmmakers) thought about the film as anything ambitious. Now the trend is turning and they are equating a ridiculous form of movies to "cinema" and Tarantino is trying to make a rationalization for this film. Some people will buy into it, but most won't. I read the original article a few weeks ago when it was posted on IMDB (but i can't find it now) but his argument isn't convincing at all. Of course saying violence is the most exciting thing is a major stretch and really details no argument, but people are buying into. IMDB is hooked on arguments about how faithful Tarantino and Rodrigeuz are to the old Grindhouse movies and being crtical because it seems they may not be...

I hope this project comes and goes and Tarantino announces definite plans about making Inglorious Bastards soon so attention turns away from this and goes toward that.
Title: Re: Grind House
Post by: Pubrick on March 26, 2007, 06:03:29 AM
his favourite kubrick is probably clork. nuff said.
Title: Re: Grind House
Post by: MacGuffin on March 27, 2007, 08:22:18 PM
Tarantino And Rodriguez Eager To Exploit More Exploitation Flicks'
We hope to keep doing this for a long time,' Tarantino says; directors' 'Grindhouse' opens April 6.
Source: MTV

BEVERLY HILLS, California — Together, Quentin Tarantino and Robert Rodriguez are regarded by many as the future of cinema. They revive and/or announce massive movie stars (Samuel L. Jackson, John Travolta, Antonio Banderas), bravely move filmmaking forward ("Sin City") and shoot their films with an independence typically afforded to Spielberg or Lucas. Now, Tarantino and Rodriguez are once again employing their brotherly bond to step into the future — with one collective foot firmly planted in the exploitation heyday of the early '70s.

As the April 6 theatrical release of "Grindhouse" nears, MTV caught up with the rebellious filmmakers to talk about "Soul Train" memories, screwing with the audience and why they're thankful for MPAA bathroom breaks. 

MTV: Everybody knows what a drama or comedy is. But what exactly is a "grind-house" film?

Quentin Tarantino: Well, I think the term was coined by Variety, if I'm not mistaken. In the urban areas of the big cities, whether it be Los Angeles, New York, Kansas City or Dallas or Nashville, [they were] the old dilapidated movies that showed in the old [theaters]. Exploitation movies would come in and play for a week in one area and go play in another place. But they would also show double features, even triple features. All the exploitation movies, women-in-prison movies, the horror films, the black-exploitation movies, all the wild stuff ... the last stop before oblivion would be the grind house.

MTV: Both you guys have extensive collections of these old, often hard-to-find grind-house flicks. Give us a few titles that people should track down.

Robert Rodriguez: "Rolling Thunder."

Tarantino: A movie that was released in the '70s, "They Call Her One Eye." You can get it on DVD under the title "Thriller."

Rodriguez: "Escape From New York."

Tarantino: I have to throw in a really fantastic, depraved little gem out there. You can get it on DVD; it's called "The Candy Snatchers," and it's about these guys who kidnap a little girl named Candy.

Rodriguez: [He turns to Tarantino.] There's one other, that your movie reminds me of. When it gets to the second half of your movie, it's "White Line Fever."

Tarantino: The funny thing is that I actually showed Robert that movie to give him an idea of [my] flick. He came down to my house, and I just showed him that one movie. He was like, "Where's the next movie?"

Rodriguez: [He laughs.] You get so used to that! Grind-house audiences get used to two movies for the price of one.

MTV: What's your first memory of understanding what a grind-house movie was?

Rodriguez: Well, Quentin experienced it directly firsthand.

Tarantino: Yeah, rather than the theaters itself, it was more the type of movies that were playing there. It was just something about the posters, the newspaper ads ... the TV spots for the blaxploitation movies that they would play on "Soul Train," or the kung-fu spots that they would play [on other shows], those horror-movies TV spots you'd see as a kid on TV. Now they keep that stuff until night. But in the old days in the '70s, they played all kinds of wild movie trailers during your cartoons ... it was like forbidden fruit.

MTV: And you wouldn't go see movies like these in slick megaplexes with stadium seating.

Tarantino: [He laughs.] No. In some theaters you were really taking your life into your own hands. Some of these all-night movie theaters would be where bums would go just to get off the street! [He laughs.] If I was running away from the cops, I would go to an all-night movie theater.

Rodriguez: I was raised more in the drive-ins. I come from such a big family that my mom would take her 10 kids, because that was the bigger bargain. We'd take the big van — everyone gets in for the one price. I would get on top of the van, watching a Doug McClure double feature. But I'd also watch all the other screens, which had other things we weren't supposed to watch.

MTV: In your two movies, and the trailers that run in between, you're constantly screwing with the audience. We get scratches, sound problems, burned and even missing reels. Was it fun messing with your movies?

Rodriguez: Some of these old prints we'd watch would be so scarred-up and so beat-up. ... We were watching one horror film where the sound dropped out, and there was no sound, and right before the big scare, it popped back on! It was an accident, but we knew we had to do stuff like that on purpose.

MTV: Each of you also puts up a "Reel Missing" sign, just when the audience thinks it's about to get a sexy scene.

Tarantino: Well, Robert's missing-reel thing is a joke. I actually want the audience to get mad. [He laughs.] I want them to vocally scream, "Quentin, you A-hole!"

MTV: Tell us one thing each of you sees in the other's "Grindhouse" movie that makes you go, "Man, I wish I had that skill."

Rodriguez: I know mine, but it's not "I wish I had that skill" as much as it's "I wish I wasn't so chicken." It's when he did his action stuff, for real. Quentin went out with real cars, going real fast, with old stunt guys who used to do this forever. It's just really dangerous. I would have been doing that on a green screen.

Tarantino: It's Robert's editing skills that I've always admired; how he puts his sequences together. In the instance of "Planet Terror," it all comes down to one shot for me ... Rose [McGowan] being pulled away by the helicopter. It's just so comic-booky, and so dreamy, and so lovingly perfect in every way ... [when I watch that], that's when I'm like, "Maybe this green-screen stuff actually does have a purpose."

Rodriguez: Yeah, but that girl was pretty for real. She was on a crane; we pulled her on a cable, and she went all the way up. We just added the helicopter later.

MTV: Much was made in the press of your battles with the MPAA. What did you have to cut out to get your R rating?

Tarantino: We weren't fighting with them. We got an R rating very easily.

MTV: I noticed a big continuity flaw, when Kurt Russell's Stuntman Mike is sitting at the bar. First he has nachos in his hand, then his drink, then suddenly nachos again. Did you do that on purpose, just because old grind-house films would be poorly edited?

Tarantino: That was part of the thing. My editor Sally is one of the greatest editors, as far as I'm concerned, in the history of cinema ... [but] we actually went out of our way not to worry about the niceties as far as what's going on outside the car window, are there continuity issues going on, or even nachos versus the glass ... I gave myself the license not to worry about that stuff.

MTV: You guys have talked about making the "Grindhouse" name a brand and releasing other movies in this format. How would that work?

Tarantino: Well, we hope to keep doing this for a long time. There's all these subgenres in exploitation movies and cinema in general that we like, and this gives us a license to explore them all ... I do have an idea in my mind for an old-school kung-fu movie that would be shot in Mandarin ... there would be a long version of it, with subtitles and all serious. Then I would cut another version way down, like they did in America, and dub it! Not to make it look silly, but you can't help but benefit from its humorous quality.

MTV: So you'd do half that, and maybe the other half might be a full-length version of one of the "Grindhouse" trailers?

Tarantino: If the audience screams for "Thanksgiving" and "Don't!" or "Werewolf Women of the S.S.," and [directors] Rob [Zombie], Edgar [Wright] and Eli [Roth] want to do it, we're all down.

MTV: Is your military flick "Inglorious Bastards" next?

Tarantino: Yes, that should be the next one down the line.
Title: Re: Grind House
Post by: MacGuffin on March 28, 2007, 12:32:31 AM
Russell Kills In Grindhouse

Kurt Russell, who plays the villainous Stuntman Mike in Quentin Tarantino's piece of Grindhouse, said that he tried various versions of the character before finding one that even the notorious helmer of Kill Bill found extreme. Russell plays the scarred, pompadoured killer in Death Proof, an homage to such '70s car-chase flicks as Vanishing Point and the original Gone in 60 Seconds.

"I was doing Marlon Brando at one point," Russell said in an interview. "I was doing it as John Wayne. I was just doing [it] all over the map, ... doing it as a complete screaming queen at one point. ... Did a Snake Plissken version [a reference to his Escape From New York character]."

Eventually, Russell found the key to the character in one word. "[I told him,] 'You did write one word here that I did really take to heart.' I said, 'I think it's the core of all these psycho-killer characters, especially this one, who only kills women.' He said, 'What word is that?' I said, 'Coward.'"

As a result, when Stuntman Mike gets his comeuppance in the film, he unravels in a particularly expressive way. So much so that Tarantino, who is well-known for extreme characters and moments in his movies, had doubts. "He's like, 'Just maybe a little less?'" Russell recalled. "And I came out of the car, I said, 'I finally did it! I finally went too far!'"

Not so much, as it turns out. "I saw the movie the other day with him, and at the end of movie, ... he said, 'I used that take.' So, in fact, I never did go too far for him. I never reached that level," Russell said with a big grin. Grindhouse, which also features an SF zombie movie by Robert Rodriguez called Terror Planet, opens April 6.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Grindhouse's McGowan Got Leg Up

Rose McGowan, who plays a one-legged go go dancer in the upcoming genre homage movie Grindhouse, told SCI FI Wire that she performed the film with one leg wearing a stiletto heel and the other in a knee-immobilizing cast tipped by a ball bearing, which would be replaced in post-production with a table leg or machine gun. "I was wearing a really heavy gray cast with LED lights, and it wasn't the most high-tech thing," McGowan said in an interview in Beverly Hills, Calif., over the weekend.

Grindhouse mimics a 1970s double feature, comprising Quentin Tarantino's car-chase thriller Death Proof and Robert Rodriguez's SF zombie movie Planet Terror, in which McGowan's character loses her leg, then gets it replaced with a machine gun/grenade launcher.

To accomodate the visual effects, McGowan had to perform in the ungainly apparatus. "It was quite uncomfortable," she said. "There was a little ball bearing on the heel, because if you were resting on the end of a machine-gun leg or a hospital-table leg, it would be very small and round and kind of tippy. And so my toes pointed in the air, my heel was on the ground, and my other side had a 4-inch high-heel boot."

Even so, Rodriguez expected McGowan to keep up with the rest of the cast: running up hills, jumping on trucks, rolling around on the ground. At night.

"It was cool," McGowan (TV's Charmed) said. "I'm not the complaining sort. I'm Irish. Just pull up your boot straps, soldier on. ... But I had to go as fast as everybody else, do everything everybody else [did]. And they got to basically wear boots and tennis shoes. ... It wasn't like, 'Wait for me! I can't run up this hill with them!' And I did run up the hill. I just fell back down. But then I would go back up."

McGowan added: "At night, I would take off all the body makeup, and it would look like someone took a baseball bat to me. Very sexy."
Title: Re: Grind House
Post by: RegularKarate on March 29, 2007, 12:14:30 AM
Of course, after three plus hours or something, I come home, turn on the t.v. and there's an ad for Grindhouse.

There's no question that there's too much hype around this thing, but that's never the movie's fault... I think I've done a fairly good job at ignoring the hype and not letting it affect my viewing this evening.  Obviously, nothing could live up to the fucking hype (like Pat...er, I mean Neill Cumpston's awesome over-review on AICN (http://www.aintitcool.com/node/32030))

I think this is definitely entertaining and worth seeing a couple of times.  I had a lot of fun... this thing has been shooting around town for a long time and we finally got to see what the hell they were doing all that time and the Paramount audience was INSANELY into it... so much that I missed a lot because of the cheers (a good deal of which were just for friends and places spotted during the movie).

Planet Terror is really fun.  Definitely my favorite of the two just because it so plainly went for entertainment value.  It's nothing but ridiculous.  There are a couple of scenes that were a little TOO "silly", but mostly, it was just... cool... lots of gore and violence... it was like what you always expect to see when you sit down for an exploitation movie, the difference is here it's like that all the way through instead of just a scene or two mixed in with dullsville.

The trailers are 'okay'.  The Machete trailer is the best and the rest are just worth a few chuckles.

I have to say that Death Proof was a little disappointing.  Overall, I enjoyed it and would see it again, but it gets way too Tarantino at times (more-so than most Tarantino films in parts). 

***very slight spoilers (nothing compared to the kajillion different commercials)***

It's like he started writing a Grindhouse movie then got carried away and decided to write really long chunks of "cool" dialogue with nothing else happening.  Then maybe Rodriguez came over and was like "QT, what the fuck?  I thought we were doing Grindhouse here, not Four Rooms 2!  What's with this?" so QT was like "okay, you're right, let me get it back on track... car chase, violence, etc..."  then he got confused again started to write even longer dialogue scenes with even less happening then I don't know, maybe Rodriguez finished for him while he jerked off to shots of records being spun on the jukebox.
Luckily, it's not that long and the good parts make it worth sitting through the shitty parts.

Anyway, there's more to say, but I don't want to get too far into spoiler territory.
Title: Re: Grind House
Post by: MacGuffin on March 29, 2007, 01:12:31 AM
'Grindhouse' filler becomes the choice bit
Guest directors Rob Zombie, Eli Roth and Edgar Wright bring sleaze to their mock film trailers.
Source: Hollywood Reporter
 
Do not be fooled into heading for the bathroom or concession stand during the "intermission" that breaks up the double-billed features that make up "Grindhouse" — "Planet Terror" and "Death Proof."

Perhaps the craftiest trick pulled off by writer-directors Robert Rodriguez and Quentin Tarantino in creating their much anticipated, self-conscious throwback to the heady days of low-rent theaters, scratched prints and the all-scuzz, all-the-time exploitation ethos is the false movie trailers that make up the intermission reel.

The filmmakers enlisted the likes of Rob Zombie ("The Devil's Rejects"), Edgar Wright ("Shaun of the Dead") and Eli Roth ("Hostel") when it became clear they were too bogged down with finishing their features to take on the trailers as well.

Rodriguez recalled Zombie's pitch: "He goes, 'It's called 'Werewolf Women of the SS.' I said, 'Say no more. Go shoot it.' "

And shoot he did. While all three trailers were shot in just two days apiece, Wright and Roth essentially shot only what ended up on screen. Zombie estimates that he had enough footage to make a solid half-hour movie and was particularly pained to whittle it down.

Zombie assembled quite a cast for his mini-movie, including Udo Kier and Sybil Danning, B-movie character actors Bill Moseley and Tom Towles, and his wife, Sheri Moon Zombie. Best of all, however, is an appearance by Nicolas Cage as Fu Manchu.

How exactly one gets from Nazi scientists to topless superwomen, machine-gunning werewolves to Fu Manchu remains delightfully obscure in the trailer, and that confusion is not only intentional but, as Zombie explains, a tip of the hat to exploitation convention.

"I was getting very conceptual in my own mind with it," he says. "A lot of these movies, they would be made cheaply. The real famous Nazi-type movie, 'Ilsa, She-Wolf of the SS,' was made on the leftover sets from 'Hogan's Heroes.' That's why that movie, for a cheap exploitation film, it looks pretty nice.

"A lot of times these movies would be made like, 'Well, you know, I've got a whole bunch of Nazi uniforms, but I got this Chinese set too. We'll put 'em together!' They start jamming things in there, so I took that approach."

Wright created a trailer that is a pastiche of English haunted house pictures and super-stylized European horror films. The very title of Wright's faux film is the central punch line for the trailer (and so it will not be revealed here).

Viewers with a deep knowledge of British acting talent will be able to spot not only "Shaun" stars Simon Pegg and Nick Frost, but also such faces as Jason Isaacs, Matthew Macfadyen, Georgina Chapman, Lucy Punch, Stuart Wilson and Katie Melua. The uproariously paced narration was done by "Arrested Development" star — and voice of GMC truck ads — Will Arnett.

To get the necessary 1970s look, Wright used vintage lenses and old-style graphics. During editing, he scratched some of the film with steel wool and dragged it around a parking lot to make it appear neglected by wayward projectionists.

While growing up in Massachusetts, Roth loved the holiday-themed slasher films — "Silent Night, Deadly Night," "Halloween," "April Fool's Day," "My Bloody Valentine" — but there was always one day that seemed to be overlooked. The result: "Thanksgiving."

Scheduling a couple of days onto the end of production for "Hostel Part II" in Prague, Roth shot his trailer, appropriately enough, just after Thanksgiving. Somewhat desperate for English-speaking performers, he drafted "Hostel" actors Jay Hernandez and Jordan Ladd, actor Michael Biehn, who just happened to be in Prague, and assorted crew members, and he even made a cameo as one of the victims of a mad killer in a pilgrim outfit. (He also got the "Hostel" special effects team to help create some particularly gruesome images, most notably what appears to be a human body stuffed and roasted like a Thanksgiving turkey.)

"Shooting the trailer was so much fun," Roth says, "because every shot is a money shot. Every shot is decapitation or nudity. It's so ridiculous, it's absurd. It's just so wrong and sick that it's right."

It was Roth's trailer in particular that needed some trimming to avoid earning "Grindhouse" an NC-17 rating.

Suffice it to say there are plenty of see-it-to-believe-it moments, including a cheerleader simultaneously stripping and bouncing atop a trampoline, multiple lopped off heads and a killer who stuffs a turkey in a most revolting way.

"Instead of seeing it spread out in a feature, watching it all jammed together nonstop makes it more shocking," Roth says. "But we had a great discussion with the ratings board. They got it. Once they saw it with all the bad splices and the distress and scratches they were fine with it."

Zombie, Wright and Roth all express their appreciation and admiration for Rodriguez and Tarantino, not only as filmmakers, but for creating the "Grindhouse" project in the spirit of dementedly rekindling the lively, night-out fun of old-time moviegoing.

Yet for "Grindhouse" to really capture the spirit of the original grind houses, the seedy, run-down movie theaters that would show wild and relentless releases truly devoid of any redeeming values, the filmmakers had to take it down a few notches and be sure to connect with the lowlifes and the squalor. They needed the merely odd to become the truly outrageous.

"To me the only thing missing from our grind-house movies is they are not quite sleazy enough," says Tarantino of "Planet Terror" and "Death Proof."

The mock trailers, however, are something else.

"These guys brought the sleaze factor. They are coming from a sleaze place that me and Robert did not come from, but that needed to be there for the picture to be proper."
Title: Re: Grind House
Post by: MacGuffin on March 30, 2007, 01:04:02 AM
Tarantino grinds out Cannes plan
Festival getting longer 'Death Proof'
Source: Variety
 
Cannes' favorite son, Quentin Tarantino, is likely making another trip to the film festival in May.

As already reported, Tarantino and Robert Rodriguez's double feature "Grindhouse" will be split into two separate films for non-English-speaking markets. Tarantino said he's working on a longer version of his "Death Proof" segment that looks to be headed to the Croisette.

Given Tarantino's Cannes history, it's possible "Death Proof" could land a competition slot at fest's 60th edition this year. He won Cannes' top prize in 1994 with "Pulp Fiction." "Reservoir Dogs" (1992) and "Kill Bill: Vol. 2" (2004) were shown out of competition, and he served as president of the jury in 2004.

Just how much longer Tarantino may be making his 87-minute conversation-and-car-chase-packed actioner couldn't be confirmed, but added scenes may involve more character development and extended action.

"He could do a two-hour version of it if he wanted," said Eli Roth, who directed one of the fake trailers featured in "Grindhouse" and also played the role of libidinous cad Dov in "Death Proof." "Monday was the first time he saw it with an audience, and it played really well, so I honestly don't know how Quentin is going to feel."

"Planet Terror," Rodriguez's gory horror segment of "Grindhouse," may be gunning for a berth at Cannes as well.

Rodriguez's "Sin City," for which Tarantino served as "Special Guest Director," competed at Cannes in 2005.

The Weinstein Co.'s "Grindhouse" bows Stateside on April 6; international rollout begins May 31. Cannes runs May 16-27.
Title: Re: Grind House
Post by: modage on March 30, 2007, 08:06:42 AM
i think i might be seeing this tonite.
Title: Re: Grind House
Post by: Pubrick on March 30, 2007, 12:04:41 PM
added scenes may involve more character development and extended action.

which means a new scene watching kurt walk to the car for 20mins. (he parked really far away)
Title: Re: Grind House
Post by: RegularKarate on March 30, 2007, 01:49:05 PM
added scenes may involve more character development and extended action.

which means a new scene watching kurt walk to the car for 20mins. (he parked really far away)

Actually, there will probably be more talking... which is worse in Tarantino's case.  Those girls are hot and cute, but they can't really make that stuff work like say Sam Jackson. 
Too much talking in DeafProoth
Title: Re: Grind House
Post by: modage on March 30, 2007, 10:05:39 PM
i agree all the way around with RK.  loved it, it's a great time.  as an experience its completely successful.  preferred Rodriguez's over Tarantino's because it was just wall to wall awesome and i feel like his touchstones were a little closer to mine (John Carpenter).  Tarantino's took a little while to really get going but when it kicks in its great.  there's almost no point in comparing this to their other films or any real movies, it exists in its own universe.  if you can watch Grindhouse without a smile on your face, it sucks to be you.  more later...
Title: Re: Grind House
Post by: SiliasRuby on March 31, 2007, 05:47:29 AM
I'm seeing a sneak preview at the Grindhouse festival in LA on April 5th. Tomorrow, (or rather later tonight) I am going to see the triple feature The Blood Splattered Bride, Asylum of Blood, and Mary, Mary, Bloody Mary. It's at the new beverly in LA. Tarantino is supposed to be hosting some night but ya, I'm sure he will host the one April 5th. Anyway, I can't wait. So excited.
Title: Re: Grind casa
Post by: MacGuffin on April 01, 2007, 10:17:54 AM
Weinsteins ready for 'Grindhouse'
TWC's risky business
By ANNE THOMPSON; Variety
 
At last week's L.A. premiere of "Grindhouse," Harvey and Bob Weinstein looked like themselves again, after seeming to have left their brash personae behind at Miramax and Disney two years ago.

The moguls' career-long investment in Quentin Tarantino and Robert Rodriguez has yielded the $53 million "Grindhouse," a daring gamble that puts the showmen where they like to be: on the edge.

"It's the most adventurous thing Bob and I have done since the early days of our company," says Harvey. "It's a huge risk. I love the danger of it. I love these guys for pushing us."

Indeed, the double feature is far from an easy sell. It pays homage to the schlockhouses of the filmmakers' youth -- a concept likely lost on today's demos. Including four trailers, the entire package runs three hours and 12 minutes. And it's rated R -- a hard R.

Reflecting the filmmakers' desire, the pic is going out, the first ever, under the labels of both the Dimension and the Weinstein Co. ("It's too bad it's not Miramax," laments Bob), rather than MGM, which was the first option considered under the Weinsteins' deal with the reinvented banner.

Back in January 1992, having already fallen for Tarantino's script "True Romance," Harvey Weinstein scooped up "Reservoir Dogs" at Sundance. When a studio passed on "Pulp Fiction" for being too violent, Miramax backed that one, too.

After "Pulp Fiction" won the Palme d'Or at Cannes and scored $213 million worldwide, Weinstein took care of Tarantino like a benevolent studio dad through many dry years between such films as "Jackie Brown" and the lengthy martial arts fest "Kill Bill," which Weinstein insisted on breaking into two films.

"Quentin works when he wants to," says Weinstein. "There's no pressure from us to work at all. It's better when he's excited about something. He blends his life and his art. He's not a journeyman director. He doesn't have to make a movie every year."

Rodriguez and Tarantino have worked on each other's films ever since they met in 1992 in a movie theater lobby following a Toronto Film Festival panel on violence. Tarantino read scenes from "Pulp Fiction" to Rodriguez while in adjoining offices at Columbia Pictures. Both contributed short films to 1995's "Four Rooms."

Since Bob Weinstein backed Rodriguez on "From Dusk til Dawn," the prolific filmmaker's movies for Dimension have grossed almost $900 million worldwide, including the finale of the "El Mariachi" trilogy, "Once Upon a Time in Mexico," the "Spy Kids" trilogy and the stylized digital gamble "Sin City." (Now that Zack Snyder's adaptation of another Frank Miller novel, "300," is a global smash, stars are lining up to be part of"Sin City 2.")

Still, "Grindhouse" tested the relationships between the filmmakers and their studio patrons.

Initially, Rodriguez and Tarantino were supposed to deliver two 60-minute movies, on a budget of $40 million. But by last July's Comic-Con, that bubble had burst. The two filmmakers were each delivering a feature, "Planet Terror" and "Death Proof." The Weinsteins were still hoping that they'd be 70 minutes long.

First up, Rodriguez shot his zombie splatterfest "Planet Terror" at his Austin-basedTroublemaker Studios. When he fell in love with his femme fatale star Rose McGowan, he broke up his marriage of 16 years to producer Elizabeth Avellan. The production had to shut down for a month while he recovered.

The visual effects on the digital film, especially on McGowan's peg leg, also boosted the "Grindhouse" tab. They had also planned a December release. By July, it was pushed back to April.

Tarantino helped Rodriguez on his film by playing a supporting role and shooting second-unit work. By the time Tarantino completed the daredevil live-action stunt work on the climactic car chase on "Death Proof" in January, he had only six weeks left to edit the movie. In typical fashion, he tinkered up to the last possible minute, delivering a wet pristine 35mm print (which had to be digitally married to Rodriguez's intentionally scratched digital picture and turned into film again) just in time for the March 23 media junket.

The two filmmakers had cut as much as they could, but "by accident," says Rodriguez, each film wound up at 85 minutes, surrounded by four trailers directed by Rodriguez, Edgar Wright, Rob Zombie and Eli Roth.

Confronted with a three-hour-plus running time, Bob and Harvey blinked.

"Can't we go with two movies with two trailers each?" they asked.

"No way," the filmmakers replied.

This time, instead of one movie for the price of two with "Kill Bill," says Tarantino, "'Grindhouse' is two for the price of one."

"That's when they killed me," says Harvey. "When you see it, you just say, 'OK, you've got to be brain-dead not to get that one, it's so good and fun.' It's the fastest three hours you ever spent in a theater. It's an event, like a Stones concert, or the Who at Leeds. We're asking people to go to the movies. It's not something to watch on DVD or cable."

Finally, with the opening date bearing down, the Weinsteins went along with a three-hour-plus package with no intermission. "It's not just a double bill," says Bob. "It's an attitude. Not everything is about money. Theaters need something new."

Self-styled sensation junkies Tarantino and Rodriguez both challenged the norm with this one. Tarantino took live-action stunts to the limit with his climactic car chase starring stuntwoman-daredevil Zoe Bell. And Rodriguez scratched up his zombie gorefest to look like a rickety old print with broken sprocket holes. Both movies have "missing reels," and that excised footage will be featured, natch, on the DVD.

"It's so easy with them," says Rodriguez. "I love it that they're a hands-on studio. You can talk directly to them and they'll make a decision at the speed of thought. They said economically two movies was better. But it's stronger as two movies together. That's an event. Separate, it's just another movie. We didn't have to convince them very much. If you bring out the showmen in them, they'll embrace you even more."

The one thing everyone counted on being a problem -- bringing the film in with an R-rating -- turned out to be not so difficult.

"Just leave it to me," veteran ratings wrangler Tarantino told the Weinsteins.

Only minor trims were required. "Did you forget about the dripping penis?" the filmmakers asked the MPAA on MTV.com.

While the Weinsteins could have sent the movie out through MGM, which includes a lucrative Showtime pay TV deal, they agreed to the filmmakers' request to release it themselves through Dimension. Bob pacted with Starz Encore.

This may partially account for the Weinsteins' renewed energy. The brothers are on the line again, booking theaters, mounting one of the largest junkets ever, putting McGowan through 82 interviews in one day and pulling out the stops on a lavish downtown premiere party.

Instead of wearing suits and hobnobbing with investment bankers on Wall Street, Bob and Harvey are back doing what they do best: being showmen, putting their taste on the line, loving their movies and trying to send that message to the rest of the world.

Next stop: the European launch of "Grindhouse" at Cannes, where a longer version of Tarantino's "Death Proof" is expected to screen in competition and Rodriguez's "Planet Terror" may land a midnight screening.

Rodriguez and Tarantino want to keep the "Grindhouse" series going. For his part, Tarantino wants to shoot an old-school Kung Fu movie in Mandarin with subtitles in some countries, and release a shorter, dubbed cut in others. If the movie plays to theaters packed with screaming patrons, the Weinsteins may be willing to indulge him.
Title: Re: Grind House
Post by: MacGuffin on April 04, 2007, 11:50:29 AM
Eli Roth's Thanksgiving trailer here. (http://www.filmthreat.com/video/thanksgiving_trailer.mov)
Title: Re: Grind House
Post by: MacGuffin on April 05, 2007, 06:47:08 PM
'Grindhouse' In-Jokes: Bread Crumbs Tarantino, Rodriguez Hid In Film
Directors left treasure trail for sharp-eyed moviegoers.
Source: MTV

You already know that "Grindhouse" consists of two mini-movies (Quentin Tarantino's "Death Proof" and Robert Rodriguez's "Planet Terror") and several hilariously phony movie trailers. In order to see the whole picture, however, you'll want to know all the in-jokes, intentional mistakes and general bread crumbs the cinema-savvy directors have placed for their sharp-eyed viewers. So, with some help from the stars, we were able to assemble this spoiler-free compilation of things you need to know before you visit the Grindhouse.

In Loving Memory If you listen carefully, you'll hear a radio dedication in Rodriguez's movie for a character who'll die in Tarantino's flick. "In 'Planet Terror,' Tammy, who's played by Fergie, is listening to the radio and then you hear a voice come over the radio," Rose McGowan explained. "That's because Quentin's movie would take place before Robert's movie, since ['Planet Terror'] is supposed to be the end of the world."

The Case of the Missing Reel Vanessa Ferlito did indeed shoot a striptease scene. Watch the film's trailer closely, and you can see the "Death Proof" actress crawling seductively across the barroom floor toward a seated Kurt Russell. Tarantino has said the deleted scene will be restored for DVD and international releases.

A Black-Eyed Zombie? To film her broken-down-Volvo scene with Jeff Fahey, Fergie rushed offstage immediately after playing a sold-out Black Eyed Peas concert in Dallas. Mere hours later, she was on-set in Luling, Texas.

A Cutting-Edge Tradition Robert Rodriguez and Danny Trejo continue a running joke with their fake trailer for "Machete," with Trejo once again named after a sharp weapon. In the "From Dusk Till Dawn" series he played Razor Charlie and Razor Eddie, and in the "Spy Kids" films he was also named Machete.

Two Eli Roths for the Price of One "Eli Roth plays the guy that's trying to get with me," actress Jordan Ladd said of the "Hostel" director, occasional actor and occasional MTV News contributor, who appears in "Death Proof." "He was in pre-production for 'Hostel II,' so we shot him for five days, and then we had to use our first [assistant director]. Quentin thought he looked a little bit like Eli, but he looks nothing like Eli! So if you see Eli's character in the background, it's actually the first A.D."

Nacho Problem Sharp-eyed watchers of "Death Proof" will also notice a continuity flaw when Russell is seated at the bar alongside Rose McGowan. In three successive cuts, Stuntman Mike is holding a drink, then a nacho chip, and then his drink again. Much like the Eli Roth "mistake," Tarantino purposely dropped it in because it's the sort of thing you'd see in a cheap '70's movie.

I Know That Voice! That familiar personality behind the narration-heavy trailer for "Don't!" is none other than "Blades of Glory" funnyman Will Arnett. The comedian's extensive voiceover background includes straight-faced ads for Lamisil medication and GMC trucks.

The Bride Lives! "The colors of my uniform, they're black and yellow," noted Mary Elizabeth Winstead, who wears a cheerleader outfit reminiscent of Uma Thurman's now-famous jumpsuit. "It's got black trim, and it says 'Vipers' on the front, so that's definitely an homage to 'Kill Bill.' " Rodriguez added: "Quentin uses some colors from 'Kill Bill' in one of the cars as well."

Time to Bring the Pain In "Planet Terror," Freddy Rodriguez portrays a mysterious man with a knack for gunplay. If you look closely, however, you might see pain in his eyes. "I was injured," he admits. "In that gun scene I was spinning the guns around, and every time I would spin the gun the trigger would dig into my finger. Eventually, pieces of skin started flying out, along with blood. I had two big holes in my finger." Rodriguez noted that if you look closely, you might even catch a few Band-Aids wrapped around his injured digits.

Is There a De Niro in the House? Josh Brolin gained 25 pounds for his role as Doc Block, in order to develop a believable beer gut. Much to his dismay, Tarantino cut most of the footage of a shirtless Brolin.

Whose Blood Is It, Anyway? "I'm sure you guys are wondering where my blood comes from," grinned Electra Avellan, one half of the Crazy Babysitter Twins. "I have blood all over my boobs — it was Quentin's choice, and my choice too. But no one seems to figure out where it comes from. Everybody has other people's blood on them, but mine comes from somewhere else." Rodriguez's real-life niece claims that if you watch the movie close enough, you'll catch a bizarre, background bloodbath.

Put Your Hands Together for Marley Marley Shelton was excited to find a scene in the script that called for her to lose feeling in her hand — because her hands are oddly jointed in real life. "Funnily enough, I can actually move my wrists in a really bizarre way," she laughed, letting her hand hang freakishly limp. "Stupid human tricks!"

Quentin Nearly Fell for Real "Rosario's character tells a story about when [our characters] were in the Philippines shooting a movie, and how I was trying to take a photo of her and nearly pushed her in a big gutter and she thought she was going to die," Zoe Bell explained, referring to a foreshadowing story told in "Death Proof." "That is [a real] story about Quentin and I, when we were shooting 'Kill Bill' in China." In real life, the stunt woman attempted to take Tarantino's picture and almost made him back into a ditch. "I was the woman that nearly killed Quentin Tarantino!"

Coming Soon to a Fictional 7-11 Near You Explaining that he likes to create "a Quentin universe," Tarantino once again sidesteps product placement with fictional stand-ins. In "Grindhouse," he unveils four new creations. "One of them is an energy drink from Japan, called GO Juice," the director explained. "There's also a Tennessee beer called Old Chattanooga. And one of my favorite ones is we introduced a new cigarette called Capital W. Whites, and it's for women. We also introduced a new version of Red Apple cigarettes, called Red Apple Tans."

A Cultural Exchange Continuing with the theme of fictional product placement, Tarantino and Rodriguez traded creations for "Grindhouse." A character in "Planet Terror" can be seen smoking Red Apples, and "There's a Chango beer in Quentin's part," Rodriguez said of his fictional brew referenced in flicks like "Desperado."

The Big Gulp Winstead's memorable final word wasn't actually supposed to be spoken at all. "It was in the script, but it was meant to be a thought — like, 'She swallows and thinks, "Gulp!" ' — but I said 'gulp!' out loud," the actress admitted. "Everyone started cracking up hysterically, so I guess it worked."

Slick Work at a Greasy Spoon "One take," Rosario Dawson proclaimed, daring us all to look for any edits in the lengthy scene with her and the other "Death Proof" actresses in the diner. "Quentin was like 'You guys have this scene down! Let's just try it.' It was so amazing, especially because Zoe Bell has never acted before".

Planet Terror Royalty "Michael Parks plays Earl McGraw, and he shows up in many of Robert and Quentin's movies as Earl," Shelton pointed out, noting that the character appears in "Kill Bill" and "Dusk." "I play his daughter, Dakota McGraw, so it's a huge honor. Now, I'm part of the royal McGraw family — maybe I'll get some more cameos as Dakota McGraw."

Jukebox Hero Keep your eyes peeled for a scene-stealing cameo by one of Tarantino's favorite inanimate objects. "That is his actual jukebox, and his actual record," actress Sydney Tamiia Poitier revealed. "[The jukebox's] name is Amy, and she's stunning. He flew it in specifically to use it in the movie."
Title: Re: Grind House
Post by: modage on April 05, 2007, 07:52:13 PM
Is There a De Niro in the House? Josh Brolin gained 25 pounds for his role as Doc Block, in order to develop a believable beer gut. Much to his dismay, Tarantino cut most of the footage of a shirtless Brolin.
does tarantino edit rodriguez's movies now?  or does anyone at MTV pay attention to what the hell they're writing about. 

Coming Soon to a Fictional 7-11 Near You Explaining that he likes to create "a Quentin universe," Tarantino once again sidesteps product placement with fictional stand-ins.
except the giant billboard with Scary Movie 4 and Wolf Creek on it?
Title: Re: Grind House
Post by: The Red Vine on April 06, 2007, 08:19:17 PM
I really liked this.

SPOILERS!
Planet Terror

My least favorite segment of the movie. I loved some of the filmmaking but the dialogue was mediocre. I didn't buy QT as a badass, but he was funny.

Death Proof

Absolutely loved it. It's a little slow in the middle but totally makes up for that at the end. One of the most exciting car chases I've ever seen.

Trailers

Loved them all.
Title: Re: Grind House
Post by: polkablues on April 06, 2007, 09:33:57 PM
SPOILERS!

Least spoiling spoilers ever.
Title: Re: Grind House
Post by: Gold Trumpet on April 06, 2007, 10:31:44 PM
I didn't dig Planet Terror that much. Since I am not able to smile at zombie movie lore, I was pretty bored through out. The audience I was with dug it a little way too much, but I enjoyed Freddy Rogriguez's character. He seemed like a relief from the ham performances by everyone else.

Death Proof, for the most part, was very boring. Quentin Tarantino took his time with the dialogue and characters that he reminded me of Tom Wolfe trying to prove he can write for any subject. The characters in this movie were unlike anything Tarantino wrote for before, but there was little direction. I was impressed by the chase sequence, but it didn't save the movie for me. It was so good that it was the only thing that stood out. I have a feeling that repeat viewings will begin to slowly strip away the effect it had on first viewing. As good as it was, it had nothing else to back it up. I think that is the perfect ingrediant for quick aging.

The trailers were best because they were the perfect lengths for their respective stories. Death Proof was much too long and needs to be shortened instead of lengthened, but Planet Terror was too cult for anyone to like but fanboys of the genre.

All in all, not impressed. I'll likely see it again because I am writing a larger piece for another website. I'll try to articulate my feelings better.
Title: Re: Grind House
Post by: The Red Vine on April 06, 2007, 10:34:03 PM
SPOILERS!

Least spoiling spoilers ever.

aw well, can't take any chances.
Title: Re: Grind House
Post by: MacGuffin on April 06, 2007, 11:44:18 PM
As an experience as a whole, I truly dug it. My sister used to work at a drive-in theater, and there was a double-bill theater close to home, so seeing all those Feature Presentaion/Coming Soon slides and ads for food, etc. really brought back a lot of memories. The duo really got it right with the scratchy prints and sound, jump edits, color bleeds and missing reels. Personally, I preferred QT's flick. I felt it captured more of what a B-movie of that era was, and the story felt more of that time and yet still being somewhat original. And the ending couldn't have been any better. Plus, Russell f'ing rocked, and continues to be one of my favorite actors. RR's flick felt overstuffed with many characters and storylines and what felt like a complex plot for an exploitation movie. Plus, all of McGowan kicking ass was pretty much shown in the trailers, so the want to see the 'tease' placed in the trailers and posters of her with the machine gun leg was left till the end and made me feel somewhat cheated. The faux trailers were awesome and could completely pass for real. Roth's was a worthy homage to the Halloween trailer and Wright's was just too priceless.
Title: Re: Grind House
Post by: last days of gerry the elephant on April 07, 2007, 12:03:43 AM
Most fun ever.

I loved the little gimmicks with the Acuna Boys restaurant and how the characters were sipping on Acuna Boys cups during the car rides, apple cigarettes, etc.
Title: Re: Grind House
Post by: grand theft sparrow on April 07, 2007, 12:08:15 AM
Planet Terror was too cult for anyone to like but fanboys of the genre.

Do you mean fanboys of the "fanboy film" genre (which is where Tarantino and Rodriguez are now) or the zombie genre?  Because I'd be inclined to agree with you if you mean the former and strongly disagree if you mean the latter.


I was completely satisfied with the whole experience.  Towards the end of Planet Terror, I was having so much fun and then I got even more excited remembering that there was another movie after it.  Death Proof was a little too talky and I can't imagine what he could add to it, short of that lap dance scene from the trailer, but I get what he was after and knowing now what comes after all the talk, I'm sure that I'll enjoy it even more the second time around.  And that ending was just perfect.  But the high point for me was the trailers, in particular the narration on Thanksgiving. 

Enjoyment of the whole thing comes down to how you answer one question: do you find the joke funny?  I did and I had a fucking blast.
Title: Re: Grind House
Post by: Gold Trumpet on April 07, 2007, 02:13:26 AM
Planet Terror was too cult for anyone to like but fanboys of the genre.

Do you mean fanboys of the "fanboy film" genre (which is where Tarantino and Rodriguez are now) or the zombie genre?  Because I'd be inclined to agree with you if you mean the former and strongly disagree if you mean the latter.

I actually don't care which. But if you do disagree on the zombie genre reference, I'd love to hear an explanation. I've seen some of the movies but never have been a big follower.
Title: Re: Grind House
Post by: modage on April 07, 2007, 09:47:09 AM
Death Proof, for the most part, was very boring.  I didn't dig Planet Terror that much. Since I am not able to smile at zombie movie lore, I was pretty bored through out. The audience I was with dug it a little way too much, but I enjoyed Freddy Rogriguez's character.

All in all, not impressed. I'll likely see it again because I am writing a larger piece for another website. I'll try to articulate my feelings better.

The film world just got a little nerdier
Title: Re: Grind House
Post by: Pubrick on April 07, 2007, 09:54:04 AM
fanboys of the "fanboy film" genre

marquee
Title: Re: Grind House
Post by: The Red Vine on April 07, 2007, 11:01:08 AM
Death Proof, for the most part, was very boring.  I didn't dig Planet Terror that much. Since I am not able to smile at zombie movie lore, I was pretty bored through out. The audience I was with dug it a little way too much, but I enjoyed Freddy Rogriguez's character.

All in all, not impressed. I'll likely see it again because I am writing a larger piece for another website. I'll try to articulate my feelings better.

The film world just got a little nerdier

So we're not hipsters if we don't love this movie? I liked this movie (for the most part) but I agree with GT on some things. I was really bored through several scenes. I feel both films could have been cut by atleast 20 minutes.
Title: Re: Grind House
Post by: Gold Trumpet on April 07, 2007, 12:21:53 PM
Death Proof, for the most part, was very boring.  I didn't dig Planet Terror that much. Since I am not able to smile at zombie movie lore, I was pretty bored through out. The audience I was with dug it a little way too much, but I enjoyed Freddy Rogriguez's character.

All in all, not impressed. I'll likely see it again because I am writing a larger piece for another website. I'll try to articulate my feelings better.

The film world just got a little nerdier

So we're not hipsters if we don't love this movie? I liked this movie (for the most part) but I agree with GT on some things. I was really bored through several scenes. I feel both films could have been cut by atleast 20 minutes.

It says something about him, doesn't it? I respected his opinion and left his review alone. He again tried to undermine mine. Mind you, I really didn't give a full opinion with detailed points, but I said no more or no less than he did. I'll write something larger about Grind House and post it in Green Screen.

In the end, the truth is Mod and I enjoy different genres. I spoke glowingly of Casino Royale for so long but I didn't make one actual point that would have made a difference to someone outside the Bond appreciation society. Grindhouse just wasn't my bag, baby.
Title: Re: Grind House
Post by: SiliasRuby on April 07, 2007, 03:50:03 PM
I saw this Thursday night at a sneak preview at the new beverly. My girlfriend and I were the last two people included in the theatre and we had to sit on the floor, because they oversold. QT, Rodreiguez, Eli Roth, and Havey Weinstein were in the audience as well as Fergie. We saw Eli, robert, fergie and harvey. We knew QT was there because we heard that a assistant of quentin's asked robert if he wanted to sit by quentin. Harvey accidently kicked my gf's shoe.
Even though we had to stand and then sit on the floor right by the door to the lobby it was the most exilirating (sp?) experience I've had at the movies in a very long time. I liked both of them and had a great theatre going experience. Everyone in the audience was being rowdy and rambunctious during the parts they were supposed to be. I liked Death proof more than planet terror, because it seemed more engrossed into Grindhouse fashion. It was quite a ride and I really can't wait for the DVD.
Title: Re: Grind House
Post by: grand theft sparrow on April 07, 2007, 05:29:16 PM
Planet Terror was too cult for anyone to like but fanboys of the genre.

Do you mean fanboys of the "fanboy film" genre (which is where Tarantino and Rodriguez are now) or the zombie genre?  Because I'd be inclined to agree with you if you mean the former and strongly disagree if you mean the latter.

I actually don't care which. But if you do disagree on the zombie genre reference, I'd love to hear an explanation. I've seen some of the movies but never have been a big follower.

I disagree on the zombie point because it's like saying that Death Proof is too cult for anyone but fans of car porn movies like Fast and the Furious or something like that.  They're labeling Planet Terror as a zombie movie and I think Rodriguez even refers to them as zombies in his script but it has much too much of an action movie feel and too little of a standard zombie movie feel to have a kinship with the benchmarks of zombie films. 

If you were arguing that point about Shaun of the Dead, I'd agree 100%, but Planet Terror requires no previous knowledge about the zombie genre in order to enjoy it the way that Shaun or 28 Days Later might.  However, it does require you to have seen and enjoyed a couple of John Carpenter films, which is why I would agree if you meant it would only appeal to fans of fanboy directors.
Title: Re: Grind House
Post by: ©brad on April 07, 2007, 05:56:25 PM
1. it was all too long.

2. death proof was much better.

3. i need a shower.
Title: Re: Grind House
Post by: RegularKarate on April 07, 2007, 08:04:37 PM
1. it was all too long.

Dear christ, I'm getting sick of people saying this... IT'S TWO MOVIES!!!! they're both pretty SHORT!
If you watched any other two movies back to back and then said "that movie was too long" then whoever you were watching it with would think that you were kind of nuts.

2. death proof was much better.
see above where I called you nuts.

3. i need a shower.
That much we can agree on... Peee Yoooo, Cbrad

I'll write something larger about Grind House and post it in Green Screen.
I'm sorry, do everyone (including yourself) a favor and don't.
You go on about how Planet Terror is a "fanboy" movie that requires prior knowledge about zombie pictures and you just reveal how pre-judging you were of it.  THIS ISN'T a zombie movie... the only thing this is a fanboy copy of is KIND OF John Carpenter's earlier movies, but even then that requires no knowledge of his work to "get" this movie.
Everyone knew from the getgo that you wouldn't enjoy this... so why are you examining it like a recipe?
Title: Re: Grind House
Post by: Gold Trumpet on April 07, 2007, 09:23:30 PM
I'll write something larger about Grind House and post it in Green Screen.
I'm sorry, do everyone (including yourself) a favor and don't.
You go on about how Planet Terror is a "fanboy" movie that requires prior knowledge about zombie pictures and you just reveal how pre-judging you were of it.  THIS ISN'T a zombie movie... the only thing this is a fanboy copy of is KIND OF John Carpenter's earlier movies, but even then that requires no knowledge of his work to "get" this movie.
Everyone knew from the getgo that you wouldn't enjoy this... so why are you examining it like a recipe?

Don't worry, I'll barely focus on Planet Terror. By asking other members questions about it, I've showed my ignorance to that film and what it is referencing. Besides, I have little interest in it. My main focus will be on Tarantino and questions outside of the film. I know I can't say much by writing something that tries to criticize a genre I just don't enjoy, but I'll focus on aspects I am interested in.
Title: Re: Grind House
Post by: ©brad on April 08, 2007, 08:16:38 AM
1. it was all too long.

Dear christ, I'm getting sick of people saying this... IT'S TWO MOVIES!!!! they're both pretty SHORT!
If you watched any other two movies back to back and then said "that movie was too long" then whoever you were watching it with would think that you were kind of nuts.

i understand there's two movies here. that doesn't change the fact that i thought it all could've been trimmed a bit. planet terror doesn't feel short at all. a good number of people walked out of the movie at several different parts.

2. death proof was much better.
see above where I called you nuts.

consider this me calling you nuts. the "boring talking parts" were some of the best parts of the entire thing. not to mention the car chase in death proof was more exhilarating, scary, and fun than anything in planet terror.

Personally, I preferred QT's flick. I felt it captured more of what a B-movie of that era was, and the story felt more of that time and yet still being somewhat original. And the ending couldn't have been any better. RR's flick felt overstuffed with many characters and storylines and what felt like a complex plot for an exploitation movie. Plus, all of McGowan kicking ass was pretty much shown in the trailers, so the want to see the 'tease' placed in the trailers and posters of her with the machine gun leg was left till the end and made me feel somewhat cheated.

i agree w/ macman here. i think rodriguez sufferred from having his movie be 80% of all the trailers. sitting through planet terror, all i was thinking was "okay, when is she getting the gun leg? come on already." then all the cool scenes w/ her was all stuff we've seen. maybe this is the reason one should avoid trailers before movies, but it's pretty hard to do that when the movie's marketing budget is as big as this one.
Title: Re: Grind House
Post by: RegularKarate on April 08, 2007, 12:22:42 PM
consider this me calling you nuts. the "boring talking parts" were some of the best parts of the entire thing. not to mention the car chase in death proof was more exhilarating, scary, and fun than anything in planet terror.

QT's dialogue is not always that great and this was some of his worst.  That kind of dialogue is good when it's been delivered by a Sam Jackson or even a David Carradine, but these girls just didn't sell it at all.  It was just delivering words and pretty poorly.
I'll admit the car chase was probably the best stuff in all of Grindhouse, but that was MAYBE ten percent of Death Proof while Planet Terror was almost entirely made of excitement.

i think rodriguez sufferred from having his movie be 80% of all the trailers. sitting through planet terror, all i was thinking was "okay, when is she getting the gun leg? come on already." then all the cool scenes w/ her was all stuff we've seen. maybe this is the reason one should avoid trailers before movies, but it's pretty hard to do that when the movie's marketing budget is as big as this one.

Once again, that's not the movie's fault.  I hate that shit too... Also, I always turn the station when those promos come on, but they used them for a reason, Planet Terror was better and so they showed more of it in the promos. 

As for the leg, the movie would have been pretty stupid if she had the gun throughout... by the time she gets the gun for a leg, you've been set up with so many escalatingly ridiculous scenarios, you just buy it.
Title: Re: Grind House
Post by: modage on April 08, 2007, 01:03:24 PM
i saw this a second time yesterday and other than saying i still agree 100% with RK, i will elaborate with a few more thoughts....

i think one's enjoyment of these films depends on three factors:

1. your expectations.
2. an appreciation of "good" bad movies or at least some knowledge of bad movies.
3. the audience.


if you saw the trailers (not the horrible tv spots, the actual trailers) or read a single article about the film i would think you knew what to expect.  however, if you went in expecting "the 5th film from Quentin Tarantino" or whatever then i think that was your mistake.  despite Tarantino's insistence otherwise, it really seemed to be more of an experiment (like Four Rooms) than a follow-up.  he said he just wanted to be free to try something without having the weight of the world on his shoulders to deliver a follow-up.  he and Rodriguez just wanted to deliver a fun balls-out night at the movies and i think they totally succeeded. 

while i probably haven’t seen a single one of the exploitation movies that Tarantino references during his film, i have seen enough movies good and bad to be able to appreciate what he and Rodriguez were doing with their films.  my touchstones may be different than theirs but i grew up watching whatever action movies i could get my hands on going from the A (Schwarzenegger, Stallone, Russell) to B (Segall, Van Damme) and even in a trailer like Machete those references seem to come back for me.  later on in middle and high school i moved onto watching more horror films including some truly terrible ones (like Blood Diner) but some great ones also.  so while i may not have seen Vanishing Point or Dirty Marry Crazy Larry i did used to watch Big Trouble In Little China every few months on the Fox Sunday Afternoon Matinee and i did see Cliffhanger at the $1.50 theatre when I was 11 or 12 years old and during one of the big “kill” scenes there was about 15 seconds of missing film where the film jumped from Stallone fighting one of the baddies to being underwater.  i wasn’t even sure i had missed something at the time until i saw the film again on video and saw the moments in between.  i just remember there was a sense of discovery back then sifting through the video store for whatever title you could get your hands on and occasionally finding a gem, or finding the gem moments during an otherwise bad film. 

this seems almost retarded to have to spell it out like this but a big part of enjoying these films is being a part of an audience who ‘gets it’.  seeing the films again yesterday afternoon was a completely different experience from my first viewing which was full of critics (who have seen their share of bad movies) and geeks (ditto that).  yesterday the audience did not seem to be as 'in on the joke' and much of the laughter and applause was absent which really affected the way the film played for me.  because of this i actually found that during the first 30 minutes of Death Proof i actually found myself thinking that i enjoyed it more than Planet Terror.  if the crowd is full of people like GT sitting there “bored”, it’s not going to seem like the film worked.  if you saw Spinal Tap in the theatre expecting it to teach you about rock n roll lore and nobody laughed you probably would’ve thought it wasn’t very funny.

if i had wanted to be critical there are a dozen things i could point out that didn’t quite work but when i left the theatre and thought about the experience i just had i decided not to.  it was SO MUCH FUN and SO OVER-THE-TOP it really just seemed like a waste of time to nitpick these films.  yes, it was a fanboy film made for fanboys and it has no intention to convert anyone else.  (see: it flopped).  so like i said if anybody went and was bored and couldn't have fun with it, then i'm sorry for you that you couldn't get past the pretension and just have a good time.
Title: Re: Grind House
Post by: pumba on April 08, 2007, 01:59:12 PM
Machete was fantastic!

Was anyone else super impressed with quentin's diner scene? I soiled myself.
Title: Re: Grind House
Post by: modage on April 08, 2007, 02:04:42 PM
Was anyone else super impressed with quentin's diner scene? I soiled myself.
i was!  but i liked it better when it was in Reservoir Dogs.  oops! not going to nitpick. not going to nitpick. not going to nitpick.
Title: Re: Grind House
Post by: pumba on April 08, 2007, 03:22:49 PM
But it was so much longer here! And looked way more difficult - i could be wrong though? Am i?
Title: Re: Grind House
Post by: The Red Vine on April 08, 2007, 03:40:35 PM
I agree with RK on the dialogue. The girls didn't make it engaging the way other actors could. And considering the length of those scenes, it drags quite a bit. Of course I hate to pick on Rosario Dawson...

My fear is that Tarantino will become an action frat boy getting by with stylish homages to other movies as oppose to doing engaging, clever dialogue. He tried to do both things with "Death Proof", but I'd say he failed with the dialogue. I hope he isn't losing his talent in that area. Because after two "Kill Bill" movies and now this, it's time for him to write one hell of a great script. And I'd say he hasn't done that since "Pulp Fiction".
Title: Re: Grind House
Post by: Gold Trumpet on April 08, 2007, 04:14:03 PM
however, if you went in expecting "the 5th film from Quentin Tarantino" or whatever then i think that was your mistake.  despite Tarantino's insistence otherwise, it really seemed to be more of an experiment (like Four Rooms) than a follow-up.  he said he just wanted to be free to try something without having the weight of the world on his shoulders to deliver a follow-up. 

I don't know. I think with Kill Bill, everyone is assuming all of his next feature lengths will be equal size projects. Pulp Fiction was a universe compared to how small Reservoir Dogs was, but Tarantino followed that up with Jackie Brown which is on a comparable size to Death Proof.

I'm identifying this as a feature length for many reasons. One, the film is no more a venture into fun and silly than Kill Bill is. Kill Bill Part I has more similarities to Planet Terror than Death Proof does. Second, Quentin Tarantino is extending Death Proof into a feature length film. He wants the film to stand alone.

Everyone is expecting that his next feature length will be more meaningful. I don't believe it. All of his ideas and projects are registering on the same level. Sometimes he makes big insane projects out of them (Kill Bill) and sometimes he makes smaller pieces (Jackie Brown). It's becoming all the same.
Title: Re: Grind House
Post by: polkablues on April 08, 2007, 06:07:38 PM
I agree with RK on the dialogue. The girls didn't make it engaging the way other actors could. And considering the length of those scenes, it drags quite a bit. Of course I hate to pick on Rosario Dawson...

I liked everything about this movie, with the HUGE exception of that segment.  Everything between the first part of Death Proof and the car chase was the most awful, sub-Kevin Smith dialogue and acting I could possibly imagine.  The exception to that being Mary Elizabeth Winstead, who was so natural and funny that it made the other three look even worse than they already were.  And then, of course, what do they do but leave the good one behind, never to be seen again.

But all in all:
Trailers = great (especially "Don't", but NOT especially Rob Zombie's, which was the biggest wasted opportunity)
Planet Terror = absurdly fun; loved every moment of it.
First part of Death Proof = excellent; the closest to capturing the specific tone and rhythm of authentic grindhouse films.
Second part of Death Proof, up to the car chase = If you need to go take a half-hour dump, now's the time.
The car chase = Absolute cinegasm.
Title: Re: Grind House
Post by: ᾦɐļᵲʊʂ on April 09, 2007, 02:28:20 AM
SPOILER

I wasn't sure exactly when the film lost its scratchy, subpar value, but it seemed like in the second half of Death Proof.  Planet Terror was made to look like 70's kitsch and didn't deviate from it that much, but Death Proof was cleaned up when the next four girls were introduced.  The ending was very surprising for the mood (little was done with any supernatural elements of Kurt Russel being some mysterious loner). 

What the latter half till the ending shows is the triumph of modern horror over the 70's grind house motion pictures (Rosario Dawson putting her foot through Kurt Russel's head).  This really put a lot of emphasis on the transition of old to new, but was this the point?  Did they want to establish that slasher flicks were just a phase from a long time ago?  It's pretty clear we still have a lot of formulaic summer blockbuster scary movies, so it's not like we've evolved from the grind house days. 

In the context of the films, Planet Terror was on point.  Shit blew up for no reason, pistols cause explosive wounds, almost every character's relationship doesn't need to be explained because of how little it contributes to the zombie swarm.  The trailers also helped keep this mood going (especially Werewolf Women of the SS and Machete, Thanksgiving and Don't were funny, but played themselves out too quickly).  Then Death Proof comes on, which started out very promising, but Tarantino wanted to be Tarantino too much and as a result, we weren't watching campy 70's in grainy, dingy film but rather a clean movie with shallow dialogue of flat characters.

The car chasse were badass, though.
Title: Re: Grind House
Post by: last days of gerry the elephant on April 09, 2007, 02:47:07 AM
Then Death Proof comes on, which started out very promising, but Tarantino wanted to be Tarantino too much and as a result, we weren't watching campy 70's in grainy, dingy film but rather a clean movie with shallow dialogue of flat characters.

I thought the exact same. A promising start, then steering into unfamiliar territory. I won't say it sucked though, I just enjoyed Planet Terror way more.
Title: Re: Grind House
Post by: ᾦɐļᵲʊʂ on April 09, 2007, 11:10:14 AM
On the whole, I would've enjoyed Death Proof more because the concept was just much cooler.  Rather than a stock zombie story where things blow up, which is easy to make fun of, Death Proof was an original concept that still felt very played out for some reason.  If it wasn't mucked up through the technical issues, I probably would've liked it more.
Title: Re: Grind House
Post by: modage on April 09, 2007, 01:47:21 PM
Elvis Mitchell's "The Treatment" Podcast featuring 30 minute interviews with:

Quentin Tarantino (http://phobos.apple.com/WebObjects/MZStore.woa/wa/viewPodcast?id=73330616&s=143441&i=15245448)
&
Robert Rodriguez (http://phobos.apple.com/WebObjects/MZStore.woa/wa/viewPodcast?id=73330616&s=143441&i=15261398)

Quentin discusses his hesitation in filling Death Proof with so much dialogue...and more!
Title: Re: Grind House
Post by: MacGuffin on April 09, 2007, 04:08:36 PM
EXCLUSIVE: Harvey Very Disappointed; May Re-Release 'Grindhouse' As 2 Pics
Source: Nikki Finke; Deadline Hollywood

Harvey Weinstein told me this morning that he's "incredibly disappointed" with the half-than-expected $12 mil weekend box office for Grindhouse. So much so, that he's considering abandoning the double feature as a single feature concept and re-releasing the Quentin Tarantino/Robert Rodriguez 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, Tarantino's Death Proof and  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 video deal as well as its 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 Rodriguez'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 the single biggest deterrent. 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." But he denies other's thinking that the Grindhouse subject matter was too foreign for mainstream audiences. Yet The Weinstein Co. wouldn't give the film to actual Grindhouses, or even the Grindhouse Film Festival, to screen and create buzz. That may be one reason the advance tracking on the film prior to Friday was only so-so. The hype seems to have been all Internet-generated, which is why New Line's Snakes On A Plane flopped.

Weinstein admitted spending at least $30 million on U.S. promotion and advertising for  Grindhouse, which, added to what I'd already heard was a $67+ mil budget and not the low-50s cost he has claimed, makes this a $100 mil movie. So the first weekend's take of just $12 mil is all the more disastrous. On the other hand, Harvey (and independent observers) says the movie is heavily pre-sold overseas and expects it to do well there. That's not surprising, since many movies recently (Babel, Apocalypto) have run out of gas here only to pump up the total with international box office. But a re-release in the U.S. could prove almost prohibitively costly for The Weinstein Co.: new prints, new marketing, new everything. It may nto be worth it, especially with Spider-man 3 and the rest of this summer's tentpole onslaught is just around the corner.

Weinstein admits that he thought the film would do much better than it did and sees the failure of Grindhouse's U.S. release as a rap on his reputation for movie savvy. He can't blame the directors. After all, he is closely tied to Tarantino and Rodriquez personally and professionally and, what's more, he and brother Bob made that relationship and Grindhouse a cornerstone of their fledgling company's financing. (No doubt, that's why Harvey, who has a long history of imposing his iron will on filmmakers, gave the two directors a pass when it came to Grindhouse's extreme length.)

But Harvey is adamant that the flop will not be a body blow to The Weinstein Co., even though it's still a fledgling firm in business since only 2005. "We're smart businessmen. Thank God, we protected ourselves economically. I've spent the last year diversifying the company. We're making profits everywhere but the movie business. But on DVD sales, we're doing well," he claims.

The Weinstein Company's diversified investments include the home video company Genius Products, the private online community aSmallWorld, the cable TV hit show Project Runway, the independent cable channel Ovation, and, most recently, the Halston fashion brand. Harvey admitted to me that his attention may have been too diverted from the movie biz as a result. "This Cannes, I'm going to change all that. I'm back to being me. We wanted to diversify immediately. Now I have to go back to being Harvey."
Title: Re: Grind House
Post by: Ravi on April 09, 2007, 11:46:51 PM
http://www.filmwad.com/film-students-accuse-tarantino-of-grindhouse-theft-2139-p.html

Film Students Accuse Tarantino of "Grindhouse" Theft

A group of poor student filmmakers apparently talked to Tarantino about their exploitation exploiting Grindhouse movie before he and Rodriguez had even considered their own, and now they're pissed.  Do the two movies have any similarities other than their title?  Hard to say without shelling out the 99 cents it costs to buy the "original," (http://www.therealgrindhouse.com/) but there are no accusations in that regard.  The lower budget Grindhouse's director, Stephen Tramontana:

It sucks, because now I'm that guy. I'm that guy stating that a big Hollywood player ripped off my idea. We all know how that looks. But, a. I made the movie – anyone can see it. and b. he's constantly referenced the day in 2003 when he got the idea to make a movie called Grindhouse. My bet is that it was the day he opened my Fed Ex. Maybe he didn't even watch the movie, but he had to have seen the poster, and maybe that was all it took.

Not that we don't feel for the guy, but if Tarantino's/Rodriguez's movie is better, then it really doesn't matter who originally conceptualized it.  History is full of credit given based on the improvement upon the ideas of others, and many times it's only the improved idea that ends up being noteworthy.  May we suggest to Stephen that he take the idea of Tarantino's next project, Inglorious Bastards, and make it better.



http://www.therealgrindhouse.com/

Will I Be Watching Tarantino's Grindhouse? No.

Quentin Tarantino is a thieving piece of shit and he knows it. He stole Grindhouse from a bunch of kids who were just asking for his help and he helped them by stealing their title and concept.

Let me explain. For those who don't know, I made a film called Grindhouse in 2003. We actually started shooting it in 2002, but went to the festivals and got reviews in 2003, winning BEST HORROR FILM in the New York International Film and Video Festival. We also got many favorable mentions from established publications such as Fangoria and Rue Morgue. The movie was low, low, low budget. Which made sense, because that's what Grindhouse films were – really low budget movies that had little artistic merit. Most of the reviewers got that. They realized what we realized – if you're going to make a horror movie with $4,000 – the smart bet is to redo a Grindhouse film where the low budget and all that comes with it are celebrated.

We approached Tarantino twice during the life of Grindhouse. The first time is when producer Lenny Shteynberg and I were at the premier after party for Jay and Silent Bob Strike Back in Westwood. Tarantino was there, and to his credit, he was very approachable. I told him that we were going to shoot a new kind of Grindhouse movie, and asked if we could show it to him when we were finished. He politely declined, and
we parted friends.

It would be two years later – November 2003- after we finished production (and won our award), that we again approached Tarantino. We knew the movie was too tiny for a theatrical run, but thought maybe we could get a direct to DVD deal. Through industry contacts, I found the business address for his production company, and Fed Ex'd a copy of the film and the poster. It was signed for by a "C. Hill." or Chill. I knew he received it, and just hoped that got what we were trying to do. Kill Bill was on the radar, so I thought it was good timing for us. We never heard from Tarantino or anyone in his production company.

Cut to 2005. I was now working for a production company as a Post Coordinator. I picked up an issue of the trade publication Variety, announcing: Tarantino was making a film called GRINDHOUSE. Not our Grindhouse, something he was teaming up with Robert Rodriguez on.

I was heartbroken. One of my heroes had ripped us off. And it wasn't like we were anybody. We were nobodies, trying to get ahead with our tiny film like he had almost a decade before. I had our entertainment attorney call Dimension Films, where Tarantino was setting the film up. I tried to stop them from using the title Grindhouse because I own it. I am the only person with the title Grindhouse registered with the copyright office. Dimension came back and said that Tarantino's was called Death Proof, not Grindhouse. Yes, we retorted, but you're not releasing it as Death Proof, you're releasing it as Grindhouse. They came back with, essentially, take us to court and see what happens to you. I didn't want to take them to court; I wanted them not to use the title.

It sucks, because now I'm that guy. I'm that guy stating that a big Hollywood player ripped off my idea. We all know how that looks. But, a. I made the movie – anyone can see it. and b. he's constantly referenced the day in 2003 when he got the idea to make a movie called Grindhouse. My bet is that it was the day he opened my Fed Ex. Maybe he didn't even watch the movie, but he had to have seen the poster, and maybe that was all it took.

Tarantino has fucked over people before – just ask his old writing buddy Roger Avary, whom he destroyed and left for dead in his post-Pulp Fiction rise. But I never thought he would turn on other indie filmmakers. And what's sad is, there were sacrifices on our end, too. My Grindhouse cost me two long-standing friendships over a business dispute. That was a regrettable situation, and one that burns me even more now that we really have nothing to show for it, and probably won't be able to. It takes away from their hard work, as well as everyone who sweated out weekends and endless time to try and make our little movie work.

People could say that there have been numerous movies with the same title. Gladiator comes to mind. To me, there's no way on God's green earth, that two movies called Grindhouse devoted to the idea of those old films, could be released. And it's weird that it happened after our film was released and got a fair amount of press in the genre circles.

So am I going to see it? No. Do I want you to not go see it? No. If you want to see it, please do. I knew someone who worked post on that show, and for what they went through to deliver Tarantino's film, I hope the movie does well. They deserve it. What Tarantino deserves is to be called out for the thief that he is. He's a complete piece of shit with no code of ethics for the industry that gave him his start – the indie industry.

If there's any justice in the world, he'll fall out of favor and have to watch as his long, long-gestating World War 2 epic, Inglorious Bastards, gets handed over to Lloyd Kauffman to produce and Uwe Boll to direct.

-Stephen Tramontana
Title: Re: Grind House
Post by: Satcho9 on April 10, 2007, 12:48:15 AM
boo. fucking hoo.

If only there were more similarities than the title.
Title: Re: Grind House
Post by: RegularKarate on April 10, 2007, 01:49:57 AM
This guy doesn't even deserve a link to his website listed.
What a shitbag.

The title isn't even clever, it's just what it is.  Unless the films were exactly the same, he has nothing to even begin to bitch about.
Title: Re: Grind House
Post by: grand theft sparrow on April 10, 2007, 06:14:22 AM
Tarantino has fucked over people before – just ask his old writing buddy Roger Avary, whom he destroyed and left for dead in his post-Pulp Fiction rise. But I never thought he would turn on other indie filmmakers.

Right, because he's so much more trustworthy towards people off the street than friends of his.   :doh:

I think it's perfectly fair.  Tarantino steals the title of Grindhouse and this guy steals the syllables and emphasis in Tarantino's name.  It's obvious this guy made it up for his career or at the very least figured he would wow Tarantino by informing him that their names sound the same.

Fuck this guy.  He's probably actually throwing a party this week because Grindhouse only did $12 million.


EDIT: Grindhouse is definitely reaching someone.  Vanishing Point went from being available "now" to "long wait" on netflix today.
Title: Re: Grind House
Post by: Stefen on April 10, 2007, 09:14:40 AM
This movie reminded me of that store in the mall that sells those re-created Led Zeppelin tour t-shirts, that are all pre-faded where some of the letters are difficult to make out cause of peeling, but the whole shirt costs like $70 brand new and when you think about it you realize how silly it is.
Title: Re: Grind House
Post by: ©brad on April 10, 2007, 09:26:37 AM
yeah that kid needs to get over it.

EXCLUSIVE: Harvey Very Disappointed; May Re-Release 'Grindhouse' As 2 Pics

laaaaame. i may have thought this was too long, but that doesn't mean i'd ever want to see it as separate flicks. the double-feature aspect is what makes it fun.

my guess on the poor box office performance - GIRLS. this is a 14-year old boy genre. every chica i've talked to – many of who are avid tarantino fans – have no desire to see this. i doubt splitting it into 2 is going to change their minds, nevermind the fact that every tarantino-crazed fanboy already saw it opening weekend.

Title: Re: Grind House
Post by: grand theft sparrow on April 10, 2007, 10:24:35 AM
Two of my friends dragged their girlfriends with us to see it on Friday.  My girlfriend, my friend's girlfriend, and my other friend's wife declined to go (no, I'm not making this up, all of our girlfriends really exist) and the girls who did go weren't so happy with it.  In fact, one informed her boyfriend that they will be going to the upcoming 20th Anniversary screening of Dirty Dancing as payback.  So the girl thing is a factor but the length is as much of a problem, as well as releasing it on fucking Easter weekend.  Knowing now what happened, they should have held it off until early August or so, when people need a place to sit in air conditioning for as long as they possibly can, on top of the high school/college fanboys being off from school. 

The Weinsteins have to know that it's already too late to release them separately.  Death Proof will only make money with the people who already saw it and liked it but didn't like Planet Terror; otherwise, why pay $10 for one movie when you already paid $10 for two?  Planet Terror has the better word of mouth of the two and is the more accessible, but even that won't bring in that much more money.  If they're going to send them out separately, do it in the summer.  Put Planet Terror out towards the end of the summer in 1000 or so theatres, and put the longer version of Death Proof in the arthouses.  But set the DVD release for sometime in 1st quarter 2008 so fewer people will say, "I'll wait for the DVD.  It's only out in a month."
Title: Re: Grind House
Post by: modage on April 10, 2007, 10:37:55 AM
Blood on the Asphalt
An interview with Quentin Tarantino on the eve of his latest movie, the horror-flick double feature 'Grindhouse'
Source: Newsweek

April 5, 2007 - People are always eating and drinking in Quentin Tarantino's films, and he always makes sure to give them cool places to do it. The 44-year-old filmmaker loves colorful banter, and restaurants and bars are the ideal setting. Over the course of his career, he's given us the diner at the beginning of "Reservoir Dogs," Jack Rabbit Slim's and Big Kahuna Burger in "Pulp Fiction" and the glamorously serene House of Blue Leaves in "Kill Bill, Volume 1." He gives us two more hip establishments in his new movie, "Death Proof": a Tex-Mex joint named Guero's and a dumpy roadhouse bar called the Texas Chili Parlor. So frankly, it's a little disappointing when Tarantino asks a NEWSWEEK reporter to meet him for an interview at his local Starbucks. It's just down the street from his apartment in New York's West Village, but still. Fortunately, when Tarantino shows up, he's exactly the guy fans have come to expect: a manic, mile-a-minute talker in blue jeans and a vintage T shirt. For his latest project, "Grindhouse," opening on Friday, he teamed up with longtime pal Robert Rodriguez to deliver a double feature of horror flicks. Rodriguez's zombie movie "Planet Terror" leads the way, then "Death Proof," a sly twist on the classic slasher movie, follows right after it. Tarantino spoke with NEWSWEEK's Devin Gordon.

NEWSWEEK: Why was a 1970s-style exploitation flick about a guy with a killer car the movie that absolutely you had to make next?
Quentin Tarantino: I always feel like I'm going for my professorship in cinema, and the day I die is the day I graduate. So when Robert and I had this idea, I had just gotten done watching all the slasher films from the late 1970s to mid-1980s. But I realized that if I did my own slasher film, it'd just be too self-reflective. So I decided that I should do it the way I did "Reservoir Dogs," which was my weird version of a heist film. So this is my weird version of a slasher film.

And where did the specific idea for "Death Proof" come from?

About 10 years ago, I was talking to a friend about getting a car. And I wanted to get a Volvo because I wanted a really safe car. I remember thinking that I didn't want to die in some auto accident like the one in "Pulp Fiction."

You don't strike me as a Volvo guy.

[Laughs.] Yeah, I know. But it really was all about the safety. So I was talking to my friend about this, and he said, "Well, you could take any car and give it to a stunt team, and for $10,000 or $15,000, they can death-proof it for you." Well, that phrase "death proof" kinda stuck in my head.

It seems like "Grindhouse" is arriving at an ideal time—horror movies are doing incredible business, and there's no sign of it slowing down. What do you think is driving this trend?
It hasn't happened in a while, but every now and then, there's a wave of them. This one has really been brewing for about six years now, and it started with ultragory movies that were coming out of Japan, by guys like Takeshi Miike, movies like "Battle Royale." What's changed this time is that the mainstream audience is absolutely loving it. There was a time when that kind of extreme violence was the thing that would stop a movie from being mainstream. If you did that kind of gore, you were putting your movie in a little box. Now it's totally different. Back when Robert and I did "From Dusk Till Dawn," the studio would've sent us to our rooms without dinner if we even uttered the word "horror." They wanted to say "thriller" or "roller coaster." Their notion was that "thriller" or "science fiction" was commercial. Horror wasn't. But now? It's horror, horror, horror. A little $6 million horror film beats some $150 million studio blockbuster on opening weekend.

To me, one of the charms of "Grindhouse" is that it's an unusual theatrical experience. People are still going to movies in droves, but the thrill is diminished-we go more out of habit now than out of raw excitement. A double feature like "Grindhouse" seems to offer a new way of doing things, even though it's actually a throwback to an old way.

I hate being the old guy who's always saying how everything was better 10 or 20 years ago, but in the past two decades, there's definitely been a cheapening of the theatrical experience. Back in the late 1970s when these movies were at their peak, every theater wasn't a multiplex. There were gigantic, 20-foot murals in the lobby, movie posters everywhere, candy all over the place, there were wild trailers, maybe some cartoons in the middle. It was a f----n' night. So for us, there is an aspect of "Grindhouse" that's trying to back that ballyhoo about going to the movies.

Both movies run over 80 minutes, which means the experience, though unique, is a long one. All together, "Grindhouse" runs over three hours. I know you and Robert can watch movies all night, but was there any concern that the audience might prefer something shorter?
To me, if you're gonna make an omelette, you've gotta break some eggs. It is a double feature. It's not "Twilight Zone: The Movie."

Some critics seem to wish you'd leave behind the genre movies and do something more serious. They often say, "When is Quentin going to grow up?" How do you feel about that notion—that there's something insubstantial or adolescent about the movies you're making now?
To me, if I were to announce after "Grindhouse" that my next movie would be some biopic, that would be the worst thing I could do. That would be me selling out. That would be me getting flaccid. That would be me turning into an old man.

So we should stop expecting you to go serious on us, especially since you're having fun?

Well, look, I'm not just having fun. I'm an artist, all right? I'll put my dialogue up against Preston Sturges's. I'll put my dialogue up against Mark Twain. I'm still writing. I'm still doing my thing. I'm just doing it in the genres I'm feeling.

"Grindhouse" attempts to do an A-list version of B-movies. But is it tricky to do a "good" version of genre defined by its crumminess? How do you decide where to go for quality and where to go for kitsch?

I know what you mean, but it's hard to define how we went about it. I'm really proud of the conversations among the women in "Death Proof." I think it's the best dialogue I've ever written. And we had six weeks to shoot our car chases as opposed to six days. But the genre also let us be a little more punk rock than usual. Things that would ordinarily be a bad thing on another movie, we embraced for this one. Like, you're moving in on a zoom and the focus puller doesn't quite land it right away—the shot is out of focus for half a second—but then you get shit together for the end of the shot. For this movie, that's cool, you know? It fits. [Laughs.] We'd just say to each other, "Hey, it's grindhouse!" That actually became a catch phrase on the set.

When I was on the set with Robert, he talked about the next "Grindhouse," so it was clear he already plans to do it again. And you?

It wouldn't necessarily have to be me and Robert every time. We'd just be the caretakers of the label. Maybe next time it'll be Eli Roth and some other filmmaker we like. We could be like little Roger Cormans. We're hoping this will be successful enough that we do it every few years.

A couple weeks back, there were some gossip items about the gore in "Grindhouse." They suggested that people around the movie were worried about how much you'd have to trim in order to avoid the dreaded NC-17 rating.
All untrue. When that "Page Six" thing came out, we hadn't even screened the movie for the MPAA yet. We didn't have any problems with them at all. They totally got it. I've actually never had a problem with the MPAA in my whole career.

It's interesting that you say that, because when I read the "Page Six" item, it felt to me like a plant—that someone was spilling a few of the gory bits from the movie to entice hardcore horror fans. It wasn't about the MPAA at all. It was guerilla marketing.
I think you might be right. But it wasn't planted by us. The studios still get very nervous about that stuff. They're not convinced that sort of thing works.

Isn't it a bit weird that you didn't have any trouble with the MPAA? Much of the gore in "Death Proof" is sexuality expressed through violence. But if you had filmed the sexual themes as actual sex, instead of as violence, you would've gotten an NC-17 in a heartbeat.

That's true. But then again, the movie would also have to be called "The Rapist." [Laughs] And it would be pretty grueling to watch.

I love Kurt Russell in the film, especially the scenes where he [SPOILER ALERT] turns into a frightened coward. Did you push him to ham it up in those moments? Because it's absolutely hilarious.
No, as a matter of fact, he took that ball and ran with it. He actually asked me early on, "Does this guy turn into a coward?" And I go, "Well, yeah, kinda sorta." He ended up being really proud of that part of the movie. There's a scene at the end where the girls are pulling him out of the car and he's screaming bloody murder. We shot the first take, and I went over to him, and I said, "Kurt, do you think you could take it down just a little bit?" And Kurt goes, "Yes! I did it! I never thought I'd hear you say 'take it down a bit,' and I finally did it!" He took it as a badge of pride that he got me to say, "OK, maybe a little less." But it ended up being the shot I used.
Title: Re: Grind House
Post by: Pubrick on April 10, 2007, 10:46:03 AM
Two of my friends dragged their girlfriends with us to see it on Friday.  My girlfriend, my friend's girlfriend, and my other friend's wife declined to go (no, I'm not making this up, all of our girlfriends really exist) and the girls who did go weren't so happy with it.  In fact, one informed her boyfriend that they will be going to the upcoming 20th Anniversary screening of Dirty Dancing as payback.  So the girl thing is a factor but the length is as much of a problem, as well as releasing it on fucking Easter weekend.  Knowing now what happened, they should have held it off until early August or so, when people need a place to sit in air conditioning for as long as they possibly can, on top of the high school/college fanboys being off from school. 

The Weinsteins have to know that it's already too late to release them separately.  Death Proof will only make money with the people who already saw it and liked it but didn't like Planet Terror; otherwise, why pay $10 for one movie when you already paid $10 for two?  Planet Terror has the better word of mouth of the two and is the more accessible, but even that won't bring in that much more money.  If they're going to send them out separately, do it in the summer.  Put Planet Terror out towards the end of the summer in 1000 or so theatres, and put the longer version of Death Proof in the arthouses.  But set the DVD release for sometime in 1st quarter 2008 so fewer people will say, "I'll wait for the DVD.  It's only out in a month."


why aren't you working with cbrad.
Title: Re: Grind House
Post by: Gold Trumpet on April 10, 2007, 02:14:29 PM
EXCLUSIVE: Harvey Very Disappointed; May Re-Release 'Grindhouse' As 2 Pics

Not surprised at all. And while many will complain, the films will come back together in their original visions on DVD. Europe and other countries are just getting fucked, but what Weinstein is doing isn't even that bad. Even back in the 1970s, if a cut was poorly received by the audience the studio would not only re-cut the film, but come close to destroying the original print. Some filmmakers had to go extreme measures to ensure their version would not be lost to a vault where it was likely to age and disintegrate at a very quick pace.
Title: Re: Grind House
Post by: john on April 10, 2007, 02:39:34 PM
EXCLUSIVE: Harvey Very Disappointed; May Re-Release 'Grindhouse' As 2 Pics

Not surprised at all. And while many will complain, the films will come back together in their original visions on DVD. Europe and other countries are just getting fucked, but what Weinstein is doing isn't even that bad. Even back in the 1970s, if a cut was poorly received by the audience the studio would not only re-cut the film, but come close to destroying the original print. Some filmmakers had to go extreme measures to ensure their version would not be lost to a vault where it was likely to age and disintegrate at a very quick pace.

I'll be curious to see if they do come back together on DVD. Everything I've read seems to indicate that the video rights to each title were sold individually. I think, eventually, they might release them on DVD together, preserving the double feature feel.... but definitely not at first. I'm fine with that, too. Because, at home, you make your own double feature. Hell, make it a triple feature. Make it whatever you want.

I think splitting them up theatrically, however, is absurd. It exemplifies every stupid fucking decision Weinstein and Co. have already made with this film... from the lack of publicity, to releasing it Easter fucking weekend.

Lazy audiences who didn't give a shit about it the first time certainly aren't going to give a shit about it split in two and rereleased to them. Weinstein seems so disassociated with the logic behind what he does and what actually works. It's just scrambling to mkae money.

But, fuck it, I saw it twice last weekend, I got my fix... now I just want to see how all this plays out. Either way, it's going to be the most interesting theatrical release in years.... especially if they go through with this rerelease...

Which, I'm guessing, they won't. No matter how deluded Harvey is... he's got lots of people that can show him cold, hard numbers  of what the two films will make a second time around.

I dunno...

At least he let them make it at all, really, and stands by it as a film (kind of.) Not that he'd tell either of those guy "no" to anything.

I'm a bit bummed that we probably won't see a theatrical sequel. I'm sure Weinstein will use the title, give Tarantino and Rodriguez Producer credits and milk some shitty direct-to-DVD sequels out of the whole thing. Which will be fun and all, but the fun it could have been.

And, if the rerelease does happen... I probably will skip seeing Planet Terror again, but a longer Death Proof will be right up my alley.



Title: Re: Grind House
Post by: Gold Trumpet on April 10, 2007, 03:50:45 PM
the thing is, Weinstein isn't doing anything that another studio head wouldn't be doing. If Tarantino and Rodriguez really wanted to protect the sanctity of their Grind House idea, they would have made both features much shorter and not have left so much extra footage laying around for a studio to utilize.

That is really how they would have protected it. John Ford used to make films with so little coverage and extra takes that went beyond his vision so he could gurantee that the studio would have to keep his version intact because they had no other choice.

Both filmmakers gave the studios extra choices with making movies that could easily play individually. If they wanted the Grind House idea to really stick, they should have made films lack certain essentials to be feature length films. Neither Death Proof or Planet Terror look like simple side projects. They look like full movies.

It isn't right for both films to be split, but it was definitely a likely risk everyone knew was possible. No, I don't think this idea will salvage a US run but I didn't think the idea would stick with audiences in the first place. I think more money will be made by splitting them for a world release. And that is the sad truth.

And yea, a DVD of both of them together at first is unlikely, but will eventually become a reality.

Title: Re: Grind House
Post by: The Red Vine on April 10, 2007, 04:17:54 PM
It isn't right for both films to be split, but it was definitely a likely risk everyone knew was possible. No, I don't think this idea will salvage a US run but I didn't think the idea would stick with audiences in the first place. I think more money will be made by splitting them for a world release. And that is the sad truth.

I agree. I don't think the film will make a profit over this new idea. But let this be a fair warning to XIXAX.

SEE THE FULL "GRINDHOUSE" WHILE YOU STILL CAN IN THEATERS.
Title: Re: Grind House
Post by: cron on April 10, 2007, 08:30:28 PM

So we should stop expecting you to go serious on us, especially since you're having fun?

Well, look, I'm not just having fun. I'm an artist, all right? I'll put my dialogue up against Preston Sturges's. I'll put my dialogue up against Mark Twain. I'm still writing. I'm still doing my thing. I'm just doing it in the genres I'm feeling.

go and eat shit.

dearly
-cronopio.
Title: Re: Grind House
Post by: modage on April 10, 2007, 11:39:18 PM
SEE THE FULL "GRINDHOUSE" WHILE YOU STILL CAN IN THEATERS.
guess what?  the Weinsteins just achieved their goal.  there is no way they will split these up for a re-release in the US.  the first DVD we see will be GRINDHOUSE just as it has come out.  later on down the road perhaps we'll get the extended versions.
Title: Re: Grind House
Post by: The Red Vine on April 11, 2007, 12:18:17 AM
SEE THE FULL "GRINDHOUSE" WHILE YOU STILL CAN IN THEATERS.
guess what?  the Weinsteins just achieved their goal.  there is no way they will split these up for a re-release in the US.  the first DVD we see will be GRINDHOUSE just as it has come out.  later on down the road perhaps we'll get the extended versions.

It just doesn't make sense to split them up. Kind of defeats the whole point, so I hope you're right.


So we should stop expecting you to go serious on us, especially since you're having fun?

Well, look, I'm not just having fun. I'm an artist, all right? I'll put my dialogue up against Preston Sturges's. I'll put my dialogue up against Mark Twain. I'm still writing. I'm still doing my thing. I'm just doing it in the genres I'm feeling.

GO FUCK YOURSELF QUENTIN!
Title: Re: Grind House
Post by: Ghostboy on April 11, 2007, 02:48:14 AM
I just got back from it, and I think pretty much everyone's summed up my own opinion perfectly well already, but I would like to reiterate the fact that the middle part of Death Proof is fucking awful. I hated it. So much that I think I actually fell asleep. And then.... as cool as the car chase is from a technical point of view, it's still really annoying every time he cuts to the girls saying "I'm gonna fuck him!" etc. And the tonal switch was needless, too. It pretty much went downhill after that first vehicular kill and Michael Park's great monologue. It should have ended there.

Planet Terror was a lot of fun, though. The bit with the kid and the gun....priceless! I was thinking how great it would be if that happened, and then it did and I was as happy as a kid on Christmas.

And the trailers didn't let me down at all - I think they were actually my favorite part. Thanksgiving and Don't being the highlights, of course. But Rob Zombie's just reminded me of how much better of a grindhouse movie The Devils Rejects was than anything in this.
Title: Re: Grind House
Post by: john on April 11, 2007, 12:20:47 PM
SEE THE FULL "GRINDHOUSE" WHILE YOU STILL CAN IN THEATERS.
guess what?  the Weinsteins just achieved their goal.  there is no way they will split these up for a re-release in the US.  the first DVD we see will be GRINDHOUSE just as it has come out.  later on down the road perhaps we'll get the extended versions.

Why do you say ther eis no way? Every statement Weinstein's crew have made on the subject says their coming out seperately at first... maybe not extended cuts, but definitely seperate DVD's.

I hope you're right, too. I don't know where they'll end up putting the fake trailers if they release the titles individually. I doubt they'd just get lost in the shuffle, but there's something really nice about the flow of Machette/Terror/trailers/Death Proof.

But Why would Weinstein give two fucks about flow when he could be making mad cash? Or, at least, decent cash.
Title: Re: Grind House
Post by: modage on April 11, 2007, 01:18:16 PM
there is no way they will split the films and re-release them in the US because it would be too costly and fail worse.  Weinstein only made that announcement like they were considering it to drive people who didn't see it yet to the theatre 'before its too late!' 

i guess its possible they will split them up for DVD but it really doesnt make sense either.  it came out to theatres here as GRINDHOUSE, thats all anybody knows.  the tv commercials (which were pretty much the only advertising they did for this thing) didn't say shit about Planet Terror or Death Proof.  they just said GRINDHOUSE! so it would be a stupid move to put them out separately and have two movies nobody has heard of (or seen) instead of that one they saw dumb looking commercials for but didn't see.  the future holds more releases to drain geeks pockets, but not now.
Title: Re: Grind House
Post by: john on April 11, 2007, 01:36:50 PM
You know, I was thinking the US theatrical split might just be an empty threat...

It would be kind of cool, you know...

Like no matter what business they'd done this weekend... have Harvey be pissed about it and threaten to cut the film in two to drum up business and fanboy support.

It's silly, and probably not the case but it would be kind of fun.

Think about it, Tarantino and Rodriguez haven't said a word of protest so far about the potential split.

Either way, it's an empty threat. But I do think we'll see two DVD's at first. Perhaps each with a bing "GRINDHOUSE" banner above the title so audiences know what the hell they're buying.

Though one bare-bones version of this theatrical cut double-feature, at first, would make more sense. It's easier, quicker, and given Dimension's DVD history (or most DVD history, for that matter) certainly the most viable.

I really think it's gonna be two seperate, bare bones (or as close to it) DVD's at first. Something like "GRINDHOUSE: Planet Terror" and "GRINDHOUSE: Death Proof"

We'll see.
Title: Re: Grind House
Post by: MacGuffin on April 11, 2007, 08:43:19 PM
Joe Carnahan (Smokin' Aces) has weighed in on his website about the disappointing opening weekend numbers for Grindhouse:


Quote
The box-office: How in the hell does a Rodriguez-Tarantino movie do that
poorly? I'm going to see it tonight. Those guys, Tarantino especially, deserve a
helluva lot more love than f*cking 11.6 million. What is wrong with American
moviegoers? Is there nothing NEW that they're willing to embrace? Jesus, it's
the worst kind of erosion. We're making dumber and dumber films and they're
becoming cash cows. God Bless '300', at least it's got balls and the director WENT
for it. THAT movie is good for the business, it's good for everybody. But
some of these other flicks don't even TRY because they know in the end,
EXACTLY the age range and demographic driving ticket prices these days. Those
monstrosities (the names of which I won't mention) are pure pieces of commerce,
marketed to perfection.

I hope 'Grindhouse' recovers. It's an audacious idea that I wish would've been
given a bigger break. Maybe as they separate the two films, they'll pry some
sunshine out of the situation and the Weinsteins will save the day. It bums me
the f*ck out though when something like that, a really cool idea that looks like
a great time at the movies, made by real talent-- can't push past.

It's just dead wrong kids...and we ALL pay the price when those don't work.

JC
Title: Re: Grind House
Post by: soixante on April 12, 2007, 01:03:38 AM
Maybe Grindhouse tanked for the same reason Four Rooms tanked (and New York Stories before that) -- the multi-movie format is a turnoff for most audiences.  When was the last time one of those movies made money?  Even horror films in this format, such as Creepshow, haven't done as well as regular, one-story films.

There's also the issue of high concept/low concept -- Grindhouse is not a high concept, because the concept requires a great deal of explaining to the non-film buffs.

There is not a large audience for fans of grindhouse movies.  Your average viewer who goes to see Wild Hogs or the latest Will Ferrell movie doesn't know (or care) about 70's exploitation movies.

Perhaps the ultimate irony is that Rodriguez and Tarantino had to spend a great deal of money to reproduce the cheapie aesthetic.

Title: Re: Grind House
Post by: Fernando on April 12, 2007, 10:47:14 AM
Perhaps the ultimate irony is that Rodriguez and Tarantino had to spend a great deal of money to reproduce the cheapie aesthetic.

And right there I think was the first mistake they did, why did they cost so much? Budget was $67 plus $30 on promotion, that is a gigentic budget for a concept as soixante said is cheap, they should have cost at least half of that.
Title: Re: Grind House
Post by: MacGuffin on April 12, 2007, 11:01:37 AM
Straight from the horse's mouth regarding the DVDs:

This morning QT was on Los Angeles radio station, KROQ, and said, "The first go 'round, they will be released separately." His will have 30 minutes restored; RR's will have 20 minutes added.
Title: Re: Grind House
Post by: modage on April 12, 2007, 11:28:25 AM
color me shocked.

do i buy these?  do i hold out?  now i'm confused.
Title: Re: Grind House
Post by: grand theft sparrow on April 12, 2007, 11:33:12 AM
It makes sense if you think about it.  Outside of the theatre, they don't belong together.  They don't ever need to be put together.  As long as the trailers are on both, and there are no special features on one disc that pertain to the other film, there's no reason to put them together.

I still think they should do a limited run of pan-and-scan VHS or at least degrade the DVD transfer to used-and-abused VHS quality with a simulated tape edit where the missing reels are.
Title: Re: Grind House
Post by: Pozer on April 12, 2007, 03:40:40 PM
Straight from the horse's mouth regarding the DVDs:

This morning QT was on Los Angeles radio station, KROQ, and said, "The first go 'round, they will be released separately." His will have 30 minutes restored; RR's will have 20 minutes added.
i was listening... he's also gonna be at the beverly cinema in LA this eve watching movies.  i will NOT be there.
http://newbevcinema.com/ (http://newbevcinema.com/)
Title: Re: Grind House
Post by: polkablues on April 12, 2007, 04:25:48 PM
His will have 30 minutes restored;

If all 30 minutes are going into the first section, I'll buy it.  If any of those minutes are going into the second section, I'll boycott it.  If Tracie Thoms has even one more line than she did in the theatrical release, I'm kicking Tarantino square in the nuts.
Title: Re: Grind House
Post by: Pas on April 12, 2007, 10:01:23 PM
Good idea so badly executed...

budget should have been incredibly less. Incredibly. It should have been WAY WAY WAY THE FUCK shorter. two 1 hour movies. That would've been perfect and totally feasible.

Disapointed
Title: Re: Grind House
Post by: soixante on April 13, 2007, 08:10:27 PM
I enjoyed the female chat sessions in Death Proof.  It reminded me of Dazed and Confused -- driving around, getting stoned, and taking about nothing and everything.  It was the female flip-side of Reservoir Dogs.
Title: Re: Grind House
Post by: modage on April 14, 2007, 12:41:02 PM
ARTIST ON ARTIST
Quentin Tarantino & Robert Rodriguez
http://profile.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=user.viewprofile&friendid=140377960

Old chums Quentin Tarantino & Robert Rodriguez grind it out for MySpace in this exclusive Artist On Artist interview! Two of modern cinema’s biggest heroes, the all-star pair recall their first meeting in 1992, detail the differences between their directing styles, muse on GRINDHOUSE’s groovy origins, and reveal at last what was REALLY in the briefcase in PULP FICTION!
Title: Re: Grind House
Post by: modage on April 15, 2007, 12:41:51 PM
'Grindhouse' Falls Out of Top Ten -- Playing To 'Near Empty Theaters'
Source: Cinematical

Depending on which source you believe -- there's about a ten-thousand dollar difference -- Grindhouse is either holding onto the tenth spot for the weekend or it has slipped into eleventh place, behind Wild Hogs. With Friday estimates included, the film's total cume is $16.7 million; that gives it a second-weekend drop of 74%, which is just terrible any way you slice it. The per-screen average for the film is $494, which as Deadline Hollywood points out, means its "playing in near-empty theaters." If these numbers hold for Saturday, then more Americans will have turned out this weekend to see Redline, which is a movie I never gave a moment's thought to until I had to edit a review that someone did for this website yesterday, than Grindhouse, which arrived in theaters with major advertising campaign fully supported by the national media and all of the fanboy-support that the online community can muster. Wow.

I don't expect the failure of Grindhouse to have any effect on Robert Rodriguez's career, frankly. He is currently prepping Sin City 2, which is a film that will undoubtedly do big business and be well-received and erase memories of Grindhouse, but I wonder how the failure will affect Quentin Tarantino. Are the Weinsteins going to gamble on fronting his war movie, Inglorious Bastards, or are they going to gently push him towards a less expensive-sounding endeavor? Will they chalk this whole thing up to the bad taste of the American public and continue to support their signature star, much the way Warner Bros. supported Stanley Kubrick all those years? I certainly hope so.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Pap Fiction
If director Quentin Tarantino wants to reconnect with a wide audience, he might consider putting away childish things and tackling new material worthy of his gifts
Source: EW

There's going to be a lot written about the financial failure of Grindhouse, Quentin Tarantino's latest epic canonization of garbage from his own adolescence. There are lessons in any big flop, and the lesson of Grindhouse may not be much more complicated than ''Don't make a three-hour homage to something that wasn't very good the first time and expect everyone to come running.'' When the only purpose of making a movie is to flaunt your immense skill at replicating something dumb, you're probably limiting your audience to connoisseurs of the ironic (not a huge demographic) and fanboys (who didn't show up — turns out they like their bloody comic-book violence mainlined, 300-style, without any winking). Treat your audience as if both you and they are cooler than the film you're cranking out — as Snakes on a Plane did last summer, and as Grindhouse does — and your movie's doomed.

I enjoyed parts of Grindhouse, although three hours is a long time to watch two directors draw air-quotes around bad moviemaking. (And it's not as if plain old bad movies are irony-free: If there's some major distinction between Bruce Willis' smug squint in the trailer for Live Free or Die Hard that played just before Grindhouse and Bruce Willis' smug squint in Rodriguez's ''Planet Terror,'' I missed it.) Quentin Tarantino is a pretty good writer and a monstrously gifted director, and I'd rather his movies were hits, because why root against talent? But I can't pretend to be disappointed that Grindhouse is stiffing, because creatively it's a dead end that he's been traveling toward for a dozen years.

Tarantino and I are the same age — we were both born in 1963 — so I'm speaking middle-aged guy to middle-aged guy when I say that it's time to put away childish things. Manic jags of hyperbole about vintage crap start to wear thin once you're only a couple of Presidential elections away from your AARP years. Guys who love movies — no matter what their age — tend to overrate the films they loved between the ages of, say, 13 and 20, when they were — how to put this politely? — easy to stimulate. Tarantino, who loves movies more than anything else, grabbed on to the bargain-basement genres of the early 1970s — the stuff he wasn't quite old enough to see when it opened — and he's never let go.

In 1994, his enthusiasm yielded Pulp Fiction, which felt entirely new — intricately structured but playful, wild in its violence yet able to accommodate a witty line or gesture without seeming to pause, perfectly acted, always surprising, and (despite its title) never simply a gloss on old material. Since then, though, Tarantino seems to have started believing that his own worst qualities are what distinguish him. He's abandoned what was great about Pulp Fiction (control, impeccable pacing, utter originality, knowing when the characters should stop talking) and decided that what people really want from him is chatty, protracted dialogue scenes, elaborately arch pop-culture references, and ass-kicking action — in other words, easy imitations of his own biggest success. With Jackie Brown, he had good source material — there's rarely any fat in an Elmore Leonard novel — but he let the flights of verbosity and the characters' knuckle-cracking become extravagantly drawn out; some scenes almost felt as if they contained their own rehearsals, and what should have been a lean take on early-'70s crime dramas inflated to 154 minutes. With Kill Bill, we got four hours and seven minutes of bended-knee worship of martial-arts movies, blaxploitation, spaghetti westerns, and Japanese comic books. Some brilliant action; nonstop visual style; real wit (especially in Vol. 1) — and a whole lot of wheel-spinning as we toured through Quentin's Referential Kitsch Arcade (Naughty nurses! Sonny Chiba! Kung Fu!)

And now, Grindhouse: 192 minutes (a length for which Tarantino must share blame as a self-indulgent producer if not as a director) of smirky tribute to grade-B early-70s sci-fi-horror and car-chase movies, specifically to their mediocrity — the rancid prints, the clumsy camerawork, the artificial-butter smell of the plotting. (Didn't he and Robert Rodriguez do this already in From Dusk Till Dawn, which was basically Grindhouse without the extra 90 minutes?) Tarantino's half of the film, Death Proof, might go down more smoothly if every aspect of it weren't fetishized, from head to (literally and repeatedly) toes. Tarantino doesn't let anything simply unfold anymore. Kurt Russell, a relaxed and resourceful actor, can't just be allowed to act — he's an icon, dammit, and you can feel all the tedious jawing about Escape from New York behind the way he's used and framed and ogled by the camera. The Soldier Blue poster in the background, the wry Robert Urich and Lee Majors name-checks, even the long, long raunchy-girl-talk conversations are just a series of attitudinizing postures — lots of ''Nigga, please!'' (way too much, in fact) and the like, as if women have nothing better to do all day than compete in a never-ending coolness contest.

Is Grindhouse itself just part of that contest? And why devote so much energy to proving your superiority to such inferior material? Tarantino clearly gets high on trashy film rediscoveries. The thing is, when you're high, your definition of genius slackens as your riffs get louder, wilder, and less supportable. Grindhouse is one of those riffs. At one point, Tarantino has a character announce that the 1971 car-chase thriller Vanishing Point is ''one of the greatest American movies ever made.'' It's not; it's just a really good car-chase thriller. I hope Tarantino can still tell the difference. For ten years, he's been the hipster in the back of the video store, using his flashlight-under-the-chin grin to beckon us away from ''Drama'' and ''Action/Adventure'' and toward his favorite section — the one labeled ''Clearance.'' Now that he's 44, it's fair to ask if this obsession is becoming a curse — if he ever plans to make a movie that's not about other (mostly mediocre) movies. His fixation on 1970s subgenres has now lasted longer than the 1970s themselves. It would be a shame if he decides to spend his directorial career obsessively polishing one plastic-turd genre after another.

Tarantino is one of the few working directors who could make a great movie in almost any genre (or better still, invent a new one). Right now, what's holding him back is either bad taste or lack of ambition. He seems to be having a lot of fun in his semi-permanent retreat to the comfort zone of nostalgia for the stuff that got him off when he was a teenager. But I hope he takes a breath before he leaps into his next project — which I'm hoping isn't a trilogy inspired by Burt Reynolds' Gator movies. I'd rather see him shoot higher and miss than hit a target that's barely worth aiming at. He's way too talented to settle for being the best bad filmmaker of all time.
Title: Re: Grind House
Post by: The Red Vine on April 15, 2007, 01:00:58 PM
Holy shit! I knew the film wasn't doing well but damn.....
Title: Re: Grind House
Post by: Ghostboy on April 15, 2007, 01:05:08 PM
Who wrote that EW article, modage? It's really great, and pretty much sums up how I feel about Tarantino these days.
Title: Re: Grind House
Post by: MacGuffin on April 15, 2007, 01:11:24 PM
Who wrote that EW article, modage?

Mark Harris is a writer and former executive editor of EW.
Title: Re: Grind House
Post by: grand theft sparrow on April 15, 2007, 01:21:16 PM
Holy shit! I knew the film wasn't doing well but damn.....

This was completely expected.  People are under the mistaken impression that this is the new Gigli and it's not the case.  They wrongly equate box office take with the film's quality so this was bound to happen.
Title: Re: Grind House
Post by: Gold Trumpet on April 15, 2007, 05:46:19 PM
I have a few ideas why Grind House failed. I'm not sad over it, but I do find it aggregious that in light of Grind House's failure, 300 is such a success. There is also no doubt that Grind House is the superior film to 300.

To compare Grind House to 300 is to compare professional filmmaking to pure incompatency. Tarantino still has some degree of talent with dialogue. 300 is a constant continuation of banal political propaganda. No character really has a true voice that goes outside of this. On top of that, Tarantino actually handles his story well with the filmmaking. Most other directors would have taken the car chase in Death Proof and overdone it. Tarantino keeps it simple and makes the chase that more effective. There is little challenge in filmmaking in 300. Even the simple scenes are overdone. And while I don't think much of Planet Terror, it at least has an enjoyability with some characters and scenarios. 300 is offensive in its macho attitude that tries to make violence both cartoonish and serious at the same time. The mesh just doesn't work and is ridiculous.

Not only do I believe this, but the critical community as well: on Rotten Tomatoes, Grind House stands at 81% while 300 is only at 61%. But the reason why Grind House fails I think comes in the above article by EW. In the press for Grind House, Tarantino and Rodrigeuz prided themselves so much on the faulty genres they were referencing that no one besides their fanbase cared. Nobody remembers or really cares about Grind House cinema. 300, on the other hand, was doing a reimagination of the historical epic which everyone knows and most love.

Plus the easy visuals and insane amount of media coverage didn't hurt matters either. 300 duped its audience that they were seeing something new and exhilarating, but it was superficial filmmaking. Years of overpraising visual achievements have convinced the general public and a few critics that 300 is art.

Title: Re: Grind House
Post by: JG on April 15, 2007, 05:52:35 PM
Death Proof began when Kurt Russell appeared in the bar and it ended when the second part began.  Grindhouse was boring. 
Title: Re: Grind House
Post by: polkablues on April 15, 2007, 08:03:06 PM
Chicks didn't dig it.
Title: Re: Grind House
Post by: modage on April 15, 2007, 08:08:33 PM
Chicks didn't dig it.
it's funny because my girlfriend AND all the chicks at my work who saw it all preferred 'Death Proof' to 'Planet Terror'.  but i guess all the other girls in the country preferred 'doing something else with their time' to 'Grindhouse'.
Title: Re: Grind House
Post by: polkablues on April 15, 2007, 10:38:39 PM
Every girl I know, judging solely on the commercials, said it looked (direct quote) "stupid".  And nothing I could say would dissuade them of that.
Title: Re: Grind House
Post by: JG on April 15, 2007, 10:57:40 PM
Every girl I know, judging solely on the commercials, said it looked (direct quote) "stupid".  And nothing I could say would dissuade them of that.

This is true.  I had this very conversation with a lady friend minutes ago.  I think a lot of people missed the joke.  Tarantino included. 
Title: Re: Grind House
Post by: Pubrick on April 16, 2007, 07:16:14 AM
Mark Harris is a writer and former executive editor of EW just wrote the best article i've read all year.
fixed.

Pap Fiction
If director Quentin Tarantino wants to reconnect with a wide audience, he might consider putting away childish things and tackling new material worthy of his gifts
Source: EW

There's going to be a lot written about the financial failure of Grindhouse, Quentin Tarantino's latest epic canonization of garbage from his own adolescence. There are lessons in any big flop, and the lesson of Grindhouse may not be much more complicated than ''Don't make a three-hour homage to something that wasn't very good the first time and expect everyone to come running.'' When the only purpose of making a movie is to flaunt your immense skill at replicating something dumb, you're probably limiting your audience to connoisseurs of the ironic (not a huge demographic) and fanboys (who didn't show up — turns out they like their bloody comic-book violence mainlined, 300-style, without any winking). Treat your audience as if both you and they are cooler than the film you're cranking out — as Snakes on a Plane did last summer, and as Grindhouse does — and your movie's doomed.

I enjoyed parts of Grindhouse, although three hours is a long time to watch two directors draw air-quotes around bad moviemaking. (And it's not as if plain old bad movies are irony-free: If there's some major distinction between Bruce Willis' smug squint in the trailer for Live Free or Die Hard that played just before Grindhouse and Bruce Willis' smug squint in Rodriguez's ''Planet Terror,'' I missed it.) Quentin Tarantino is a pretty good writer and a monstrously gifted director, and I'd rather his movies were hits, because why root against talent? But I can't pretend to be disappointed that Grindhouse is stiffing, because creatively it's a dead end that he's been traveling toward for a dozen years.

Tarantino and I are the same age — we were both born in 1963 — so I'm speaking middle-aged guy to middle-aged guy when I say that it's time to put away childish things. Manic jags of hyperbole about vintage crap start to wear thin once you're only a couple of Presidential elections away from your AARP years. Guys who love movies — no matter what their age — tend to overrate the films they loved between the ages of, say, 13 and 20, when they were — how to put this politely? — easy to stimulate. Tarantino, who loves movies more than anything else, grabbed on to the bargain-basement genres of the early 1970s — the stuff he wasn't quite old enough to see when it opened — and he's never let go.

In 1994, his enthusiasm yielded Pulp Fiction, which felt entirely new — intricately structured but playful, wild in its violence yet able to accommodate a witty line or gesture without seeming to pause, perfectly acted, always surprising, and (despite its title) never simply a gloss on old material. Since then, though, Tarantino seems to have started believing that his own worst qualities are what distinguish him. He's abandoned what was great about Pulp Fiction (control, impeccable pacing, utter originality, knowing when the characters should stop talking) and decided that what people really want from him is chatty, protracted dialogue scenes, elaborately arch pop-culture references, and ass-kicking action — in other words, easy imitations of his own biggest success. With Jackie Brown, he had good source material — there's rarely any fat in an Elmore Leonard novel — but he let the flights of verbosity and the characters' knuckle-cracking become extravagantly drawn out; some scenes almost felt as if they contained their own rehearsals, and what should have been a lean take on early-'70s crime dramas inflated to 154 minutes. With Kill Bill, we got four hours and seven minutes of bended-knee worship of martial-arts movies, blaxploitation, spaghetti westerns, and Japanese comic books. Some brilliant action; nonstop visual style; real wit (especially in Vol. 1) — and a whole lot of wheel-spinning as we toured through Quentin's Referential Kitsch Arcade (Naughty nurses! Sonny Chiba! Kung Fu!)

And now, Grindhouse: 192 minutes (a length for which Tarantino must share blame as a self-indulgent producer if not as a director) of smirky tribute to grade-B early-70s sci-fi-horror and car-chase movies, specifically to their mediocrity — the rancid prints, the clumsy camerawork, the artificial-butter smell of the plotting. (Didn't he and Robert Rodriguez do this already in From Dusk Till Dawn, which was basically Grindhouse without the extra 90 minutes?) Tarantino's half of the film, Death Proof, might go down more smoothly if every aspect of it weren't fetishized, from head to (literally and repeatedly) toes. Tarantino doesn't let anything simply unfold anymore. Kurt Russell, a relaxed and resourceful actor, can't just be allowed to act — he's an icon, dammit, and you can feel all the tedious jawing about Escape from New York behind the way he's used and framed and ogled by the camera. The Soldier Blue poster in the background, the wry Robert Urich and Lee Majors name-checks, even the long, long raunchy-girl-talk conversations are just a series of attitudinizing postures — lots of ''Nigga, please!'' (way too much, in fact) and the like, as if women have nothing better to do all day than compete in a never-ending coolness contest.

Is Grindhouse itself just part of that contest? And why devote so much energy to proving your superiority to such inferior material? Tarantino clearly gets high on trashy film rediscoveries. The thing is, when you're high, your definition of genius slackens as your riffs get louder, wilder, and less supportable. Grindhouse is one of those riffs. At one point, Tarantino has a character announce that the 1971 car-chase thriller Vanishing Point is ''one of the greatest American movies ever made.'' It's not; it's just a really good car-chase thriller. I hope Tarantino can still tell the difference. For ten years, he's been the hipster in the back of the video store, using his flashlight-under-the-chin grin to beckon us away from ''Drama'' and ''Action/Adventure'' and toward his favorite section — the one labeled ''Clearance.'' Now that he's 44, it's fair to ask if this obsession is becoming a curse — if he ever plans to make a movie that's not about other (mostly mediocre) movies. His fixation on 1970s subgenres has now lasted longer than the 1970s themselves. It would be a shame if he decides to spend his directorial career obsessively polishing one plastic-turd genre after another.

Tarantino is one of the few working directors who could make a great movie in almost any genre (or better still, invent a new one). Right now, what's holding him back is either bad taste or lack of ambition. He seems to be having a lot of fun in his semi-permanent retreat to the comfort zone of nostalgia for the stuff that got him off when he was a teenager. But I hope he takes a breath before he leaps into his next project — which I'm hoping isn't a trilogy inspired by Burt Reynolds' Gator movies. I'd rather see him shoot higher and miss than hit a target that's barely worth aiming at. He's way too talented to settle for being the best bad filmmaker of all time.

i especially love this part:

Quote from: Mark Harris
Tarantino clearly gets high on trashy film rediscoveries. The thing is, when you're high, your definition of genius slackens as your riffs get louder, wilder, and less supportable.

man, tarantino needs an intervention led by this guy.
Title: Re: Grind House
Post by: MacGuffin on April 17, 2007, 02:07:52 PM
Grindhouse split update
Source: JoBlo.com
 
We received some reports over the weekend and yesterday from some readers saying their local theaters were running the GRINDHOUSE films separately or running them together with an intermission instead of the fake trailers. Curious, we did our best Carl Monday impression and did some investigative reporting. Was this the case of some rogue theater owners splitting GRINDHOUSE on their own? Had The Weinstein Co. officially re-released GRINDHOUSE as two separate films - "Planet Terror" and "Death Proof." After some digging and talking and e-mailing and harassing, we were able to find out the truth. It seems in the wake of the opening weekend disaster, the Weinsteins, as they widely admitted to, considered splitting the films. Being the Weinsteins, they did what they do best: they tested. Last weekend they tested various concepts of improving GRINDHOUSE business in select theaters including two of the various methods above. None of the methods seemed to have any positive effect on box-office receipts and word I got from inside the Weinstein Co. last night was that the plan to split GRINDHOUSE in two and re-release was very likely kiboshed. So that could be it for the GRINDHOUSE experiment folks. Just left to die a slow death and develop a cult following on home video, not unlike....well grindhouse movies.
Title: Re: Grind House
Post by: pete on April 18, 2007, 03:16:40 AM
I wanted to see it because it looked fun, but I was also ready to boo it if it got too clever, but you know what, QT and RR never got too clever.  to read criticisms of them is a bit like reading PR about Spike Lee: they always end up criticizing the backlashes associated with the filmmakers' personas and PR, but rarely the film themselves.
I'd never seen an exploitation film quite like QT's.  I dunno how it was anymore derivative or any genre film that's ever been made.  it thrilled, it entertained.  the initial crash was as visceral as any crash that's ever been filmmed, as was the whole climax.  I don't think QT was "coasting" when he shot this: he worked hard to make his characters as likable as he saw fit, then he put them in precarious situations.  when they die you hate the villain, and when they live you root for them.  rooting, loving, and hating, that's as hard as any challenge that comes with storytelling.
I think the problem is, in QT's mind, expoitation films aren't stupid films, and they're just as valid as anything else he'd seen.  his name dropping and his appropriation methods might be annoying, but his films are still very engaging, enthralling, and entertaining films.  I have never counted on him to take me to places herzog and doyle can take me, but I was never just passively staring at the screen either.
Title: Re: Grind House
Post by: tpfkabi on April 19, 2007, 10:32:35 PM
Grind House leaves all 4 theaters around me tonight....2 weeks.

I found out today was the last chance, so I went to a matinee and it was too late to get someone to go with me........I was the only one in the theater. That is a very creepy feeling, combined with the fact that it was in theater 14 in a 14 screen theater in the back corner, and the recent VT thing, I just couldn't sit there and watch that type of film all by myself. It was one of those theaters where someone could walk right up behind you and you'd have no idea until it was too late. I just couldn't deal with it.

That being said, the Machete trailer was very funny. I've never thought Rose McGowan was super attractive - maybe to do with her goth dress tendancy and previous Marilyn Manson attachment - but dang, the go go dancing...
Title: Re: Grind House
Post by: last days of gerry the elephant on April 22, 2007, 01:48:10 AM
I don't get what all the fuss is about. They made a movie (they being Robert & Quentin) based on cheesy 70's cult classics... and now people are surprised why it tanked? Whether it's ideal or not, that's the reality of that particular genre. Is it not? I don't know why anybody expected any different, especially that stupid Weinsteins company. It will be cherished and always remembered by the true fan boys and I don't know why that's a bad thing at all. If they would now just release the goddamn movies in one ultimate DVD package right off the bat, I think that would just please everyone and anyone who will ever want to own/rent Grind House.
Title: Re: Grind House
Post by: The Red Vine on April 22, 2007, 04:23:33 PM
I don't get what all the fuss is about. They made a movie (they being Robert & Quentin) based on cheesy 70's cult classics... and now people are surprised why it tanked? Whether it's ideal or not, that's the reality of that particular genre. Is it not?

The box office success of Kill Bill 1 & 2 probably fueled their expectations. But "Grindhouse" went a step further into genre, thus turning some people off. The failure was due to the film's length, and people not understanding the concept/filmmaking.

Many people would rather go see the mainstream "Wild Hogs" than a movie with "wiggly little lines across the screen".
Title: Re: Grind House
Post by: tpfkabi on April 22, 2007, 04:57:48 PM
The box office success of Kill Bill 1 & 2 probably fueled their expectations. But "Grindhouse" went a step further into genre, thus turning some people off. The failure was due to the film's length, and people not understanding the concept/filmmaking.

This was my thought, too. But even lesser known horror films have been topping the box office lately.

Anyone think it has anything to do with it opening on Easter weekend? I wonder if any horror type film has faired well on that weekend.

What really surprised is how much they dropped their faith in one week. Leading up to opening weekend I saw ads for the film almost non-stop. Then the following week after making the no. 4 spot (not terrible) I saw zero ads. For some reason they threw all of their (easter) eggs in the basket that first week.
Title: Re: Grind House
Post by: pete on April 23, 2007, 01:12:02 AM
I think the concept actually turned people off.  if they just advertised two funny and thrilling films, then people would've been more inclined than going to a "grindhouse."  Secondly, has any short-film compilations actually done better than grindhouse at the boxoffice?
Title: Re: Grind House
Post by: ©brad on April 24, 2007, 08:58:51 AM
I think the concept actually turned people off.  if they just advertised two funny and thrilling films, then people would've been more inclined than going to a "grindhouse."

i doubt that.

Title: Re: Grind House
Post by: polkablues on April 24, 2007, 05:20:36 PM
I think the concept actually turned people off.  if they just advertised two funny and thrilling films, then people would've been more inclined than going to a "grindhouse."

i doubt that.


What if the two films were Wild Hogs and Disturbia?
Title: Re: Grind House
Post by: Ravi on April 24, 2007, 06:03:20 PM
Maybe a late summer release would have been better.  I don't know why they released it on Easter weekend.
Title: Re: Grind House
Post by: MacGuffin on April 24, 2007, 08:28:35 PM
I don't know why they released it on Easter weekend.

Spring break.
Title: Re: Grind House
Post by: Ravi on April 26, 2007, 12:12:51 AM
Forgot about spring break.  But I think a late summer or even an October release (like with Kill Bill vol 1) would have been better.
Title: Re: Grind House
Post by: MacGuffin on April 27, 2007, 12:47:36 AM
GROUND OUT IN THE UK?
Source: CHUD
 
Most news items are like a 7" punk single, arriving with a bang and over in a flash. Grindhouse news, on the other hand, is becoming a 12" extended club remix, where the same chorus repeats over and over and over. The only chance to win attention back at this point is if R Kelly or Lil' Wayne drops in with a verse.

So here it is, quick like: the film's UK release date has been pushed back indefinitely. Previously scheduled for June 1, the Brothers have realized that their US strategy spanked nuts, and have decided to regroup and reformulate. With a territory just twice the population of California to market, you'd think a strategy wouldn't be difficult to come up with, but this is the same company that couldn't educate consumers on the fact that they were seeing a double feature in the States.

Along with that news rolls the continuing Tarantino backlash, which is as apparant in the litany of news articles as in comments posted online. We all know that studio executives live and die by the sort of relativist moral code that means lunch friends are dinner enemies, so rumors of Hollywood glee at the pic's failure aren't shocking, but even elements of the press who formerly thrived on QT praise have given into the trend.

This is an entertaining opportunity, at least, to get online and read the reams of reader comments on various articles, since the law of numbers means that at least a few of the people bashing the guy's entire filmic output paid to see Wild Hogs.
Title: Re: Grind House
Post by: MacGuffin on April 27, 2007, 09:34:08 AM
(http://www.telegraph.co.uk/arts/graphics/2007/04/27/bfquentin.jpg)

Quentin Tarantino: I'm proud of my flop
Undaunted by the US box-office failure of his latest film, Quentin Tarantino can't wait to unveil a new, souped-up version at Cannes. He talks to John Hiscock
Source: The Telegraph UK
 
The hard-core Quentin Tarantino fans who lined up to see the much-anticipated Grindhouse on its opening weekend in the US seemed delighted with the filmmaker's £30 million homage to exploitation films. But, to everyone's surprise, it was the least successful opening of any of Tarantino's films in the past decade.

In some countries, the films will be shown separately. In Britain, as in the US, the plan was originally to show them as a double feature. Now, however, the film has been pulled from the schedules while the distributors work out what to do with it. "It will definitely be released here, but we don't know in what form," they say.

"Oh, it was disappointing," says Tarantino of the poor opening weekend when I meet him in Beverly Hills. "It was disappointing, yeah." Then he brightens and laughs. "But the movie worked with the audience."

He should know. He had spent the weekend driving around Los Angeles area in his yellow-and-black Mustang, seeing the film eight times in different cinemas to gauge audience reaction.

"People who saw it loved it and applauded, but maybe a lot of people just didn't want to see two movies," he says.

Grindhouse, which has taken just £12 million at the US box office in the three weeks since it opened, consists of two bloody, 85-minute movies: Planet Terror, by Sin City director Robert Rodriguez, a long-time Tarantino collaborator, and Death Proof from Tarantino himself.

Planet Terror stars Rose McGowan as an exotic dancer whose career is cut short when her right leg is eaten by flesh-craving zombies, and she is fitted with a machine-gun prosthetic. Death Proof, which stars Kurt Russell as a psycho stunt-driver, is Tarantino's "slasher" film, except the slasher uses a car to kill young women instead of a knife.

To make the film look authentically B-grade, Tarantino and Rodriguez scratched the prints and edited out "missing reels". They also included fake exploitation-movie trailers directed by pals Rob Zombie, Edgar Wright and Eli Roth to run during the "intermission".

For those countries where Death Proof will be released separately, Tarantino plans to add 30 minutes he had to edit out. "There is half-an-hour's difference between my Death Proof and what is playing in Grindhouse," he says. "I wrote my script - I couldn't be prouder of my script - then I had to shrink it way down to fit inside this double feature.

"I was like a brutish American exploitation distributor who cut the movie down almost to the point of incoherence. I cut it down to the bone and took all the fat off it to see if it could still exist, and it worked. It works great as a double feature, but I'm just as excited if not more excited about actually having the world see Death Proof unfiltered."

It is hard not to marvel at the 44-year-old filmmaker's constant enthusiasm. He talks so rapidly that his words seem to tumble out on top of each other in stream-of-consciousness monologues that are liberally sprinkled with the names of obscure, B-movie directors and exploitation films long forgotten by nearly everyone but himself.

A film fan from the time he could talk and walk, Tarantino has an encyclopaedic knowledge of movies that most experts have never even heard of, and he likes nothing better than to talk at length about them.

He has an almost touching faith in his own abilities and is incapable of believing his own movies are anything but flawless. Like a child looking forward to Christmas, he is eagerly anticipating Death Proof having its solo première at the Cannes film festival.

"I can't wait for it to première," he says. "It will be in competition, and it'll be the first time everyone sees Death Proof by itself, including me."
 
The idea for Grindhouse came when Rodriguez was at Tarantino's house and saw a poster for a 1957 double bill of Dragstrip Girl and Rock All Night. He mentioned that he had always wanted to do a double feature. Tarantino instantly came up with the name Grindhouse, and a movie was born.

Tarantino and Rodriguez, who met at the Toronto Film Festival in 1992, have been occasional collaborators ever since Tarantino played a drug dealer in Rodriguez's Desperado in 1995.

He was the executive producer, writer and co-star of Rodriguez's vampire movie From Dusk Till Dawn, and he also directed a segment of Sin City, while Rodriguez composed some of the music for Tarantino's Kill Bill.

"I can't imagine doing Grindhouse with any other director in the way me and Robert did it because I just had complete faith and trust in him," says Tarantino. "So much so that we didn't actually see each other's movie completed until three weeks before the film opened. It was as if we worked in little vacuums and cut our movies down, and then put them together and watched it all play, and then made a couple of little changes after that, and pretty much that was it."

Critics' reviews were mostly enthusiastic, but Daily Variety asked: "Did anyone besides Tarantino and Rodriguez ever really care about the grindhouse movie genre that much to begin with?"

Tarantino cares passionately; and, probably not coincidentally, at the time Grindhouse was released, he was supervising an eight-week "grindhouse festival" at a Los Angeles cinema, featuring deliriously bad films from his collection, including what he says is one of his all-time favourites, The Girl From Starship Venus by the British sexploitation director Derek Ford, which he programmed as part of a double bill with The Legend of the Wolf Woman.

The festival was a great success with Tarantino fans, who revere his dual status as the film geek who made good and the reigning avatar of postmodern cool.

Raised by his mother in a Los Angeles suburb, Tarantino dropped out of school and took a job as a salesman in a video store, where he brushed up on his already-voluminous knowledge of martial arts and B movies.

He worked as a production assistant on a Dolph Lundgren exercise video, and with a friend, Roger Avary, he wrote the screenplay for Reservoir Dogs, which marked his debut as writer-director-actor.

They followed that with screenplays for True Romance and Natural Born Killers and then Tarantino returned to the director's chair for Pulp Fiction, which won him more than a dozen major awards.

He adapted Elmore Leonard's novel Rum Punch, and turned it into the 1997 film Jackie Brown. Then he dropped out of sight, making "Where's Quentin?" a Hollywood catchphrase, until he returned with the two-part martial arts comedy-thriller Kill Bill.

"I think I've gotten more technically proficient as a filmmaker because you can't help but do that," he says. "Having gone through the pre-production, production and post-production processes, you kind of know how to do it now; it's not a gigantic mystery any more. Maybe that's one of the reasons that, from Jackie Brown on, I've always tackled things I didn't know how to do, so I could learn how to do them."

He is unmarried but is seldom short of female company. He broke up with his longtime girlfriend Grace Lovelace in 1995 and spent two years with Mira Sorvino. He also dated director Allison Anders and comedienne Margaret Cho.

But as a friend said: "It takes a pretty special kind of girl to give up her life to watch kung fu movies with him for a year and a half."

Although he has shaped a pop-culture persona as big as his films, Tarantino is not among the most prolific of moviemakers, averaging one film every three years or so.

"I want to make movies. I have to make movies," he says. "The reason I don't make more movies is that I want to live life in between. I give it all to the movies, and it's like I'm climbing Mount Everest every time. When I get off the mountain then I want to be able to enjoy some time in the chalet at the bottom.

"When I make a movie it's an adventure, but when I get through with it then I get back to my friends I've put on hold for a year. The opposite sex, adventurous travel, sleeping late, watching mindless television, reading a novel, trying to go to sleep at night - they all become very appealing again.

"But the real, real reason I don't make more movies is that I'm a writer, and I always have to start with the blank page and that's hard. You are starting from scratch every single time. Nothing you've done before means a damn when you've got to start all over again."

His next project will be Inglorious Bastards, a Second World War film he has been working on for several years and which he calls his "Dirty Dozen, men-on-a-mission movie".

Having already paid homage to martial arts, revenge, slasher, Japanese and road-rage movies, Tarantino is also planning a new genre, a form of spaghetti western set in America's Deep South which he calls "a southern".

"I want to explore something that really hasn't been done," he says. "I want to do movies that deal with America's horrible past with slavery and stuff but do them like spaghetti westerns, not like big issue movies. I want to do them like they're genre films, but they deal with everything that America has never dealt with because it's ashamed of it, and other countries don't really deal with because they don't feel they have the right to.

"But I can deal with it all right, and I'm the guy to do it. So maybe that's the next mountain waiting for me."

It's a safe bet that his "southern" will also include homages to several other movie genres.

"Look at my movies and there's usually at least three genres operating on all cylinders, bumping into each other," he says. "It's like I don't know if I'm going to make a tremendous amount of movies, so I keep trying to knock off three movies with each one I do."
Title: Re: Grind House
Post by: Ravi on April 27, 2007, 04:26:28 PM
"People who saw it loved it and applauded, but maybe a lot of people just didn't want to see two movies," he says.

What is wrong with people?  The double feature is part of the charm of Grindhouse.  OTOH, these are the same people I always see jumping up to bolt out of the theater right before the closing credits.  Do people just not have much fun at the movies or what?
Title: Re: Grind House
Post by: MacGuffin on April 28, 2007, 12:14:36 AM
'Grindhouse' to be split in U.K.
'Death Proof' to go out Sept. 21
Source: Variety
 
LONDON -- The Weinstein Co. has announced that Quentin Tarantino and Robert Rodriguez's double feature "Grindhouse" with be released as two separate movies in the U.K.

The original plan was to saddle up "Grindhouse" as a double bill in the U.K. and Australia with other territories getting Tarantino's "Death Proof" and Rodriguez's "Planet Terror" separately.

Momentum Pictures will release "Death Proof" in U.K. theaters on Sept. 21. A release date for "Planet Terror," which will also go out via Momentum, has not yet been set.

Tarantino takes a longer version of "Death Proof" than appeared in U.S. cinemas as part of "Grindhouse" to the Cannes Film Festival next month, where it will screen in competition.

News of the underperformance of "Grindhouse" at the U.S. box office has spread like wildfire through the Brit press and the Weinstein Co. has been hard at work formulating a rescue plan for the international launch for the project.

"We are very proud of 'Grindhouse,' " Harvey Weinstein said in a statement. It "earned overwhelming rave reviews for its audaciousness and boldness."

"Based on U.S. audience's positive reactions to Quentin Tarantino's 'Death Proof' and Robert Rodriguez's 'Planet Terror,' combined with their resistance to the three-hour running time, we've revised our U.K. release plans to allow audiences the chance to see the films separately, like they will be shown in all international territories," Weinstein said.
Title: Re: Grind House
Post by: Gold Trumpet on April 30, 2007, 02:11:42 AM
"People who saw it loved it and applauded, but maybe a lot of people just didn't want to see two movies," he says.

What is wrong with people?  The double feature is part of the charm of Grindhouse.  OTOH, these are the same people I always see jumping up to bolt out of the theater right before the closing credits.  Do people just not have much fun at the movies or what?

As much as I dislike blanket statements like this, I still think the key is that Tarantino and Rodrigeuz were paying respect to a genre no one really cared about or even knew. Like 300, the film was blanketed with violence and visuals everywhere, but unlike 300, it was referencing things nobody knew about. Everybody knew about the historical genre at the basis of 300.

Grind House wasn't that much fun to me because I don't care much for violent movies and I also didn't give a shit about the references or the inside jokes. I knew the references were there because my showing was drowned out by fan boys laughing at everything. They were determined to cue every stupid joke.

But, I also remember when Mars Attacks! failed. I really enjoyed that movie but it did absolutely nothing at the box office. I thought it would do huge numbers considering the cast, but no one warmed up it because it was referencing the 1950s sci fi genre the entire way. Hindsight bias explains that the failure lies in the genre being popular mainly in the 1950s. A 90s audience just had little interest.

So what if not everyone liked it. As I get older, I am more bothered by violent movies. It is hard to watch Letters from Iwo Jima one week and then be asked to fall in love with the silliness of 300 the next week. That's what I literally was asked to do.





Title: Re: Grind House
Post by: Ravi on May 03, 2007, 05:58:37 PM
As much as I dislike blanket statements like this, I still think the key is that Tarantino and Rodrigeuz were paying respect to a genre no one really cared about or even knew. Like 300, the film was blanketed with violence and visuals everywhere, but unlike 300, it was referencing things nobody knew about. Everybody knew about the historical genre at the basis of 300.

People are more likely to have a sense of what old exploitation films are than they would Thermopylae, ancient Persia, etc.  The people who saw 300 did so because of the promise of action and gore.
Title: Re: Grind House
Post by: soixante on May 04, 2007, 10:49:02 PM
Just bought the screenplay book for Death Proof.  It's an entertaining read.
Title: Re: Grind House
Post by: socketlevel on May 07, 2007, 01:42:14 PM
"People who saw it loved it and applauded, but maybe a lot of people just didn't want to see two movies," he says.

What is wrong with people?  The double feature is part of the charm of Grindhouse.  OTOH, these are the same people I always see jumping up to bolt out of the theater right before the closing credits.  Do people just not have much fun at the movies or what?

As much as I dislike blanket statements like this, I still think the key is that Tarantino and Rodrigeuz were paying respect to a genre no one really cared about or even knew. Like 300, the film was blanketed with violence and visuals everywhere, but unlike 300, it was referencing things nobody knew about. Everybody knew about the historical genre at the basis of 300.

Grind House wasn't that much fun to me because I don't care much for violent movies and I also didn't give a shit about the references or the inside jokes. I knew the references were there because my showing was drowned out by fan boys laughing at everything. They were determined to cue every stupid joke.

But, I also remember when Mars Attacks! failed. I really enjoyed that movie but it did absolutely nothing at the box office. I thought it would do huge numbers considering the cast, but no one warmed up it because it was referencing the 1950s sci fi genre the entire way. Hindsight bias explains that the failure lies in the genre being popular mainly in the 1950s. A 90s audience just had little interest.

So what if not everyone liked it. As I get older, I am more bothered by violent movies. It is hard to watch Letters from Iwo Jima one week and then be asked to fall in love with the silliness of 300 the next week. That's what I literally was asked to do.








ya i agree with most of what you're saying, but i'd have to say it's all the way the violence is depicted.  letters from iwo jima was supposed to be a conscious movie but i just thought it was crappy.  i've seen that film a million times before.  i honestly thought that if clint was going to make a movie about Japanese soldiers then he above all other American directors he could look outside of the box and not involve issue to do with the US/western thinking.  to me, after watching that film (and i am Canadian) i gotta admit i was kinda sick to my stomach.  cuz at the end of the day, it was another "America is the best" movie.  some might argue that it's not.   It just seems to me there are so many small things in the movie that reinforce western culture.  every single rational Japanese soldier was very western in their ideologies (one even went to school in America).  when can we all get past this democracy or nothing frame of mind.  even though the film is telling the story of Japanese soldiers, it's telling the story from a western frame of mind.  i could go more into all of this, if you want me to, but i'll leave it for now...  before i get too far away from the point.

basically the violence in most WWII holywood made movies, despite the pseudo-socially conscious stigma attached to them, is glorified.  iwo jima has the same problem going for it that saving private ryan did; which is another suck America's cock movie. the message of the film and the WWII elements seem tacked on.  the first 20 mins of saving private ryan were considered a testament to the horrible violence that is war.  i say that's BS, it's just a jaw dropping action sequence that gets the blood pumping.  there was nothing in that movie that showed the true horror of war, and the internal battle that soldiers have.  the Japanese guy in iwo jima and tom hanks deliver politician-esque speeches that hold no real weight.  true horror of war can be seen in movies like "the thin red line" and "full metal jacket".  the insanity of war.  others, like most war movies, are just propaganda pieces; or at least could very well be.

with all that said i personally i don't mind the violence as much, just the intent of the violence and the message that's trying to be sold to the audience by using violent images.  i do not need violence to enjoy a film, i just hate style and subtext (or lack there of) way more then violence in an of itself.

deathproof was fun/great because it was unconventional, planet terror wasn't any good because it was run of the mill (non-handheld camera) studio made zombie flick.  if i wanted to see a good version of planet terror i'll just go watch a romero zombie movie or "they live" by carpenter and get the same, yet improved, effect.

i just love the camera choices that tarantino makes, i love how he'll hold on shots.  i loved the dialog, it was still good, yet not as flashy as his older stuff (which was nice).  i love the structure of the story, how it's broken in half yet still keeps the themes of the film.  it was a lot of fun to watch.  RR shit is getting really boring now, there is a low brow sensibility to his stuff, which when i was younger i thought was funny, now i just think it's poor taste.  i think death proof does a lot for cinema, and opens audiences up for a different experience, and also it just kicks ass.  it doesn't hold the pretense of being anything other than what it is...  and it delivers.  i loved it.

and i guess that's my point, when violence is more often deemed justifed because of the context of the film, i more often find myself thinking it's the worst kind of violence, it exists behind a high brow facade.  whereass in deathproof the violence is there cuz of the story, tarantino does't try to candy coat his violence as legitimate.  his violence doesn't try and subvert the audience to think that it was necessary, it's just a kick ass movie event.  and he tells it like no other.

-sl-
Title: Re: Grind House
Post by: Gold Trumpet on May 08, 2007, 12:57:30 AM
I'll agree with your take on Saving Private Ryan. I think the first 15 minutes are masterful, but it still does not give a context to war that is overall gratifying. It is only a superb technical accomplishment. A better film after that 20 minutes would have given it a context.

For your take on Letters from Iwo Jima, I'll agree that it does Westernize the drama to meet the needs of a US audience, but I don't think that is a bad thing. In the cannon of cinema about World War II, films from Japan and abroad about the Japanese conflict have, I found, to have limited viewpoints about the national identity of Japan. The most concurrent themes have been focused on the nationalization of Japan to fight for all costs to the point of suicide or focused on the Japanese people as victims with the atomic bomb.

What Letters from Iwo Jima does is look at the general issues and then digs deeper to look at more that actually broaden the scope of most people's ideas on the war. Since the filmmaker and one of the writers is American, the point is to give a context to American audiences of the Japanese culture during the war. By using facts about the soldiers who had experiences in America and did serve in the battle of Iwo Jima, it utilizes things that are not bullshit so the aim is still accurate. It is all about the selection of what facts to use to highlight the drama.

All Clint Eastwood is doing is representing a national cinema for America. This has been done before by other countries and geographies. In countries like Poland, regions are so different than one another that films can be made for one region and not be able to translate well to another because dialect is different and the perspective is skewed to meet the sensibilities of that region. This can happen in topics as general as war. Also, every country tries to slant films about abroad subjects to meet their own country so national audiences will be able to emphasize. The Japanese struggle does not have relevancy to Americans the way Rome, Open City had for Italians, but there is an indirect relation because guilt and confusion still carry on with many Americans about the Japanese.

What makes Letters from Iwo Jima different than Saving Private Ryan is that Letters from Iwo Jima is dealing with real history and actual ideas about the nature of the war. Sure both films have an American perspective, but Saving Private Ryan is a convoluted story that has greater relationship to an old 1940s movie than any greater sensibilities. Letters from Iwo Jima not only represents interesting facts and contradictions that go against typical thinking, but it does a sincere job to humanize the Japanese. Much of the drama has nothing to do with Westernization as it has to do with general human topics that are normal in any film from any country.

But, c'mon, the Japanese soldiers do need to be humanized. We're able to accept films about American soldiering that shows officers doing what any of us would have done to pass the time in war. Why aren't the Japanese able to have such a portrait? Nazism is often viewed as a brainwash job for soldiers in films inside and outside of the United States, but psychological studies after World War II found that Americans were more susceptible to brainwashing than them. Yet the United States portrait continues of soldiers in that war continue to be diverse.

I don't buy that Full Metal Jacket and The Thin Red Line are quality at all. Full Metal Jacket is a theoretical film about the nature of killing and if it can be molded into anyone forced to go through boot camp nightmare. It has absolutely nothing to do with the Vietnam War at all. That war is just a back drop for Kubrick's general and banal ideas. Jarhead, a very cliched and overripe film, has more ideas about the nature of soldiering today than Full Metal Jacket does.

And what does The Thin Red Line really do? Absolutely nothing. It is another virtuoso work of visuals about war with nothing to say. The Japanese soldiers are still silent and driven to kill at any cost. The portrait of American soldiers is simple. It makes the one point that individuality becomes lost in a war that discards lives with such ease. The narrator of the film starts out as one but becomes many and the viewer is unable to tell them apart. See, the only difference in this film is that it isn't heaped with sentimental points like most bad Hollywood films because it says about as much as one does about war. I also doubt that scene where the soldier runs through a hornet's nest of Japanese soldiers and kill them all but doesn't manage to get killed himself is highly unlikely.

See, at least Letters from Iwo Jima has something to say. The major problem with it is that it starts to bombard the audience over and over again with it's points but considering most films don't try to play revisionist to history the way Clint Eastwood has with Letters and Flags from Our Fathers, I'll accept the film. It is a unique work of art.

I don't understand how you got to the thinking that the film says America is best. The film gives America considerations, but it certainly gives the Japanese much more consideration.
Title: Re: Grind House
Post by: Gold Trumpet on May 08, 2007, 01:04:10 AM
About Rodrigeuz and Romero, I don't put value on one over the other. They both specialize in a genre that doesn't excite me. But I did like the first two Spy Kids movies.

About Tarantino, yea, he is goofing out and it isn't offensive. 300 carries grand statements with its silly action, but I also didn't find Death Proof much fun either. Everything before the last chase is boring. It really is. People say Tarantino lost a little control in this film with his dialogue. I don't think so. I just think with his earlier films, he had better structures. His earlier films had more characters and situations. Even Resevoir Dogs had more avenues for mixing up the conversation. Pulp Fiction was an assortment of conversations from every level of the pulp genre. The story in Death Proof feels like a recorded taping of a few conversations for the extent of an hour and a half. It can't be good all the way. It has to get boring sometime. Tarantino wanted the story to be simple, but he needed to add more dimensions to make it good. I can't see the longer version being any better.
Title: Re: Grind House
Post by: socketlevel on May 08, 2007, 11:01:41 AM
sorry I'm using the quote what you say and then respond approach, i just want to make sure i address my take on all of the issues you brought up.  it helps me sort it out :D

For your take on Letters from Iwo Jima, I'll agree that it does Westernize the drama to meet the needs of a US audience, but I don't think that is a bad thing. In the cannon of cinema about World War II, films from Japan and abroad about the Japanese conflict have, I found, to have limited viewpoints about the national identity of Japan. The most concurrent themes have been focused on the nationalization of Japan to fight for all costs to the point of suicide or focused on the Japanese people as victims with the atomic bomb.

What Letters from Iwo Jima does is look at the general issues and then digs deeper to look at more that actually broaden the scope of most people's ideas on the war. Since the filmmaker and one of the writers is American, the point is to give a context to American audiences of the Japanese culture during the war. By using facts about the soldiers who had experiences in America and did serve in the battle of Iwo Jima, it utilizes things that are not bullshit so the aim is still accurate. It is all about the selection of what facts to use to highlight the drama.

All Clint Eastwood is doing is representing a national cinema for America. This has been done before by other countries and geographies. In countries like Poland, regions are so different than one another that films can be made for one region and not be able to translate well to another because dialect is different and the perspective is skewed to meet the sensibilities of that region. This can happen in topics as general as war. Also, every country tries to slant films about abroad subjects to meet their own country so national audiences will be able to emphasize. The Japanese struggle does not have relevancy to Americans the way Rome, Open City had for Italians, but there is an indirect relation because guilt and confusion still carry on with many Americans about the Japanese.

correction, one of the writers is Canadian, lol... i guess that appropriation by America is kinda what I'm getting at, which i will explain:

i would agree with this notion of expressing an idea in a context that the audience can understand, in this case presenting it with a western tone for a western audience.  however, this is a somewhat Machiavellian approach to the issue.  America dominates the cultural world of cinema, and thus the film makers and the studios have a higher sense of morality and ethical conduct, because as spidy's uncle always said "with great power comes great responsibility".  now to go with what you're saying, you seem to assume the film is being made exclusively for a western audience.  not true; a film like letters from iwo jima would have distribution rights and releases all over the world.  I disagree with what you say because American films are not just made for Americans, they're made for everyone that wants to lay down the dollar.  when you have guys like jack Valenti dominating the world and only wanting American movies made, right or wrong, you take on more of a responsibility; to not only give one perspective of events.  morals from stories work on a primitive level, so that they can get passed on as wisdom.  if it's done in a way that depicts the events true to how the people conveyed in the film think, rather than the way the audience thinks, is more true to the actual events/feelings/lessons.  don't cater to the audience, let them expand their mind and come to the truth, and embrace the difference.  with the way it was done, depicting a subtle message of western way of life that is foreign, yet rational and caring, subversively suggests that thinking any other way is inherently wrong.

you see, it suggests that the humanity in these Japanese soldiers was the western influences.  that leaning toward democracy will set your body and spirit free.  it is very subversive and dangerous imo.

What makes Letters from Iwo Jima different than Saving Private Ryan is that Letters from Iwo Jima is dealing with real history and actual ideas about the nature of the war. Sure both films have an American perspective, but Saving Private Ryan is a convoluted story that has greater relationship to an old 1940s movie than any greater sensibilities. Letters from Iwo Jima not only represents interesting facts and contradictions that go against typical thinking, but it does a sincere job to humanize the Japanese. Much of the drama has nothing to do with Westernization as it has to do with general human topics that are normal in any film from any country.

But, c'mon, the Japanese soldiers do need to be humanized. We're able to accept films about American soldiering that shows officers doing what any of us would have done to pass the time in war. Why aren't the Japanese able to have such a portrait? Nazism is often viewed as a brainwash job for soldiers in films inside and outside of the United States, but psychological studies after World War II found that Americans were more susceptible to brainwashing than them. Yet the United States portrait continues of soldiers in that war continue to be diverse.

as soon as one ounce of western sensibility was showed on the characters i was put off.  of course they should be humanized, i didn't suggest otherwise.  I'm just saying that the universally human characteristics that you mention, should have been the exclusive defining virtue within their hopes, dreams and humanity.  the amount of western influences changes this, intentional or not, to suggest that virtues are only found in one direction.  the leader of these soldiers were the most wise and Christ like (martyr-esque) of all the characters.  they're following this democratic way, to find peace.  that's a little fucked up to me, especially when this film streches far out into the world as i previously mentioned with distribution.

I don't buy that Full Metal Jacket and The Thin Red Line are quality at all. Full Metal Jacket is a theoretical film about the nature of killing and if it can be molded into anyone forced to go through boot camp nightmare. It has absolutely nothing to do with the Vietnam War at all. That war is just a back drop for Kubrick's general and banal ideas. Jarhead, a very cliched and overripe film, has more ideas about the nature of soldiering today than Full Metal Jacket does.

And what does The Thin Red Line really do? Absolutely nothing. It is another virtuoso work of visuals about war with nothing to say. The Japanese soldiers are still silent and driven to kill at any cost. The portrait of American soldiers is simple. It makes the one point that individuality becomes lost in a war that discards lives with such ease. The narrator of the film starts out as one but becomes many and the viewer is unable to tell them apart. See, the only difference in this film is that it isn't heaped with sentimental points like most bad Hollywood films because it says about as much as one does about war. I also doubt that scene where the soldier runs through a hornet's nest of Japanese soldiers and kill them all but doesn't manage to get killed himself is highly unlikely.

i think they both FMJ and the thin red line work on a metaphorical level.  the insanity of war in that respect.  the hornet's nest scene showed that both sides were killing machines, both deprived their compassions for rage to get the job done.  letters from iwo jima and jarhead are too didactic, i don't care about the events of war myself, at least it's not my primary concern.  i however care much more about the internal factors that come into play to make a soldier of war.  both jarhead and iwo jima are melodramatic, they churn out our tears or disgust, whereas i feel full metal jacket and the thin red line open our minds to the soul of these characters (or the-lack-there-of in the case with FMJ)

See, at least Letters from Iwo Jima has something to say. The major problem with it is that it starts to bombard the audience over and over again with it's points but considering most films don't try to play revisionist to history the way Clint Eastwood has with Letters and Flags from Our Fathers, I'll accept the film. It is a unique work of art.

I don't understand how you got to the thinking that the film says America is best. The film gives America considerations, but it certainly gives the Japanese much more consideration.

it gives Japanese the consideration only if they can conform with America's way of thinking.  it mixes the two belief structures of the time into the Japanese soldiers, but not the American ones.  the American soldiers don't show any signs of an eastern way of thinking.  if that was an attempt to say "see America, they're more like us then you thought", fine I'll say that it has good intentions.  however in the bigger picture it is more detrimental, because it says to the world, they found freedom and salvation through being more like the West.  why couldn't the Japanese whole heartedly believed in what their own structures, and still come to the same conclusions at the end of the film?  maybe that wouldn't make as much money stateside, but it would be more honest, and it would also be more globally respected.

the world is really getting sick of this kinda thing, it's a certain type of arrogance.  what's scary now is that it works a lot more subconsciously, I'm sure Clint and Paul haggis didn't intentionally do what i think is the problem with the film.  it just naturally flows out of them, in part to appease the audience at home, and also to make a story that will sell.  and truthfully, it's probably done in a way that they can understand it and justify the events.  if this was a Japanese made film, it would be done in a way that they can understand it (like you're saying), and it is their story.

anyway i think we both want the same thing from a film, it's too bad i see it in the films you don't and you feel vice versa about my outlook.  by no way am i trying to stop the conversation, just wanted to note that.

at least we can both agree saving private ryan isn't worth the celluloid it was shot on, lol.

-sl-
Title: Re: Grind House
Post by: socketlevel on May 08, 2007, 11:12:35 AM
About Rodrigeuz and Romero, I don't put value on one over the other. They both specialize in a genre that doesn't excite me. But I did like the first two Spy Kids movies.

About Tarantino, yea, he is goofing out and it isn't offensive. 300 carries grand statements with its silly action, but I also didn't find Death Proof much fun either. Everything before the last chase is boring. It really is. People say Tarantino lost a little control in this film with his dialogue. I don't think so. I just think with his earlier films, he had better structures. His earlier films had more characters and situations. Even Resevoir Dogs had more avenues for mixing up the conversation. Pulp Fiction was an assortment of conversations from every level of the pulp genre. The story in Death Proof feels like a recorded taping of a few conversations for the extent of an hour and a half. It can't be good all the way. It has to get boring sometime. Tarantino wanted the story to be simple, but he needed to add more dimensions to make it good. I can't see the longer version being any better.

the original dead movies are great, i love them.  they're fun, silly, exciting and make socio-political comments.  they walk a beautiful fine line between being shlock and having an important message (something i'll never wrap my head around).  something that for myself seems like the hardest tight rope to walk.  i'm utterly amazed and humbled by those films.

Rodrigeuz's stuff is just popcorn crap.

regarding tarantino, this is just an idea, not making any claim to your way of thinking, but do you think because the cast was all female you didn't identify with what they were saying?  cuz i really liked the dialog, it was the female version of the openning scene, and subsequent group scenes, in reservoir dogs.  i don't know, tell me what ya think.

ya i don't see the longer version being any better either, but i still love the original.
Title: Re: Grind House
Post by: Pozer on May 08, 2007, 12:20:43 PM
just get it over with and combine your posts/powers socketlevel & GT.
Title: Re: Grind House
Post by: Gold Trumpet on May 09, 2007, 11:01:18 PM
By the lengths of both posts, there seems to be a lot to cover, but I think most of the discussion centers on one argument so I'll be quoting out of order.

as soon as one ounce of western sensibility was showed on the characters i was put off.  of course they should be humanized, i didn't suggest otherwise.  I'm just saying that the universally human characteristics that you mention, should have been the exclusive defining virtue within their hopes, dreams and humanity.  the amount of western influences changes this, intentional or not, to suggest that virtues are only found in one direction.  the leader of these soldiers were the most wise and Christ like (martyr-esque) of all the characters.  they're following this democratic way, to find peace.  that's a little fucked up to me, especially when this film streches far out into the world as i previously mentioned with distribution.

See, I think you're looking too much into this. The Japanese leaders in question were not finding peace through the west. The one thing Ken Watanabe's character brings from the west is the understanding that their military is far more sophisticated than the Japanese. He is trying to update the defense mechanisms so they have a fighting chance against an invasion.

Also, with the character Baron Nishi (the celebrity soldier who knew Hollywood stars) what he relates to his fellow soldiers is the understanding that the Americans are not soul less. The infranty soldiers were made to understand that they were. He does not tell his fellow soldiers that to understand peace you have to embrace the west. To attain clarity is to understand and emphasize with your enemy. If the English were the enemy, a similar point could be made about them.

I disagree with what you say because American films are not just made for Americans, they're made for everyone that wants to lay down the dollar.  when you have guys like jack Valenti dominating the world and only wanting American movies made, right or wrong, you take on more of a responsibility; to not only give one perspective of events.  morals from stories work on a primitive level, so that they can get passed on as wisdom.  if it's done in a way that depicts the events true to how the people conveyed in the film think, rather than the way the audience thinks, is more true to the actual events/feelings/lessons.  don't cater to the audience, let them expand their mind and come to the truth, and embrace the difference.  with the way it was done, depicting a subtle message of western way of life that is foreign, yet rational and caring, subversively suggests that thinking any other way is inherently wrong.

Taking from my first part that I don't think the film implies Western ideals so much as it implies emphasis and respect with the enemy, I move on by clarifying what I mean when I say Clint Eastwood is representing a national cinema for America. This isn't just to cater to the entertainment value of Americans. It also isn't to cater to their beliefs and sympathies. Some films that represent national interests do this, but I think Eastwood is representing America in that he is representing the American perspective as a theme and viewpoint to the war.

If an English filmmaker was making the same story, he could highlight instances and moments that have English references. He would be explaining the war from the English side as someone would do who was choosing a perspective and theme to their story. It has nothing to do with alienating audiences around the world or promoting a bias. It has everything to do with selections and choices that are in drama.

morals from stories work on a primitive level, so that they can get passed on as wisdom.  if it's done in a way that depicts the events true to how the people conveyed in the film think, rather than the way the audience thinks, is more true to the actual events/feelings/lessons.  don't cater to the audience, let them expand their mind and come to the truth, and embrace the difference.  with the way it was done, depicting a subtle message of western way of life that is foreign, yet rational and caring, subversively suggests that thinking any other way is inherently wrong.

you see, it suggests that the humanity in these Japanese soldiers was the western influences.  that leaning toward democracy will set your body and spirit free.  it is very subversive and dangerous imo.

Like I said before, I don't see it at all. The film has numerous vantage points and references that show the humanity and struggle of the characters that have nothing to do with America. The soldiers who begin to defect against the suicide missions and try to fight for their lives may be influenced by the leaders in question, but I do not think those leaders were educated by Western principles to see through the absurdities of war. I just believe they are professional soldiers who understand the nature of their work better.

Consider the point of Grand Illusion. It was about World War I and showed the nature of the war as the last war where Generals where made to treat ranked prisoners of war with respect and courtesy. The comment on the film years later said there was a striking difference between the first two world wars as the second one was an ideological brain wash to convince the soldiers and elites to find evil and disgust in their enemy. Many soldiers and ranking officers did believe the ideological spin, but also many experienced officers did not and saw their work as a duty and job that needed to be carried out with professionalism. The order and clarity that Ken Watanabe's character enforces into the regiment may be an example of this and the reason why many soldiers started to think outside of the ideological box they were forced to believe.

I'd love to hear a detailed explanation with examples and references to how this is a Western spin instead of just what I said. I have absolutely respected and loved every portion of your argument, but I also cannot see it in the film.

i think they both FMJ and the thin red line work on a metaphorical level.  the insanity of war in that respect.  the hornet's nest scene showed that both sides were killing machines, both deprived their compassions for rage to get the job done.  letters from iwo jima and jarhead are too didactic, i don't care about the events of war myself, at least it's not my primary concern.  i however care much more about the internal factors that come into play to make a soldier of war.  both jarhead and iwo jima are melodramatic, they churn out our tears or disgust, whereas i feel full metal jacket and the thin red line open our minds to the soul of these characters (or the-lack-there-of in the case with FMJ)

I think Full Metal Jacket and Thin Red Line go for what you say they do, but I also believe they are works that simplify their subjects. The insanity of war...the internal factors that come into play to make a soldier of war...these are all general themes that have been around forever. Almost every film about war that is quasi serious attempts to detail these broad and general ideas. Both of these films barely cover these themes.

For instance, in The Thin Red Line....the film surveys different battles and numerous deployments of soldiers everywhere. It shows chaos in battle and the struggles soldiers have to go through. Fine. To give this a context, the film tries to show the peace that these soldiers once knew. One remembers their wife swinging on a tree swing back home. They reminiscence about their memories of home. Scenes show a soldier walking with native children through a village and enjoying the simplicity of their life. It shows the peace we have infringed upon with war, but...it ends there.

There is nothing deeper. There are no ideas the explain in more detail the personal agony that the soldiers went through. The characterization is an array of voice overs about the general feelings for being in war. If the film wanted to delve into their personal agony, it would have had much more details to show the depths of horror these soldiers have to go to to just survive war. Because the film focused on the surface level details and was continuous with the personal sentiments of the soldiers for home, I'd say that is melodramatic. Letters from Iwo Jima delves much deeper.

A soldier running through a hornet's nest of Japanese soldiers, killing them all and surviving is not a statement about how soldiers became killing machines. A statement like that would have come in scenes that focused on the preparation and aftermath of a killing. It would focus on the potential guilt of that soldier and how he carred on. Instead the scene is a rare action one in the midst of a deliberately paced film. It becomes acceptable because of the rest of the film around it doesn't give into those easy action sequences. But the scene should have been dropped. It is a cliche because 99% of actual soldiers who would have done that would have been killed. If it was going to be in the movie, it should have showed him dying badly instead.

Full Metal Jacket does better because it focuses on the road one soldier takes to challenge himself to actually kill someone. It shows a personality in the soldier that is more relatable to the audience than the typical portrait. It shows that joking about killing is easy, but doing so is another matter. My problem with the film is that it could have been more. It was drawn out to make one small point. Many people like to talk about the dense textures in a Kubrick film, but in this one, it wasn't there. When the end of the film becomes understood, the only question is how to connect the first half with the second half. When that explanation comes with Kubrick purposely going against expectations because the war genre may be the most overdone ever, it becomes obvious he is trying to challenge narrative norms.

But it doesn't make a great film for me. One of Robert Bresson's weaker films was Lancelot of the Lake. It was a film focused on narrative. It told the conventional story of Lancelot but focused on the repetitions of getting off and on the horses with multiple edits and then showed other repetitions we don't see generally highlighted in a conventional narrative. The film was meant to be disturbing and jarring to the senses because it was challenging the norms of one of the most normal stories. Full Metal Jacket challenges the narrative norms for one of the most popular genres, but since his ideas are so simple and lightweight compared to his other work, it does not make a great film.




Title: Re: Grind House
Post by: Gold Trumpet on May 09, 2007, 11:13:35 PM
the original dead movies are great, i love them.  they're fun, silly, exciting and make socio-political comments.  they walk a beautiful fine line between being shlock and having an important message (something i'll never wrap my head around).  something that for myself seems like the hardest tight rope to walk.  i'm utterly amazed and humbled by those films.

I've only seen Dawn of the Dead and I wasn't impressed by the filmmaking or the political comments. I've read some comments that try to explain the political nature of those movies, but because the explanations were vague and had little to do with anything that was concrete and real, I felt that the argument was stretching the limits of the movie. I know many people enjoy the movies, but I'm just not a fan of the zombie genre.


regarding tarantino, this is just an idea, not making any claim to your way of thinking, but do you think because the cast was all female you didn't identify with what they were saying?  cuz i really liked the dialog, it was the female version of the openning scene, and subsequent group scenes, in reservoir dogs.  i don't know, tell me what ya think.

See, I thought the dialogue was good. Tarantino has a knack to adapt himself to invent conversations with different groups of people. On a surface level, it reminds me of what Tom Wolfe can do. My problem is that he didn't have structure and dimensions to the story to give us a break between the very long conversations. No matter who wrote it or who the characters were, these conversations were going to get old very quick. The exception is unless a character was telling an elaborate story that required 30 minutes of dialogue. Tarantino just needed to add more to the story.
Title: Re: Grind House
Post by: MacGuffin on May 14, 2007, 01:18:54 AM
Machete movie greenlit!
Source: Moviehole

Since “Grindhouse” made less than whatever-piece-of-shit-it-was-up-against-that-week this news will come as a bit of a surprise – but it does buy the Weinstein boys a couple of points with the fanboys upset over the whole Grindhouse debacle [and split].

Danny Trejo, who played the cjharacter of ‘Machete’ in the faux trailer that was wedged between the two “Grindhouse” movies “Planet Terror” and “Death Proof”, tells IESB that a feature-length film, featuring the character, has been greenlit.

Trejo says low box-office returns aside, Robert Rodriguez and Quentin Tarantino are geniuses and they’re still pushing forward with a “Machete” movie.

“That’s the big one”, says Trejo, who’s appeared in near every one of Rodriguez’s movies. “We’re going to do Machete next, and Bob and Harvey Weinstein have already said, ‘Yeah, we’re gotta do it’.”

There were rumours that “Machete” was going to be a direct-to-video release – possibly released as a triple feature on the same DVD as the other two “Grindhouse” movies. Trejo says that’s no longer the case.

“No. They’re going to make it a movie – because of the audience response”, the actor, who also confirmed he’ll be a part of “Sin City 2”, says.
Title: Re: Grind House
Post by: socketlevel on May 14, 2007, 01:09:31 PM

Taking from my first part that I don't think the film implies Western ideals so much as it implies emphasis and respect with the enemy, I move on by clarifying what I mean when I say Clint Eastwood is representing a national cinema for America. This isn't just to cater to the entertainment value of Americans. It also isn't to cater to their beliefs and sympathies. Some films that represent national interests do this, but I think Eastwood is representing America in that he is representing the American perspective as a theme and viewpoint to the war.

If an English filmmaker was making the same story, he could highlight instances and moments that have English references. He would be explaining the war from the English side as someone would do who was choosing a perspective and theme to their story. It has nothing to do with alienating audiences around the world or promoting a bias. It has everything to do with selections and choices that are in drama.

true, however in almost every case i can think of, in the English story told, there is seldom a character that went to school in an eastern empirical system.  i guess it's just in my opinion more than anything else.   there is no way a character would be aloud to talk about a non-democratic system of government in positive light, and someway through that wisdom of the difference, find the other side is not soulless (it just seems there needs to be that distinction within these films, even if America is wrong, the characters themselves are right i.e. three kings).  a much more satirical approach is to make the characters themselves not above the immoral/unethical conduct, by making these heros/protagonists self-serving it points the finger more at the society as a whole (mainly because the audience sees themselves in the protagonist's POV).  at least jarhead does this, even though i don't like that film all that much.  The classic film that does what i mention, one doesn't let the main characters off the hook to any degree, is Dr. strangelove (FMJ is the same in that respect).

i guess the only example i can think of right now in iwo jima would be when we study the secondary actors  portraying the grunts.  we find that on the American side, when a soldier is cast in a poor light, he is ignorant and malicious (as in the case where the two Japanese soldiers who surrendered were murdered by the Americans).  on the other hand,  Japanese soldiers cast in a poor light are blind sheep to believe in anything other than what the were taught.  this is very commonly the case in american cinema, and there is a subtle level of superiority in that.   i don't know if it's just me, but the blind sheep depiction is more problematic because it suggests lack of individuality.  American soldiers are at least independant despite their insubordanence.  to me, complacency is one of the biggest insults because it suggests that the film maker/writer is looking down on the mentality of the society and the system of what is not democratic/american.


Like I said before, I don't see it at all. The film has numerous vantage points and references that show the humanity and struggle of the characters that have nothing to do with America. The soldiers who begin to defect against the suicide missions and try to fight for their lives may be influenced by the leaders in question, but I do not think those leaders were educated by Western principles to see through the absurdities of war. I just believe they are professional soldiers who understand the nature of their work better.

Consider the point of Grand Illusion. It was about World War I and showed the nature of the war as the last war where Generals where made to treat ranked prisoners of war with respect and courtesy. The comment on the film years later said there was a striking difference between the first two world wars as the second one was an ideological brain wash to convince the soldiers and elites to find evil and disgust in their enemy. Many soldiers and ranking officers did believe the ideological spin, but also many experienced officers did not and saw their work as a duty and job that needed to be carried out with professionalism. The order and clarity that Ken Watanabe's character enforces into the regiment may be an example of this and the reason why many soldiers started to think outside of the ideological box they were forced to believe.

I'd love to hear a detailed explanation with examples and references to how this is a Western spin instead of just what I said. I have absolutely respected and loved every portion of your argument, but I also cannot see it in the film.

i guess i kind of explained it.  i do see your point however.  it would just be nice to see the opposite of what i said.  imagine casting American soldiers as sheep, juxtaposed to an open minded enemy/opposition.  American soldiers as sheep has been done, but contrasted to a different army would suggest a fundamental problem with the American army.  however this would never happen, we would much rather cast them as savages killing innocent men who surrendered, because what that does is paint a negative note on those individual characters, it doesn't comment on the whole system in suggesting it might be inferior.

i like what you say about the message of the film, i think it's a great notion, i just think too much gets in the way for me to see it.  maybe because I'm not American myself.

I think Full Metal Jacket and Thin Red Line go for what you say they do, but I also believe they are works that simplify their subjects. The insanity of war...the internal factors that come into play to make a soldier of war...these are all general themes that have been around forever. Almost every film about war that is quasi serious attempts to detail these broad and general ideas. Both of these films barely cover these themes.

For instance, in The Thin Red Line....the film surveys different battles and numerous deployments of soldiers everywhere. It shows chaos in battle and the struggles soldiers have to go through. Fine. To give this a context, the film tries to show the peace that these soldiers once knew. One remembers their wife swinging on a tree swing back home. They reminiscence about their memories of home. Scenes show a soldier walking with native children through a village and enjoying the simplicity of their life. It shows the peace we have infringed upon with war, but...it ends there.

There is nothing deeper. There are no ideas the explain in more detail the personal agony that the soldiers went through. The characterization is an array of voice overs about the general feelings for being in war. If the film wanted to delve into their personal agony, it would have had much more details to show the depths of horror these soldiers have to go to to just survive war. Because the film focused on the surface level details and was continuous with the personal sentiments of the soldiers for home, I'd say that is melodramatic. Letters from Iwo Jima delves much deeper.

A soldier running through a hornet's nest of Japanese soldiers, killing them all and surviving is not a statement about how soldiers became killing machines. A statement like that would have come in scenes that focused on the preparation and aftermath of a killing. It would focus on the potential guilt of that soldier and how he carred on. Instead the scene is a rare action one in the midst of a deliberately paced film. It becomes acceptable because of the rest of the film around it doesn't give into those easy action sequences. But the scene should have been dropped. It is a cliche because 99% of actual soldiers who would have done that would have been killed. If it was going to be in the movie, it should have showed him dying badly instead.

i think iwo jima lacks depth because it doesn't try to give new insight on the subject matter, it is not a lesson but rather just preaches to the converted.  everyone in that theatre already feels the way the characters are talking.  it's not attempting to open our minds, it's attempting to show us that the characters already feel the way we do.  that's not a bad thing to do in a film,  it's just safe and imo lacks depth.  as i've stated elsewhere in this post, depth isn't required for me to think something is great, but iwo jima decided to be deep, and thus i feel it doesn't deliver.  i think challenging the way we think, by doning some of the things i stated above like make the american army more of a threat then anything else, would warrent a progressive stigma.  it should not critic the men themselves (good or bad), but the system.  because it is the system that is flawed.

the hornet's nest scene has the classic monologe "what is this evil, where does it come from.." it works on a existential level, it hits me not so directly but leaves me with a sense of loss.  the images and the acting over this monologe shows sociopathic behaviors, i like that synergy of sound and images.  like i said it's not a didactic message, i just think it's powerful in that it leaves the audience disturbed by the scene are shows the utter insanity of the actions.

Characters feeling guilt doesn't resonate with me, that's a different film, this film is about loss, and when the soldiers leave the island at the end the loss happened for no reason.  it makes you angry because you see the superiors driven by ego (nolty and Travolta).  this is how I'd picture it, one mans mission to have his own war.  egos drive a lot of things we do in day to day life, i believe it would for the people commanding war as well.  there are many stories of this.  so when you juxtapose the personal struggle and loss of the soldiers against the egos of the commanders, it leaves you with a very bad taste in your mouth.  At the end of the film they have made no progress, yet lost so much.  that is very sad to me.

Full Metal Jacket does better because it focuses on the road one soldier takes to challenge himself to actually kill someone. It shows a personality in the soldier that is more relatable to the audience than the typical portrait. It shows that joking about killing is easy, but doing so is another matter. My problem with the film is that it could have been more. It was drawn out to make one small point. Many people like to talk about the dense textures in a Kubrick film, but in this one, it wasn't there. When the end of the film becomes understood, the only question is how to connect the first half with the second half. When that explanation comes with Kubrick purposely going against expectations because the war genre may be the most overdone ever, it becomes obvious he is trying to challenge narrative norms.

i agree it's not too dense, but i still love it for the reasons you state.

But it doesn't make a great film for me. One of Robert Bresson's weaker films was Lancelot of the Lake. It was a film focused on narrative. It told the conventional story of Lancelot but focused on the repetitions of getting off and on the horses with multiple edits and then showed other repetitions we don't see generally highlighted in a conventional narrative. The film was meant to be disturbing and jarring to the senses because it was challenging the norms of one of the most normal stories. Full Metal Jacket challenges the narrative norms for one of the most popular genres, but since his ideas are so simple and lightweight compared to his other work, it does not make a great film.

i have never seen the film you mention, it sounds interesting and I'd love to check it out.  i think FMJ doesn't have to be more complex to be a great movie.  i think the message like you say is simple yet poignant.
Title: Re: Grind House
Post by: socketlevel on May 14, 2007, 01:21:46 PM
the original dead movies are great, i love them.  they're fun, silly, exciting and make socio-political comments.  they walk a beautiful fine line between being shlock and having an important message (something i'll never wrap my head around).  something that for myself seems like the hardest tight rope to walk.  i'm utterly amazed and humbled by those films.

I've only seen Dawn of the Dead and I wasn't impressed by the filmmaking or the political comments. I've read some comments that try to explain the political nature of those movies, but because the explanations were vague and had little to do with anything that was concrete and real, I felt that the argument was stretching the limits of the movie. I know many people enjoy the movies, but I'm just not a fan of the zombie genre.


regarding tarantino, this is just an idea, not making any claim to your way of thinking, but do you think because the cast was all female you didn't identify with what they were saying?  cuz i really liked the dialog, it was the female version of the openning scene, and subsequent group scenes, in reservoir dogs.  i don't know, tell me what ya think.

See, I thought the dialogue was good. Tarantino has a knack to adapt himself to invent conversations with different groups of people. On a surface level, it reminds me of what Tom Wolfe can do. My problem is that he didn't have structure and dimensions to the story to give us a break between the very long conversations. No matter who wrote it or who the characters were, these conversations were going to get old very quick. The exception is unless a character was telling an elaborate story that required 30 minutes of dialogue. Tarantino just needed to add more to the story.

i guess with dawn of the dead, it's kind of a weird thing, you're not supposed to go in looking for the subtext.  you're suppose to go in with a "sweet zombies kick ass" mentality.  then when you're watching this fun and cheesy movie, at some point you say, damn that's a sick idea.  zombies do what was important to them in a past life, which in this case is shopping.  that in death all they're left with is materialism... and you see the breakdown of hording from the then 70s "me" generation.  it's kind of like the cause and effect, the main characters are no better than these zombies due to the hording of excess.  at some point we even route for the zombies because we are disgusted with the humans.  They horde everything in the mall from the other (human) characters rather than share it; therefor they pay the ultimate price for this decadence.  I just wish Romero kept his original ending in which the black character (sorry forget the name) stays behind for the loot, then is killed by the zombies.  the female flys off and after the credits end we hear the sound of the helicoptor's motor dying.  that is the perfect, yet very bitter ending to this tragedy.

with all that said, first and foremost it's a schlocky horror movie, which in restrospect makes you think "why did they do this".  after you realize why they did it you then realize, damn romero was saying something there.  i absolutly love the film for that reason.  it walks such a fine line, and i think it's genius.

tarantino is following the structure of the low brow exploitation movies at the time.  they very often were set up the same way, two act kinda deal.  there is a rawness to the genre i really like, yet it's true there is no depth.  abel ferrara's film mrs. 45 is like this, it's a straight up revenge film... like so many expliotation films at that time.  so is deathproof.  the only difference with deathproof is that the dialog is much better than the former incarnations, and it is a cool slasher meets chase film, with revenge flick tying it all up into one nice package.  i'm not really looking for depth, i'm looking for the excapist feel the movie provides.  getting lost in this kinda world is fun for me.  and it's kinda like the FMJ thing i said, it doesn't need anything more to be a great movie to me.

-sl-
Title: Re: Grind House
Post by: Stefen on May 14, 2007, 10:51:00 PM
Tarantino used to be the guy nerdy video store clerks worshiped, now he's the guy that the video store clerks biggest enemy worships. The maxim reading frat boy who listens to nu-metal and rap-rock.

Crazy.
Title: Re: Grind House
Post by: socketlevel on May 15, 2007, 07:53:43 AM
Tarantino used to be the guy nerdy video store clerks worshiped, now he's the guy that the video store clerks biggest enemy worships. The maxim reading frat boy who listens to nu-metal and rap-rock.

Crazy.

i lol'd, however i think RR is more that guy than tarantino.  the frat boy must really like dialog and some serious slow moving parts in his movies to like death proof.

-sl-
Title: Re: Grind House
Post by: MacGuffin on May 17, 2007, 01:11:31 AM
International Death Proof Trailer here. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_LJEzpuwxCU)
Title: Re: Grind House
Post by: ponceludon on May 17, 2007, 01:20:28 AM
Good thing I've already seen Death Proof, otherwise I wouldn't have to. I thought international trailers were supposed to be better than the all-revealing American kind.

Also, will there be footage of the "lost" lap dance scene?
Title: Re: Grind House
Post by: Gold Trumpet on May 17, 2007, 04:13:41 PM
true, however in almost every case i can think of, in the English story told, there is seldom a character that went to school in an eastern empirical system.  i guess it's just in my opinion more than anything else.   there is no way a character would be aloud to talk about a non-democratic system of government in positive light, and someway through that wisdom of the difference, find the other side is not soulless (it just seems there needs to be that distinction within these films, even if America is wrong, the characters themselves are right i.e. three kings).  a much more satirical approach is to make the characters themselves not above the immoral/unethical conduct, by making these heros/protagonists self-serving it points the finger more at the society as a whole (mainly because the audience sees themselves in the protagonist's POV).  at least jarhead does this, even though i don't like that film all that much.  The classic film that does what i mention, one doesn't let the main characters off the hook to any degree, is Dr. strangelove (FMJ is the same in that respect).

I guess I would say it is unlikely that an English story would feature a general getting an Eastern education, but since there isn't a specific story to reference, I also could say it is possible. You say it is unlikely for a Japanese general to speak about a non-democratic society in a positive light, but I'd say it is more unlikely that a General would be allowed in a non-democratic society to go to the United States to be awarded a major award. But yet the evidence in the film suggests exactly that happened.

This also happened, historically, when FDR issued major economic sanctions against Japan that was crippling them and FDR, since being named President, showed nothing but hostility toward the country.

i guess i kind of explained it.  i do see your point however.  it would just be nice to see the opposite of what i said.  imagine casting American soldiers as sheep, juxtaposed to an open minded enemy/opposition.  American soldiers as sheep has been done, but contrasted to a different army would suggest a fundamental problem with the American army.  however this would never happen, we would much rather cast them as savages killing innocent men who surrendered, because what that does is paint a negative note on those individual characters, it doesn't comment on the whole system in suggesting it might be inferior.

You're also responding to a large history of Hollywood making war films that portrayed the enemy of any American war in marginal terms. They are shown as soul less and with little regard. That is the history of bad movies. It makes American grunt soldiers look positive even in a negative light because their portrait can never be simple evil. I'm not defending that.

The whole point of Flags of Our Fathers and Letters from Iwo Jima is to show soldiers on both sides who shared the same sensibilities and fears with going into battle. There are numerous stories in Letters that has no shaping or molding by Western perspectives. It delves into the back stories of the Japanese soldiers. They want to go home but are blinded by the fear of death if they do not carry out their duties. Their desire to stay out of battle or risk harm has nothing to do with the few characters who speak out in empathy toward the enemy.


i think iwo jima lacks depth because it doesn't try to give new insight on the subject matter, it is not a lesson but rather just preaches to the converted.  everyone in that theatre already feels the way the characters are talking.  it's not attempting to open our minds, it's attempting to show us that the characters already feel the way we do.  that's not a bad thing to do in a film,  it's just safe and imo lacks depth.  as i've stated elsewhere in this post, depth isn't required for me to think something is great, but iwo jima decided to be deep, and thus i feel it doesn't deliver.  i think challenging the way we think, by doning some of the things i stated above like make the american army more of a threat then anything else, would warrent a progressive stigma.  it should not critic the men themselves (good or bad), but the system.  because it is the system that is flawed.

Letters from Iwo Jima offers so much more than that. It a dense and detailed look at the complexities of a battalion of soldiers in retreat. It shows most of their history to get where they are and why they decided to revolt against dying in a losing war.

Then it is a portrait of professional soldiers at the end of their rope and realizing their excellence could do little to save them in a losing war. Their is a national identity of loyalty for these soldiers.

This isn't simple "preaching" to the converted. It isn't simply telling stories we already know. Just because the audience can relate to the stories and say, "Oh, their soldiers went through the same as ours" doesn't begin to describe the greater complexities of the story.

the hornet's nest scene has the classic monologe "what is this evil, where does it come from.." it works on a existential level, it hits me not so directly but leaves me with a sense of loss.  the images and the acting over this monologe shows sociopathic behaviors, i like that synergy of sound and images.  like i said it's not a didactic message, i just think it's powerful in that it leaves the audience disturbed by the scene are shows the utter insanity of the actions.

Alright. Usually when someone tells me it works for them on an "existential level", I think they can't describe or explain how they feel, but the rest of your post has to do with your feelings. I know other people who know and respect my feelings on Mallick, but buy into everything he does anyways. I can't argue feelings.

Characters feeling guilt doesn't resonate with me, that's a different film, this film is about loss, and when the soldiers leave the island at the end the loss happened for no reason.  it makes you angry because you see the superiors driven by ego (nolty and Travolta).  this is how I'd picture it, one mans mission to have his own war.  egos drive a lot of things we do in day to day life, i believe it would for the people commanding war as well.  there are many stories of this.  so when you juxtapose the personal struggle and loss of the soldiers against the egos of the commanders, it leaves you with a very bad taste in your mouth.  At the end of the film they have made no progress, yet lost so much.  that is very sad to me.

As I remember, Travolta and Nolte really have walk in roles. Their isn't much to their performance besides a few speeches. Is that the proper to way to give context to an hour and a half of grunt soldiers trying to save their own skin? I felt both of their roles were add ons that had little weight. Your idea of the difference between commanders and soldiers makes sense on paper, but the film doesn't go the lengths to really show that.

I also have another point of contention with The Thin Red Line. Many people claim bias and racism in films about America dealing with other countries. Many say these films promote American greatness. Well, I say there is a reverse racism in The Thin Red Line. The film digs into the insanity of war and tries to find a counterbalance with soldiers finding peace and tranquility elsewhere. The place they find it is in a native village with simplified life and what looks like peaceful living that is outside of the larger societies that makes war normal.

Well, c'mon. This undermines the society of that village. Every society has war as a fact of life. But yet Mallick is so limited in his ability to find a great counterpoint to the insanity of war that he simplifies another culture and implies that they have greater wisdom because they are not caught in the net of war. Pauline Kael use to say that too many films assumed higher knowledge in primitive societies because they didn't complicate their lives. But no society stands outside of war and this film does not show the depths of what feelings go through those people. It is a broad stroke of generalizing another culture as peaceful.
Title: Re: Grind House
Post by: Gold Trumpet on May 17, 2007, 04:22:06 PM
i guess with dawn of the dead, it's kind of a weird thing, you're not supposed to go in looking for the subtext.  you're suppose to go in with a "sweet zombies kick ass" mentality.  then when you're watching this fun and cheesy movie, at some point you say, damn that's a sick idea.  zombies do what was important to them in a past life, which in this case is shopping.  that in death all they're left with is materialism... and you see the breakdown of hording from the then 70s "me" generation.  it's kind of like the cause and effect, the main characters are no better than these zombies due to the hording of excess.  at some point we even route for the zombies because we are disgusted with the humans.  They horde everything in the mall from the other (human) characters rather than share it; therefor they pay the ultimate price for this decadence.  I just wish Romero kept his original ending in which the black character (sorry forget the name) stays behind for the loot, then is killed by the zombies.  the female flys off and after the credits end we hear the sound of the helicoptor's motor dying.  that is the perfect, yet very bitter ending to this tragedy.

The materialism idea is funny. I never heard that one, but you imply either you love it you don't. I agree. I just don't which is why I'm staying away from movies like 28 Days Later.

tarantino is following the structure of the low brow exploitation movies at the time.  they very often were set up the same way, two act kinda deal.  there is a rawness to the genre i really like, yet it's true there is no depth.  abel ferrara's film mrs. 45 is like this, it's a straight up revenge film... like so many expliotation films at that time.  so is deathproof.  the only difference with deathproof is that the dialog is much better than the former incarnations, and it is a cool slasher meets chase film, with revenge flick tying it all up into one nice package.  i'm not really looking for depth, i'm looking for the excapist feel the movie provides.  getting lost in this kinda world is fun for me.  and it's kinda like the FMJ thing i said, it doesn't need anything more to be a great movie to me.

Well, maybe because Tarantino writes the dialogue so much better he proves another point: that improved dialogue can not make an exploitation film any better.

Maybe I'm wrong to assume Tarantino can twist genre the way he did with Pulp Fiction anymore. Now all he can do is replicate it at its very worst and keeps the enjoyment limited to those who already bought into it. If he keeps this up I may have to bow out from following him.
Title: Re: Grind House
Post by: MacGuffin on May 22, 2007, 07:30:58 PM
Critic's Notebook: 'Death' reincarnated
By Kirk Honeycutt; Hollywood Reporter

CANNES -- So how does Quentin Tarantino's "Death Proof" look now that it has been liberated from the "Grindhouse" conceit? The opportunity to find out has come as his film, in a format designed for overseas distribution, is showing In Competition at the Festival de Cannes.

The gimmick of "Death Proof," of course, was for Tarantino and his filmmaker buddy, Robert Rodriquez, to create two separate exploitation flicks that might have played together on a double bill at a grindhouse cinema in the 1970s, complete with missing scenes from beaten-up prints and Coming Attractions for other low-budget B movies.

Dimension Films suffered at the boxoffice when young audiences either didn't get the concept or simply didn't care. Also, a running time of more than three hours didn't help. The plan was always to release the two films, Tarantino's female revenge car-stunt movie "Death Proof" and Rodriquez's zombie horror film "Planet Terror," as individual movies in foreign territories. But "Grindhouse's" failure in North American certainly underscored the wisdom of that strategy.

What you lose when you separate these retro exploitationers, of course, is the tongue-in-cheek context. These two directors spent countless hours in grindhouses and certainly absorbed much of their cinematic aesthetic from those experiences. In "Grindhouse," they fondly remember those '70s movies which broke all the rules of film decorum to give mostly young audiences hot girls, fast cars and buckets of blood.

It was probably predictable that at its initial press screening at the Palais on Monday night boos and applause would mingle at the end. Meant to look cheap and nasty -- while in fact this is anything but a low budget movie -- the film feels out of place amid the subtitled angst and measured drama of Competition films. It also doesn't look like a film that measures up to Tarantino's "Pulp Fiction," which won the Palme d'Or 13 years ago, or the "Kill Bill" films, the second of which screened at the festival in 2004.

Yet "Death Proof" remains a film that does take its artistic chances. It's a film that bears only a superficial resemblance to a '70s exploitationer. It is constructed in two acts rather than the traditional three and spends more time on two different posses of hilariously gabby young women than on action. Indeed playing on the bottom end of the "Grindhouse" twin bill, the non-stop gab at the beginning of "Death Proof" caused more than a few young men, with attention spans not tuned to three-hour movies, to vacate theaters since no action was on the foreseeable horizon.

"Death Proof" fits in nicely with Tarantino's growing oeuvre, even if it is a film with rudimentary motives and action. The filmmaker is still rethinking pulp movie fiction with a post-modern sensibility. His point is that you can sneak in a lot of subtle philosophical and psychological depth into sex talk and car stunts. As far as he is concerned, the best exploitation filmmakers always did that.

The new version clocks in at 113 minutes. Only two notable additions have been made to "Death Proof," one in each act. In both, Kurt Russell's Stuntman Mike, a riveting portrait in grizzled, pathological evil, stalks two sets of beautiful young women in his "death proof" stunt car.

In the first act, these chicks, out for a night of heavy partying in Austin, Texas, are lead by Sydney Tamiia Poitier's bad-ass drive-time radio DJ and local celebrity, Jungle Julia. The ongoing intrigue is whether any male listener to her program is going to take up her challenge that evening to buy a drink for her female companion -- Vanessa Ferlito's 'Butterfly' -- while quoting a Robert Frost poem and thereby win a lap dance.

In the earlier version, Butterfly agrees to give the winner, none other than Stuntman Mike, that lap dance. But this proves to be one of the print's "Missing Scenes," as some projectionist long ago snipped it for his own private collection. In the Cannes version, that scene is no longer missing. Let's just say that Ferlito's sexy dance routine proves worth the wait over these several months.

In the second section of the movie, 14 months after Stuntman Mike's car has killed all the girls in a head-on collision, he has moved on to Lebanon, Tennessee. Here he stalks a new set of hot babes -- this time crew members of a movie shooting locally -- as well as one stuntwoman. This proves to be Stuntman Mike's undoing as they are better at this game than he.

The addition here doesn't really add much. Before the game gets underway, there is an encounter between Mike and his new intended victims at a roadside convenience store. The sequence goes to black and white. While one woman goes to buy a magazine, Stuntman Mike menacingly plays with the dangling bare feet of another girl as they hang from the backseat window. About all this adds is an opportunity for Mary Elizabeth Winstead to sing, quite well by the way, the classic rock ballad "Baby It's You."

The final chase duel of the Dodge Challengers in the thrilling climax still bothers you a bit since some logic drops away. Stuntman Mike's car is reinforced everywhere since it is a stunt car. The girls' Dodge is not. So how does it survive?

You can shrug that off to movie magic, but more problematic is how the women allow Stuntman Mike to toy with them in the initial moments of the showdown. By simply applying the brake, their car could fall suddenly behind so New Zealand stuntwoman extraordinaire Zoe Bell, basically playing herself, can climb down off the hood where she has been fooling around in a deliberate death-defying stunt.

Oh well, Tarantino would probably argue that logic was always missing in grindhouse movie action, and he wouldn't be wrong. If "Death Proof" is his way of marking time before his next big project, it is certainly interesting that at this stage of his career he can throw together such a compelling and funny time marker.
Title: Re: Grind House
Post by: polkablues on May 23, 2007, 02:41:50 AM
More Mary Elizabeth Winstead could only make this a better film.  Now if only he could do that while at the same time completely removing Tracy Thoms, Zoe Bell, and Rosario Dawson.  Then he'd have a winner on his hands.
Title: Re: Grind House
Post by: grand theft sparrow on May 23, 2007, 09:54:54 AM
More Mary Elizabeth Winstead could only make this a better film.

Only if Tarantino gives her something to do besides make dumbass "girlie" comments and be Adam Sandler's assistant's potential rape victim.  Her uselessness made her more annoying than the characters who had a purpose in the movie.

In the second section of the movie, 14 months after Stuntman Mike's car has killed all the girls in a head-on collision, he has moved on to Lebanon, Tennessee. Here he stalks a new set of hot babes -- this time crew members of a movie shooting locally -- as well as one stuntwoman. This proves to be Stuntman Mike's undoing as they are better at this game than he.

Was this ever mentioned in the movie?  I thought both parts took place in Texas.
Title: Re: Grind House
Post by: MacGuffin on May 23, 2007, 11:38:49 AM
Infighting dogs Tarantino's latest release
· Producer defiant over Grindhouse 'sacrilege'
· Outburst at film festival after Kurt Russell remarks

Source: The Guardian

Quentin Tarantino's Death Proof - a contender for the Palme d'Or at this year's film festival - plays out in a blaze of car wrecks, vengeance slayings and expletive-fuelled stand-offs. For a moment it appeared as though yesterday's press conference might follow suit as the iconoclastic producer Harvey Weinstein stormed on stage to defend the film against its critics.

Death Proof originally formed one half of the Grindhouse double bill that Tarantino conceived alongside fellow director and trash culture devotee Robert Rodriguez.

But following its flop release in the US this year, Weinstein ordered that the two sections - Tarantino's Death Proof and Rodriguez's Planet Terror - be expanded and re-released as separate pictures. He has been defending the decision ever since.

Weinstein's abrupt arrival appeared to be prompted in part by remarks made by Kurt Russell, who plays the role of Stuntman Mike in the film. Russell admitted he had yet to see the new version. But he added: "I'm disappointed for every audience that they won't get the full Grindhouse experience.

"For now these movies are going off on their own. But my prediction is that 20 years from now the people will want to see these movies back the way they should be. Two movies together, the complete three-and-a-half hour ride."

The producer hit back, insisting that the new versions were superior to those on offer in Grindhouse. "What you see when you see the new Planet Terror and Death Proof is Robert Rodriguez making a pure Robert Rodriguez movie and Quentin Tarantino making a pure Quentin Tarantino movie. What they did in cutting those films down for Grindhouse was a mistake. It removed the very essence of both movies."

Weinstein acknowledged that he had been accused of "sacrilege" for cutting Grindhouse in two. But he claimed he had been vindicated by his decision to expand the films. "See these movies," he said. "They will dwarf Grindhouse, believe me."

In the meantime, it was left to Tarantino to play the unlikely role of peacemaker. "Grindhouse isn't going anywhere," he assured reporters. "You will always have Grindhouse. It will be back." As yet, however, there are no plans to resuscitate the concept.

Devised as a homage to the exploitation features of the 60s and 70s, Grindhouse offered two movies for the price of one, complete with various spoof trailers for such fictitious titles as Werewolf Women of the SS. But the concept appeared to flummox audiences in the US, with reports of viewers abandoning the cinema after the first feature, apparently unaware that there was another one right behind. Others did not even get that far, put off by the prodigious running time. In the event, Grindhouse's opening weekend takings were barely half of its predicted box office haul of $20m.

Death Proof will now be released in its longer, two-hour format in the UK in September. "If you count the minutes, the movie hasn't changed that much from the Grindhouse version," the director explained. "But it's changed 180-degrees in emotional terms." The chief addition appears to be an extended lap-dancing sequence, which should appeal to die-hard fans of exploitation movies if no one else.

Tarantino is a long-time favourite of the Cannes organisers and scooped the main prize for Pulp Fiction in 1994. But most experts rate Death Proof as at best an outside bet to repeat the feat this year.

Yesterday the director appeared oddly sanguine about his chances. "Hands down my proudest moment in terms of achievement was winning the Palm d'Or for Pulp Fiction," he confessed.

"But you gotta keep it in perspective. There's only one list that's more illustrious than the list of directors who won the Palme d'Or. It's the list of directors who didn't."
Title: Re: Grind House
Post by: RegularKarate on May 23, 2007, 04:37:48 PM
In the second section of the movie, 14 months after Stuntman Mike's car has killed all the girls in a head-on collision, he has moved on to Lebanon, Tennessee. Here he stalks a new set of hot babes -- this time crew members of a movie shooting locally -- as well as one stuntwoman. This proves to be Stuntman Mike's undoing as they are better at this game than he.
Was this ever mentioned in the movie?  I thought both parts took place in Texas.

Yep, they mention it a couple of times... I mostly noticed the first time because I was like "HEY, They're not in Tennessee! Thems a breakfast place just yonder!"... I would have noticed it the second time, but I was too busy sleeping through that scene, maybe that's why you didn't notice either.
Title: Re: Grind House
Post by: polkablues on May 23, 2007, 05:23:33 PM
More Mary Elizabeth Winstead could only make this a better film.

Only if Tarantino gives her something to do besides make dumbass "girlie" comments and be Adam Sandler's assistant's potential rape victim.  Her uselessness made her more annoying than the characters who had a purpose in the movie.

And that was exactly the problem.  She was the only one of the four actresses who was actually capable of making that shit dialogue sound like an actual person saying things, and of course she was the one of the four that was given jack-all to do in the movie.
Title: Re: Grind House
Post by: socketlevel on May 24, 2007, 11:22:40 AM
I guess I would say it is unlikely that an English story would feature a general getting an Eastern education, but since there isn't a specific story to reference, I also could say it is possible. You say it is unlikely for a Japanese general to speak about a nondemocratic society in a positive light, but I'd say it is more unlikely that a General would be allowed in a nondemocratic society to go to the United States to be awarded a major award. But yet the evidence in the film suggests exactly that happened.

This also happened, historically, when FDR issued major economic sanctions against Japan that was crippling them and FDR, since being named President, showed nothing but hostility toward the country.

no, i said it was unlikely that a western general (mainly American) would speak about a nondemocratic society in a positive light, not the Japanese general.  and moreover, i said speak positively about the society and through that difference of ideologies find wisdom.

Alright. Usually when someone tells me it works for them on an "existential level", I think they can't describe or explain how they feel, but the rest of your post has to do with your feelings. I know other people who know and respect my feelings on Mallick, but buy into everything he does anyways. I can't argue feelings.

appreciated, cuz trust me i hate making the "existential level" comment cuz it's a bitch of a show stopper.  by taking it to that level you essentially look like you're trying to find and out of the conversation... and alas i used it, LOL.  however true it is.

As I remember, Travolta and Nolte really have walk in roles. Their isn't much to their performance besides a few speeches. Is that the proper to way to give context to an hour and a half of grunt soldiers trying to save their own skin? I felt both of their roles were add ons that had little weight. Your idea of the difference between commanders and soldiers makes sense on paper, but the film doesn't go the lengths to really show that.

minor in screen time, however i felt a major impact in the juxtaposing effect their roles had.  Travolta less then notle, but then again nolte is on the screen much longer than Travolta.  but it's like the chain of command thing.  Travolta's arrogance and condescending tone is passed to nolte, who on one hand needs to prove himself to his superiors and on another level wants to prove himself to the idea of his father and his grandfather's tenure as battle champions.  all the while the soldiers are trying to find peace, and solace from the horror.

I also have another point of contention with The Thin Red Line. Many people claim bias and racism in films about America dealing with other countries. Many say these films promote American greatness. Well, I say there is a reverse racism in The Thin Red Line. The film digs into the insanity of war and tries to find a counterbalance with soldiers finding peace and tranquility elsewhere. The place they find it is in a native village with simplified life and what looks like peaceful living that is outside of the larger societies that makes war normal.

Well, c'mon. This undermines the society of that village. Every society has war as a fact of life. But yet Mallick is so limited in his ability to find a great counterpoint to the insanity of war that he simplifies another culture and implies that they have greater wisdom because they are not caught in the net of war. Pauline Kael use to say that too many films assumed higher knowledge in primitive societies because they didn't complicate their lives. But no society stands outside of war and this film does not show the depths of what feelings go through those people. It is a broad stroke of generalizing another culture as peaceful.

i think even though it might undermine the society of the village we have to keep in mind that it is a simpler way of life, which is pretty much universal.  the same way that a rural way of life, for example living on a farm, is a simpler way of life compared to living in a big city.  if you compare a soldier of war to that of the day to day activities of someone living in a native tribe, there is a sense of these smaller things in life has having greater value to that character.

i don't think mallick was assuming higher knowledge in a primitive societies on an intellectual level, but rather a spiritual thing.  There is not doubt that these societies are heavily based on spirituality, which governs a lot of what they do and when they do it.  besides, I'm sure the people living in the village have their own internal drama and daily concerns like any other society.  For instance: i'm sure people are murdered out of passion; there is the little kid that's picked on cuz he's smaller than the rest; there is the mother who fears for her daughter; that neighbor you hate; stupid behaviors; there is insecurity and strength and all that other shit that makes life life...

But, why would the film show that?  it's not what the film is about.

since it is a peaceful and humble way to live, the character was attracted to that freedom and therefore that is what was shown and used as the frame of comparison.  they weren't there long enough to get into drama with the other characters, or see who the tribe's predators are.  That's saved for a movie like Blood Diamond or mosquito coast or something (the later being a movie i absolutely love btw).   I'm sure their lives are complicated with the things they have to do, and that there are physical dangers of living where they do, or the politics of power regarding leadership in the tribe and etc.   this isn't a film about that native tribe.  It exists in the film to show the audience where the character's head is at, so the rest of the movie can unfold yet we know where his heart is.

with all that said i do agree with your points to an extent.  it would have been nice to see mallick at least surprise the audience by depicting the tribe slightly different than what is normally shown in film.  like something through dialog that surprises the audience would work, and also give them a new found respect for those people.  i don't know I'm just brain storming here, but you get my point.  that woulda been nice.
Title: Re: Grind House
Post by: socketlevel on May 24, 2007, 11:29:20 AM

The materialism idea is funny. I never heard that one, but you imply either you love it you don't. I agree. I just don't which is why I'm staying away from movies like 28 Days Later.


wow, that's the whole thing about the movie that makes it great!  i wrote an article/essay on the living dead movies once, if you're interested I'll post it on the site.  not that it'll make you a fan, but you never never know.

living dead movies are kinda a guilty pleasure to me.  however guilty pleasures also have to have some kind of subtext for me to like them.  that's why I'm one of the biggest john carpenter fans, i love all his movies from the 80s: they live; the thing; big trouble in little china; etc...

death proof is kinda like that for me too.  do you have any guilty pleasure?  or do you not identify with that kinda thing in cinema at all.

Well, maybe because Tarantino writes the dialogue so much better he proves another point: that improved dialogue can not make an exploitation film any better.

Maybe I'm wrong to assume Tarantino can twist genre the way he did with Pulp Fiction anymore. Now all he can do is replicate it at its very worst and keeps the enjoyment limited to those who already bought into it. If he keeps this up I may have to bow out from following him.

fair enough, to each his/her own.

so you do follow him?  did you like kill bill?
Title: Re: Grind House
Post by: Pubrick on May 24, 2007, 11:32:31 AM
so you do follow him?  did you like kill bill?

GT, these are both yes or no questions.
Title: Re: Grind House
Post by: socketlevel on May 24, 2007, 11:52:03 AM
so you do follow him?  did you like kill bill?

GT, these are both yes or no questions.

but yes and no are boring
Title: Re: Grind House
Post by: cine on May 31, 2007, 02:55:43 AM
so ANYWAY... i haven't seen that many new releases in 2007.. but this was by far the best movie experience ive had all year. the action was insane.. and when there was comedy it was hilarious. i know it wasn't written by RR or QT but the "Don't" trailer was hysterical. god, and the "missing reels". i was with a great crowd; people were applauding it and howling. so great.

a lot of the same QT stuff.. the foot massage references, the big kahuna burger references.. the female dominance/revenge.. it was all there. whatta great time. loved it.
Title: Re: Grind House
Post by: tpfkabi on May 31, 2007, 12:47:34 PM
i just found out yesterday this is playing still intact (both films) at the $1 theater until today.

here's a question i have wanted to ask - what do they do with film prints - meaning, when you have all these prints and the movie basically disappears in two weeks, what do they do with all the prints? most of the time i'll see movies show up at the $1 theater right around the time the come out on video, so Grind House was unique in that it's not even close to coming out on video and is said to be split up and released seperately.
Title: Re: Grind House
Post by: Ghostboy on May 31, 2007, 01:10:10 PM
The prints get shipped back to the releasing company; some are saved, but the majority are destroyed.
Title: Re: Grind House
Post by: tpfkabi on May 31, 2007, 01:16:03 PM
The prints get shipped back to the releasing company; some are saved, but the majority are destroyed.

Really? Aren't the prints very expensive? I would think they would at least try to sell them to private collectors or the public before destroying them and getting no money from it.
Title: Re: Grind House
Post by: Gold Trumpet on June 06, 2007, 12:38:20 AM
so you do follow him?  did you like kill bill?

GT, these are both yes or no questions.

Pretty much.

I think our conversation is at it's end. I forgot to post a reply, but anything I could say to his points is an agreement to disagree. But I definitely did love the conversation.

And Socketlevel, send me that piece on living dead movies. Not only would I like to read it, but I'd also like to post it on Green Screen. I send my apologies for not posting this sooner.
Title: Re: Grind House
Post by: MacGuffin on June 11, 2007, 10:55:16 AM
Tarantino's 'Death Proof' Gets September Release
Source: Bloody-Disgusting     

So much for a re-release of Dimension Films' Grindhouse as it appears that Genius Entertainment and The Weinstein Co. will release Death Proof - Quentin Tarantino's segment - on DVD September 18th, according to Davis DVD. No word yet on Robert Rodriguez's Planet Terror, but this seems to confirm the rapid speculation that the theatrical double feature will be split up for the initial home video release. Death Proof is a rip-roaring slasher flick where the killer (Kurt Russell) pursues his victims with a car rather than a knife.
Title: Re: Grind House
Post by: MacGuffin on July 27, 2007, 12:46:51 AM
SDCC: Grindhouse Gets Cut in Two
Separate DVD releases for Death Proof and Planet Terror

The Weinstein Company and Genius Products announced today that the two films that made up the classically under-rated Grindhouse release will hit DVD on two separate, extended and unrated DVDs.

Quentin Tarantino's serial-killer homage to the old school car chase film, Death Proof will hit shelves with over 30 minutes of additional, never-before-seen footage including the maddening "missing reel" (containing the excised lapdance sequence) as well as a black and white segment in the film's second act. The DVD will hit on September 18, 2007 for a price of $29.95. Features will include:

*Finding Quentin's Gals

*The Guys of Death Proof

*Kurt Russell as Stuntman Mike

*Introducing Zoe Bell

*Quentin's Greatest Collaborator: Editor Sally Menke

*Double Dare trailer

*International Poster Gallery


Meanwhile, the Robert Rodriguez zombie entry, Planet Terror, will attack with more footage, deleted scenes, a full commentary and the infamous missing reel. That disc will drop on October 16, 2007 for a price of $29.95 and its features will include:


*Audio Commentary with Writer/Director Robert Rodriguez

*International trailer

*Deleted Scenes

*Cooking School

*10-Minute Film School

*The Stunts

*The Make-up and Effects

*The Badass Babes

*The Renegade Guys

*The Costumes

*The Production Design[/list]
Title: Re: Grind House
Post by: Kal on July 27, 2007, 01:28:54 AM
Great... I can skip Tarantinos bullshit

Title: Re: Grind House
Post by: tpfkabi on August 01, 2007, 11:22:06 AM
i'm wondering if all those faux trailers will show up on the dvd's?

i didn't get to see them, so i have no idea of the titles (other than Machete).

i see "double dare" trailer, but have no idea if that is one or a reference to Death Proof and one of it's trailers.
Title: Re: Grind House
Post by: modage on August 01, 2007, 11:25:37 AM
Edgar Wright said recently in a Hot Fuzz DVD interview that his trailer will not be on either of the DVD's coming out soon, but rather on whatever superset comes out in the future.  i assume the other trailers will be the same way.
Title: Re: Grind House
Post by: grand theft sparrow on August 01, 2007, 11:40:29 AM
If you... are thinking... of buying... these... DVDs...

(http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1126/976150458_960c6cfdb3.jpg)
Title: Re: Grind House
Post by: tpfkabi on August 01, 2007, 04:06:58 PM
Edgar Wright said recently in a Hot Fuzz DVD interview that his trailer will not be on either of the DVD's coming out soon, but rather on whatever superset comes out in the future.  i assume the other trailers will be the same way.

ok. these dvd's are hardly barebones, so i wasn't really expecting a double dip.
Title: Re: Grind House
Post by: MacGuffin on August 01, 2007, 10:28:59 PM
Edgar Wright said recently in a Hot Fuzz DVD interview that his trailer will not be on either of the DVD's coming out soon, but rather on whatever superset comes out in the future.  i assume the other trailers will be the same way.

ok. these dvd's are hardly barebones, so i wasn't really expecting a double dip.

SDCC 07: Where Are The Grindhouse Trailers Going?
Edgar Wright says don't plan on seeing them soon.

On Friday, July 27, 2007, Edgar Wright announced that his trailer for Don't which was created for the Robert Rodriguez/ Quentin Tarantino double feature Grindhouse, will not be available on the forthcoming individual DVDs for either film. "I think that the trailers won't turn up until they release Grindhouse as a double disc set," Wright said during a press conference for the DVD release of Hot Fuzz. "They're releasing the films separately and then there will be a "Grindhouse Edition" later and that's what the trailers will appear on. I was sad that they won't get shown in other territories in the world, so that's a bit of a shame, but that's what's going to happen."

When asked if he recorded a commentary track for the trailer, Wright said he expects that will happen closer to the release of the special edition. "When they do the box set we'll hopefully do some extra stuff to go with it," Wright said. (Currently there is no formal announcement or release date for a Grindhouse special edition.) He continued, "I had a blast doing that, actually, it was such fun. That trailer was shot five weeks before the film came out, so it was right in the middle of our press tour [for Hot Fuzz], but it's on the DVD. Literally, just before that documentary starts is when I shot Don't, so I really enjoyed doing it."

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

SDCC 07: Is A Don't Movie Due?
Grindhouse trailer helmer Wright talks about fleshing out a full-length film.

Edgar Wright, director of the Grindhouse trailer for Don't, said that he might be interested in fleshing out the teaser to feature length. "It has been mentioned a couple of times," Wright said. "It would depend on how Grindhouse does on DVD, because I would be very surprised if it [didn't do well]. Obviously it's already got kind of like a great cult reputation."

Wright said he thinks the Rodriguez/Tarantino movie was a great film that turned off audiences primarily because of its running time. "I think what happened with Grindhouse is that it really separated movie fans from moviegoers," he said. "The movie geeks and people who are here [at Comic-Con] were the people who were first in line, and then there are moviegoers who turn up to the multiplex not knowing what they're going to see, and working out if they can see Blades of Glory for 90 minutes before they go to dinner.

"So Grindhouse, which was three and a half hours, is a much bigger commitment," Wright continued. "I think that's basically maybe why it didn't do as well as everybody was hoping, but I don't think that actually reflects on the quality of the film."
Title: Re: Grind House
Post by: MacGuffin on August 02, 2007, 10:04:30 AM
Tarantino lets go of gentlemanly ways

Filmmaker Quentin Tarantino said Thursday he sent his gentlemanly ways packing in his latest film, "Death Proof," and let his fantasies about women run wild.

"One of the things I've always been rather proud of about me as a director and especially my handling of women is, I've always been a gentleman," the 44-year-old "Pulp Fiction" director said.

But in his latest film, inspired by the 1960s B-rated or so-called "grindhouse" movies, Tarantino laughed that he "sent the gentleman home."

"You don't want to see a grindhouse movie made by a gentleman. You want to see it through the eyes of somebody who's turned on by his women and who finds them sexy and is presenting them in what he considers the sexiest way possible," he said.

"Death Proof" tells the story of two sultry women who unleash vengeance on serial killer Stuntman Mike, played by Kurt Russell. The film also pays tribute to the 1970 Dodge Challenger, a car iconic of US counterculture.

Tarantino, wearing an orange shirt with images of the cars, warned his audience that his perception of sexiness could be different from theirs.

"You would all have slightly different versions of what you find sexy. But it ain't your movie," he said, wagging his finger at the audience and laughing.

"It's my movie. It's my job to help you see it through my eyes."

Tarantino has featured many empowered gun-and-sword-wielding women in his movies, from "Jackie Brown" to "Kill Bill."

He said his portrayal of women came from being raised by a single mother.

"I was always raised more or less to believe that there is nothing a man can do that a woman can't do."
Title: Re: Grind House
Post by: grand theft sparrow on August 02, 2007, 10:21:34 AM
He said his portrayal of women came from being raised by a single mother.

Eww...
Title: Re: Grind House
Post by: mogwai on August 02, 2007, 10:33:59 AM
He said his portrayal of women came from being raised by a single mother.

Eww...


can you please elaborate on that because i feel the need to slap you silly.
Title: Re: Grind House
Post by: grand theft sparrow on August 02, 2007, 12:06:11 PM
Well, when I read the words:

He said his portrayal of women came from being raised by a single mother.

the first thing I thought of was:

(http://users.static.freeblog.hu/s/h/o/shot/files/killfin2.jpg) (http://xixax.com/index.php?topic=3994.msg133115#msg133115)

and the second thing I thought of was:

(http://www.blogsmithmedia.com/www.tmz.com/media/2007/06/0626_tarantino_toes.jpg) (http://xixax.com/index.php?topic=3994.msg245981#msg245981)

and the third thing I thought of was:

(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/6/6f/Sigmund_Freud-loc.jpg/426px-Sigmund_Freud-loc.jpg) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freud)

and the fourth thing I thought of was:

Eww...
Title: Re: Grind House
Post by: Pubrick on August 05, 2007, 07:48:09 AM
first thing i thought of was:

classic mogs.
Title: Re: Grind House
Post by: tpfkabi on August 05, 2007, 02:09:29 PM
the question is:

will the special edition contain everything these seperate editions contain or just present the films the way they were theatrically?

i'm guessing it will be a few years until we find out a la Kill Bill.
Title: Re: Grind House
Post by: cron on August 27, 2007, 04:05:11 PM
(http://boingboing.net/images/pussygalore07.jpg)
Title: Re: Grind House
Post by: MacGuffin on August 27, 2007, 04:21:39 PM
http://www.somethingawful.com/d/photoshop-phriday/grindhouse-breakfast-cereals.php?page=1
Title: Re: Grind House
Post by: modage on August 31, 2007, 01:25:23 PM
(http://www.empireonline.com/images/image_index/hw800/21865.jpg)

UK Death Proof Trailer here: http://www.empireonline.com/news/feed.asp?NID=21021
Title: Re: Grind House
Post by: squints on September 02, 2007, 07:58:09 PM
so it is the "5th film" is it?

BULLSHIT
Title: Re: Grind House
Post by: MacGuffin on September 04, 2007, 01:29:06 PM
(http://www.horror-movies.ca/watermark.php?filename=poster_deathproof-1.jpg)
(http://www.horror-movies.ca/watermark.php?filename=poster_deathproof-3.jpg)
(http://www.horror-movies.ca/watermark.php?filename=poster_deathproof-2.jpg)
Title: Re: Grind House
Post by: MacGuffin on September 13, 2007, 09:43:57 PM
DVD review:

http://dvd.ign.com/articles/819/819915p1.html
Title: Re: Grind House
Post by: matt35mm on September 13, 2007, 09:48:10 PM
(http://www.horror-movies.ca/watermark.php?filename=poster_deathproof-1.jpg)
(http://www.horror-movies.ca/watermark.php?filename=poster_deathproof-3.jpg)
(http://www.horror-movies.ca/watermark.php?filename=poster_deathproof-2.jpg)

What is it with Asians and cheerleaders?
Title: Re: Grind House
Post by: Pubrick on September 13, 2007, 10:09:04 PM
What is it with Asians and cheerleaders?

you can see their panties.
Title: Re: Grind House
Post by: MacGuffin on September 13, 2007, 11:07:30 PM
What is it with Asians and cheerleaders?

you can see their panties.

You mean, the panties your mother laid out for you?
Title: Re: Grind House
Post by: Kal on September 14, 2007, 02:28:27 AM
What is it with Asians and cheerleaders?

you can see their panties.

You mean, the panties your mother laid out for you?

lol. i thought i was wasting my time clicking into this thread but that was funny.

Title: Re: Grind House
Post by: MacGuffin on September 16, 2007, 11:38:11 AM
(http://images.bestbuy.com/BestBuy_US/en_US/images/musicmoviegame/pdpimages/8468623.jpg)


Grindhouse: Death Proof
$22.99   

AVAILABLE TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 18. BEST BUY BONUS STEEL BOOK COLLECTIBLE PACKAGING AND 30 MINUTE “MAKING OF” FEATURE.

*Date subject to change. New release offers begin Tuesday. All promotional prices good on regular editions unless noted. Limit 3 of each title per customer. No dealers.
On pack. Minimum 15 per store. No rainchecks.
 
 
Title: Re: Grind House
Post by: tpfkabi on September 16, 2007, 02:00:06 PM
I noticed that, too. I'm wondering if it's worth $5 or so more for the packaging and a 30 min doc that may end up on youtube anyway.
Title: Re: Grind House
Post by: MacGuffin on September 20, 2007, 06:35:11 PM
EDIT - Source: xixax.com


So does the extended edition of Death Proof work? Well, yes and no. It doesn't at all capture the fun Grindhouse experience by being separated, in fact the second gang of girls portion looks completely 'restored' like it was a 70's film cleaned up for a new release. I had a better reaction to the "dialogue" scenes this time around and didn't find the added scenes dragging the film. However, by adding those scenes, it felt like it took the excitement and terror away from the driving scenes and, thus, the awesomeness of Stuntman Mike that I was attracted to in the released version.
Title: Re: Grind House
Post by: matt35mm on September 20, 2007, 07:19:13 PM
It took me far too long to realize that that was your own review, Mac, and not a posted review from elsewhere.
Title: Re: Grind House
Post by: ElPandaRoyal on September 20, 2007, 07:22:55 PM
Sooooo, does anybody know if we (aka european motherfuckers) will get to see the whole Grindhouse experience on DVD or are the movies going to be released separately? So far, I've only seen "Death Proof", which I loved, and "Planet Terror" is coming out next month, and I think it will at least be quite entertaining, BUT... I wanted to have that Grindhouse experience without having to actually get up and change discs...
Title: Re: Grind House
Post by: ElPandaRoyal on September 20, 2007, 07:26:01 PM
(http://www.horror-movies.ca/watermark.php?filename=poster_deathproof-1.jpg)

I think the actual question here is: why is this poster all in its native language and then it says "from the director of Kill Bill". I mean, if "Kill Bill" helps sell this movie, wouldn't it be smart to write it in a way that they could understand?
Title: Re: Grind House
Post by: Pubrick on September 20, 2007, 09:10:05 PM
It took me far too long to realize that that was your own review, Mac, and not a posted review from elsewhere.

haha me too. that's just his style.
Title: Re: Grind House
Post by: brockly on September 20, 2007, 11:38:22 PM
this has yet to come out in australia. i wasnt disappointed when i heard it was being split into two films, just meant i didnt have to sit through a shitty rodriguez movie to see tarantino's half. i went and downloaded the dvdrip of death proof a few days ago and i hated it. theres nothing to say really that hasnt already been said. most seem to agree that the second part up until the car chase sucked, which is true. the first half is ok, it actually feels like a grindhouse movie and the girls do a decent job. after the car crash and the fantastic scene with michael parks in the hospital i was hoping the movie would pick up and really start to deliver. instead we were given half an hour of shitty dialogue and bad acting. i hated these girls. the car chase was alright but it wasnt anywhere near enough of a pay off to save the movie after the scenes that preceded it. and i can't believe this was supposed to follow another 90 minute movie. if i had seen death proof as part of grindhouse it would have put me to sleep. huge disappointment after kill bill, which i loved.
Title: Re: Grind House
Post by: MacGuffin on September 26, 2007, 02:54:00 PM
Death Proof crashes, burns at UK box office
Source: Guardian Unlimited

The Weinstein Company's controversial decision to split Quentin Tarantino and Robert Rodriguez's Grindhouse double bill in two failed to help Death Proof make much of a dent on the UK box office at the weekend.
Tarantino's half of the pair's B-movie tribute could only manage sixth place and a haul of £407,525 in a week which saw only one new entry in the top five - third-placed Adam Sandler comedy I Now Pronounce You Chuck and Larry.

Death Proof was also beaten by the top-placed Simon Pegg comedy, Run, Fat Boy, Run (£1.2m), Ian McEwan adaptation Atonement (£1.16m) and Seth Rogen comedy Superbad (£1.06m), all of which were previously released. It lost out on fifth place to the Matt Damon thriller the Bourne Ultimatum (£562,099), which has been out for a full six weeks.

Tarantino's film was severed from its twin, Rodriguez's Planet Terror, following Grindhouse's poor performance in the US. Harvey Weinstein, co-head of the Weinstein Company, reportedly made the decision to release the films separately at the international box office, no doubt surmising that a movie subtitled "The Fifth Film by Quentin Tarantino" had a better chance of success in cinemas.

The studio may also have been hoping for more support from British cinema-goers, who went to see Tarantino's first film, Reservoir Dogs, in decent numbers, something which could not be said for their US counterparts.

However, poor reviews and negative publicity surrounding Grindhouse's US release and its subsequent division appear to have cooled interest in the film.

The other big loser on the chart this week was the Angelina Jolie true-life tale A Mighty Heart, which failed to make the UK top 10 in its opening weekend.
Title: Re: Grind House
Post by: grand theft sparrow on September 26, 2007, 03:14:54 PM
Betcha the Weinsteins never release another movie in foreign markets after the Region 1 DVD (and torrent files inevitably made from it) is available.
Title: Re: Grind House
Post by: pete on September 26, 2007, 03:23:14 PM
I seriously doubt that the torrents were the ones that did Death Proof in.
I dunno, to me this means that Tarantino might be a household name, but his name is still not bankable like Spielberg's is.  Not many directors are I guess.  But in the end, his filmmaking is still more marketable than his PR.
Title: Re: Grind House
Post by: tpfkabi on September 26, 2007, 10:14:40 PM
i'm definitely going to have to get the soundtrack.
i think of myself pretty knowledgeable about 60's music - even the lesser known stuff - but i had never heard of the long named band that pete townsend was almost in.

i've watched the major crash in slow mo a couple of times and noticed some 'errors.' i wondered if these were intentional - to go with the low budget recreation - or not.

when shaunna is flying through the air you see both shoes - then when it focuses on the driver you see a shoe in mid air (unless these are jungle julia's shoes that were in the floorboard since she was barefoot).

also, at the end when Mike's car is landing you hear the cheesiest male scream sound that i don't even think kurt russell could make. it also doesn't sound like his voice when he is taking pictures of the four girls in tenn.
Title: Re: Grind House
Post by: edison on September 26, 2007, 10:49:26 PM
I haven't seen the dvd yet, I did see it in theaters, but I heard that the scream was a new addition and it should be this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wilhem_scream)
Title: Re: Grind House
Post by: tpfkabi on September 27, 2007, 09:42:46 AM
I haven't seen the dvd yet, I did see it in theaters, but I heard that the scream was a new addition and it should be this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wilhem_scream)

yeah, that's it. it sounded recognizable, yet i had no idea it was a Hollywood joke. i probably recognize it from Star Wars. that youtube link from wiki is hilarious.
Title: Re: Grind House
Post by: pete on September 27, 2007, 10:45:04 AM
http://youtube.com/watch?v=cdbYsoEasio
Title: Re: Grind House
Post by: MacGuffin on October 04, 2007, 07:19:03 PM
Planet Terror DVD review:

Extended and Unrated Content Review: Fans of the Grindhouse theatrical experience - and indeed the recent Death Proof DVD release - will immediately seek out the most obvious new material - the infamous "missing reel." Planet Terror, however, does something quite brave: it doesn't include it. Where Tarantino's chapter excised a lap dance in what was a fairly simple grindhouse in-joke (and, thusly, a harmless re-insertion on the DVD), Rodriguez's missing reel played to both comedic and stylistic effect - pausing for a moment only to return with new characters introduced and secrets revealed (though not to us) in our absence. It was an inspired choice and while viewers might love to discover what they missed, it's disappearance is fundamentally a brilliant story choice. In a way, one might rather not know.

The additional material stems less from new scenes and largely from increased gore, action and character beats. While the material doesn't elevate the movie into new artistic realms, it opens it up to gorehounds and genre enthusiasts who may have been looking for a little more in the way of Savini-style effects. Motivations and fates are clarified and no visual flare is ignored. All the bloody details are on horrific - and wonderful - display.

Score: 9 out of 10


http://dvd.ign.com/articles/825/825044p1.html
Title: Re: Grind House
Post by: tpfkabi on October 18, 2007, 02:52:08 PM
has anyone bought it yet?

i was wondering if any places would reject the $5 off coupon that came with Death Proof - say things like "what is this" or "you can't use this because they're on (first week) sale."
Title: Re: Grind House
Post by: MacGuffin on October 18, 2007, 11:53:05 PM
has anyone bought it yet?

i was wondering if any places would reject the $5 off coupon that came with Death Proof - say things like "what is this" or "you can't use this because they're on (first week) sale."

Best Buy took it, no problem.
Title: Re: Grind House
Post by: tpfkabi on October 19, 2007, 08:34:55 AM
has anyone bought it yet?

i was wondering if any places would reject the $5 off coupon that came with Death Proof - say things like "what is this" or "you can't use this because they're on (first week) sale."

Best Buy took it, no problem.

did you go the Steel Case route?
Title: Re: Grind House
Post by: MacGuffin on October 19, 2007, 10:38:22 AM
did you go the Steel Case route?

Does the Pope poop in the woods?
Title: Re: Grind House
Post by: tpfkabi on October 19, 2007, 11:25:14 AM
did you go the Steel Case route?

Does the Pope poop in the woods?

to quote the title of a book:
"everybody poops"

to insert that into a popular REM song:
"everybody poops sometimes.
everybody cries...........sometimes..........so let go"

on the imdb board they say you get a $5 coupon towards Death Proof that is to be refunded at original point of purchase if you still have your receipt. i bought DP at my local Wal-Mart and i'm fairly certain that if i present them with said coupon they will give me a blank stare.

Title: Re: Grind House
Post by: edison on January 17, 2008, 04:28:01 PM
I dont recall seeing this posted anywhere but amazon.jp (http://www.amazon.co.jp/%E3%82%B0%E3%83%A9%E3%82%A4%E3%83%B3%E3%83%89%E3%83%8F%E3%82%A6%E3%82%B9-%E3%82%B9%E3%83%9A%E3%82%B7%E3%83%A3%E3%83%AB%E3%83%BB%E3%83%91%E3%83%83%E3%82%B1%E3%83%BC%E3%82%B8%E4%BB%95%E6%A7%98-%E5%88%9D%E5%9B%9E%E9%99%90%E5%AE%9A%E7%94%9F%E7%94%A3-%E3%82%AF%E3%82%A8%E3%83%B3%E3%83%86%E3%82%A3%E3%83%B3%E3%83%BB%E3%82%BF%E3%83%A9%E3%83%B3%E3%83%86%E3%82%A3%E3%83%BC%E3%83%8E/dp/B0011DTTC0/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1/249-0055183-8909908?ie=UTF8&s=gateway&qid=1200608705&sr=8-1) has for pre-sale the Grindhouse 6-disc set:

Disc 1: Death Proof (Extended Film)
-English DTS, English DD, Japanese dub
-Japanese subtitles

-Japanese Theatrical/TV trailers
-Staff/Cast Profiles (Text)
-What is Grindhouse? (Text)

Disc 2: Planet Terror (Extended Film)
-English DTS, English DD, Japanese dub
-Japanese Subtitles

-Rodriguez commentary
-International/Japanese trailers
-Staff/Cast Profiles (Text)
-What is Grindhouse? (Text)

Disc 3: Death Proof bonus materials
-Special Message to Japan from Tarantino
-Staff and Cast interviews on Death Proof
-Stunts on Wheels: The Legendary Drivers of Death Proof (20:39)
-Introducing Zoë Bell (8:59)
-Kurt Russell as Stuntman Mike (9:34)
-Finding Quentin's Gals (21:14)
-The Uncut Version of "Baby, It's You" Performed by Mary Elizabeth Winstead (1:48)
-The Guys of Death Proof (8:16)
-Quentin's Greatest Collaborator: Editor Sally Menke (4:38)
-Double Dare Trailer (2:36)

Disc 4: Planet Terror bonus materials
-10-Minute Film School (11:52)
-The Badass Babes of Planet Terror (11:50)
-The Guys of Planet Terror (16:32)
-Casting Rebel (05:34)
-Sickos, Bullets and Explosions: The Stuns of Planet Terror (13:18)
-The Friend, The Doctor and The Real Estate Agent (6:42)

Disc 5: Grindhouse (191 minute theatrical cut)
-English DD, Japanese dub
-Japanese subtitles

Disc 6: Japanese only Grindhouse bonus disc (106 minutes)
-Grindhouse - US Trailer
-2006 San Diego Comicon
-Tarantino Interview (About the homages in Death Proof, About Planet Terror, Use of Music, Possible Sequel to Death Proof)
-Staff/Cast comments
-The Directors of the Fake Trailers
-Coments on past Grindhouse Films
-Making Of Planet Terror

(http://ec2.images-amazon.com/images/I/51QKam7vQSL._SS400_.jpg)
(http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/61xhwNncB%2BL._SS400_.jpg)
(http://ec2.images-amazon.com/images/I/51lZMFffhxL._SS400_.jpg)
Title: Re: Grind House
Post by: MacGuffin on February 02, 2008, 02:30:39 PM
Tarantino Bites Back
Quentin Tarantino tackles Nick James about the negative comments Death Proof received in Sight & Sound


Nick James: So how's it going?

Quentin Tarantino: I was feeling a little slighted by Sight & Sound because I realised that I hadn't done an interview. But then you guys came out with this stuff [the Grindhouse cover story, June 2007] really, really early.

We used to reach you through your PR agency and that ended. So I think we lost our contact.

That makes sense, but now it's re-established.

Absolutely.

I've done an interview with S&S for every one of my movies, all the way through Kill Bill I at least.

And they've always been good.

Yeah. I love the magazine

Thank you. Did I tell you about this pub [our interview venue, The Wheatsheaf in Rathbone Place, London]? It has a big literary reputation

Someone told me Dylan Thomas used to write here

Dylan Thomas, Patrick Hamilton, George Orwell - all these people used to drink here in the 30s. This area is Fitzrovia. They all used to hang out here.

I must make an appointment to write a chapter of Inglorious Bastards here, just for history's sake.

How is 'Inglorious Bastards' going?

I've got tons of material and a lot of stuff written but now I've figured out what to do, I gotta start from page one, square one. I started just before I came on this trip and brought the stuff with me but I haven't had a chance to continue yet. But maybe on the flight back home I'll come back into it. I love writing in other countries. It's a lot of fun

So let's take it back to the point where, you are coming up with the idea [for 'Death Proof']. I'm interested in your reflections as to how it's turned out - originally it was part of the Grindhouse package and then it was divided from it - and how you feel about that. And maybe take me back to the moment when you first conceived it?

I'd done Kill Bill and I wanted a little bit more time before I climbed my next Mount Everest. I ended up doing the CSI episode, shot in about 14 days but that doesn't mean it wasn't really hard work. It almost counted to me like I had made another movie. I was just preparing to start thinking about Inglorious Bastards. And Robert Rodriguez came over to my house, and he saw I had an old AIP double feature poster of the Roger Corman movie Rock All Night and the film Dragstrip Girl. And he goes: "You see that double feature poster you have on the wall there? I always wanted to do a double feature movie." And he was thinking about doing both of them himself. And I go, "Hey! That would be cool." And he says, "Well the let's do it. You do the one, and I'll do the other."

He had a zombie movie he had already written 30 pages of around the time of The Faculty. We envisioned this being a franchise. It would be fun to keep going back to it - another one could be a spaghetti western or sexploitation or whatever. But we decided it would be better if they were two horror films. I had just got through reinvestigating the slasher films, so they were fresh in my mind. And it was supposed to be an easy project, to do his film in Austin and then I wouldn't even have to crew up. I'd be working in Robert's studio, and Robert's like, "My studio is your studio; my crew is your crew." So then I started thinking about what I could do. And the first idea was a bunch of young college history students that were going through a tour of the plantations of the old South. And there's a ghost of an old slave that is part of negro folklore. Jody the Grinder actually went down and bested the devil, by fucking him. And so the devil put him on earth for all eternity to fuck white women. And that was the devil's punishment.

The opening scene would take place in the classroom, with the professor telling the story of Jody the Grinder in a big four-page monologue. I would probably have had Sam Jackson playing that part. And it was really good. But then I didn't have anywhere to go with it, because if you have a story about a killer slave with supermacho powers done in the style of a slasher films, then even if he's doing it today, and even if the white girls are innocent, how can you not be on the slave's side?

And then it hit me - and actually this was one of the things that was really funny in the Sight & Sound review - "Death Proof in no way resembles the kind of genre movie that used to be projected until it fell to pieces in the fleapits of America" (S&S, October 2007). In answer to that - and this is something I said to myself when I was coming up with the story - I never do proper genre movies. It's like using the fact that Reservoir Dogs isn't a proper heist film even though it fits in the genre, as a slag against it. And what is so good about slasher films is they are all the same. This is why they are so much fun to write subtextual film criticism about, because all your arguments really work for a vast majority of films. And if you try to monkey about just a little too much with it then now you're not even really making a slasher film.

But if you are intentionally setting out to make something that - let's put quotes around it - is "trashy or bad"

I don't think slasher films are trashy or bad

But you know what I mean?

I know what you mean. But I don't think I agree.

Because you reference films of the past, where you're deliberately doing slightly hokey things

I disagree with that!

Well, maybe I'm wrong

I'm not saying you are wrong. But I'm disagreeing with the way you keep wording it because if I'm trying to do a remembrance of the films of the past, the slasher film is a legitimate subgenre in horror film. Well that sounds a lot different to making a reference to films of the past.

But there was a feeling about Grindhouse that it was nostalgic and when you look back at, say, Russ Meyer's films, there is a slight hokiness to them

Let me address that 100 per cent because I don't think there was any hokeyness in Death Proof when I wrote it. If you are thinking that some moment is cheesy or some moment is hokey, I didn't mean it to be that way. But here's my point though. What you are referring to isn't any of the material inside of the movie or anything that happens inside the movie, it's just the print. That's all it is. It's a Godardian thing. We can argue that slasher films aren't a proper genre.

No, I just meant hokey in conventional terms of what is or isn't regarded as good acting.

Well, if anyone thinks what I put in there was bad acting, I didn't mean to.

I was just interested in the process of your thinking about making a Grindhouse double bill. Did you never think, well, I gotta make it slightly more clumsy here to make it more authentic?

Most of the clumsiness was done in the editing room. But we did have this fun mantra that we could say on the set that anytime something didn't quite work or we didn't film just the right kind of transition, or there was a piece of equipment in the shot, "Hey! That's Grindhouse."

And all that was accidental?

That's accidental and it just added to the thing. Then I remembered a time when I told somebody I was thinking about getting a safer car. I was thinking about a Volvo and he says, "Oh, Quentin, if you want a safer car all you have to do is buy any car and give it to a stunt team plus $10,000 and they'll make it death proof. And for two seconds I actually thought about doing that. He actually used the words "death proof" but I forgot about it - this was 11 years ago. So now I'm thinking about this tale, and I thought, what if he uses a car? And what if his thing is to follow girls who travel in a posse? His car wipes the girls out and he gets to live, because it is death proof. To me he was a sex act, so what he was doing was a rape murder, his act of sex. He does it in such a way that it looks like an accident so he gets away with it. Then we wait until he recovers and, like a serial killer, he goes to another state and does it again. All that made me work out how he got to be Stuntman Mike.

Have you always wanted to do a car chase film?

I don't know if I wanted to do a car chase film. I have always wanted to do a film that had a car chase. I've always really considered stuff like the big, one-against-100 martial arts fight like car chases. These are classic set pieces in the cinema.

Where does your girl dialogue come from?

This is gonna sound like a smartass answer, but I have to say, it's obvious, but it so needs to be said. I'm a good writer. It's what I'm supposed to be able to do. It needs to be said. It's not like I overheard some friends. It's my job to be interested in other people's humanity and not just write about myself. Having said that, there was something that added to the authenticity of these ladies. For the last five years I've had a lot of different posses of female friends. You know, these three black girls over here, these four Korean girls over here, these waitresses over here, these more posh club owners over there... I have male friends but up until recently they were more one on one. I didn't roll with a crew. But with women I did. And in most cases, it wasn't like they were my crew, I was part of their posse. It wasn't like Quentin and his bitches, even though it looks like that when we walk into a club. I just realised as I finished the script that, wow, they're here! This is almost my love letter to them. I got the chance so say all their funniest lines, and a couple of the girls are based on girls in particular, and a couple of them aren't but were informed by my knowledge of femininity. What I'm particularly proud about is that the fact that the women sound like girls today, not me remembering what it was like with the girls in the tavern in college. I'm always having them say antiquated phrases because that's my dialogue, they are all going to be wordsmiths. But they sound like women generally today, and one of my biggest pleasures about the movie is girls watch the movie and they say: you know, that is exactly like me and my friends talking last fucking night.

You string together those long riffs, though, that are strong, Quentin-type lines.

Well, do you want me to write now like David Hare? They are my characters. They're gonna talk, they are gonna jockey for position in their group, and they are all gonna be very confident in the way they express themselves.

By the way, somebody asked me if I had read this [he indicates the Grindhouse issue] and said, "You know, in Sight & Sound, the guy writing [Nick James] says that the girl talk sounded like what a boy wishes girl talk would sound like. What do you think about that Quentin?" And I said, "Obviously I don't agree. That guy needs to spend more time hanging out with young girls." But then I read the article and it was very funny because in brackets afterwards it says, "I look forward to fielding re-educational letters from women who disagree." I thought that was good on you.

One thing that's interesting me quite a lot at the moment is the breakdown of the conventional story, both in Hollywood and the wider media. You've been integral to taking straightforward narratives apart and putting them back together in a different order. Do you think you are part of that rejection of story, in the way that your films are so taken up with atmosphere and mise-en-scène and your love of a comparatively slow pace?

One of the things I'm proud of as far as my writing is concerned is that, even though I monkey around with the structure, I'm not monkeying around with the story itself. If I was a novelist nobody would bring that up because novelists can tell a story in any order they want. I'm a very very very good storyteller. This breakdown of the story is not a new problem. I've noticed it for pretty much most of the 90s. When you go to the movies now it is rare that you are told a good story. We [in the US] used to be the best storytellers in cinema. You could say this about Europe, that about Japan, but you can't beat our stories. But a story isn't having everything laid out for you in the first 10 to 15 minutes. It is a constantly unfolding. In a real story movie, if you see the end of the movie, but didn't see the first two reels and then you go back and watch the first reel, you should go like, "Wow, how did they get to there from here."

When my parents used to take me to the movies, you'd just go in whenever and stay to see the beginning of the next programme and say, "OK, this is where we came in." The problem is that most films are basically versions of situation comedies. You set up a situation for the characters to deal with, and then the rest of the movie is living up to that situation. That's the only game in town for the most part. I'm really proud of my film when it comes to that. You do not know all there is to know for the first half hour. And if you watch Pulp Fiction for an hour and ten minutes and then walked out, you can't say you saw that movie, because you don't know what the fuck they're talking about.

You have reminded me of something that's nagged me for years. I was sent this brilliant article about 'Pulp Fiction' years ago and I felt it was a bit too whacky for 'Sight & Sound', but now I regret it. His idea was that you'd structured your popular culture references as an alphabet beginning with A for Amsterdam, and ending with Z for "Zed's dead baby," the last line of dialogue.

Oh wow!

He had one concept for each letter going through the film sequentially.

Wow. If you had that in your files

I've lost it. It's so annoying.

One thing that shows that I'm a film professor or student is that you are not gonna find many other filmmakers looking at this kind of thing. I love subtextual film criticism, especially when it's fun, when a guy knows how to write in a readable, charming way. What I love the most about it is that it doesn't have a fucking thing to do with what the writer or the actor or the filmmakers intended. It just has to work. And if you can make your case with as few exceptions as possible, then that's great.

In a weird way this goes back to Death Proof, because one of the biggest inspirations for the film, especially the first half of the movie - the more slasher-oriented section - was Carol Clover's book Men, Women and Chainsaws. I really truly think that her chapter on the 'final girl', the role that gender plays in the slasher film, pins down the best piece of film criticism I've ever read. It gave me a new love for slasher films and one of the things that I was doing when I was watching that movie was applying her lessons.

Everything about the film suggests that the character Butterfly played by Vanessa Ferlito is the final girl. And she has all the qualities. She's the odd girl out with her friends. She's not a virgin, but she is the only one that doesn't get any kind of action in the movie. She does seem a little bit more reserved or at least she pretends to be more reserved. When she does make out with the guys, she won't let anybody else know about it. Her other friends are more open, they talk more body and about sex. She is the female character with the investigator gaze, the one that smells something rotten, she notices the car, and that something is not quite right. It's never so bad that she has to bring it up. She doesn't want to be embarrassed.

And you're suggesting the film sets her up to survive?

Yeah, and even when he throws the photos away it ended up being part of the thing. He throws the photos in a big wide shot. One of them lands face up, two face down, and Butterfly is face up. I didn't have to duplicate what just happened when he threw the photos out, it was perfect. It suggests that she will survive.

You do want her to survive?

Yes, and I gotta say, as shocking to audiences as the crash itself is, there's even more when she gets it, because they weren't prepared for her to get it. I've been giving subconscious hints that she's gonna be ok, which to me makes it all the more exciting. When later you see Zoë on that hood, I know you know that now I'm not to be trusted.

I saw the Grindhouse version of 'Death Proof' first, so I'm interested in what you cut out for that package. How were those choices made?

It was very rough. Robert and I made three movies. I made Death Proof, he made Planet Terror and together we made Grindhouse. I can't imagine this could ever happen again, but with Grindhouse, we made a movie in which my movie wasn't the most important thing. Planet Terror also wasn't the most important thing. In Grindhouse the most important thing is that we were truly trying to duplicate an experience. It was more a programme than a movie. Almost like a ride. And the most important thing was the Grindhouse experience. Anything that fucked up, anything that lessened the Grindhouse experience, had to go. So I demolished strategies that I worked really hard to put into the piece - not because they didn't work but because we just didn't have time. We had to move on. There was a fatigue factor I had to deal with.

Especially if your film screens second...

Exactly. And I always knew that I had that chase at the end, and that it was the proper way to close the evening. So we had to cut our movie to the bone - we actually had to cut it past the bone - in order to make it work. I never would have been able to do that if I didn't know that Death Proof would be coming out later.

Separately?

Most of planet earth separately. But even if it was coming out in a double feature here [the UK], maybe Japan, maybe Australia and New Zealand, Death Proof was always supposed to be going out by itself every place else. And that gave me the freedom to slash my baby so bad because it would not be coming out by itself on DVD, so I knew it wasn't going anywhere.

That's the way I enjoyed it most. But it's probably because it's the first way I saw it.

What we did was very successful and the audiences that saw it that way thought so too. But Death Proof is what I wrote. Death Proof is my baby, if anyone asks me to send them a print, it'll be the full-length Death Proof I'll send.

Do you hang out with stuntmen a lot?

Oh yeah. I'm actually more knowledgeable than most about the history of stunt players. It was the death proof car and the situation that the killer might be a stunt man. So I had a whole world of information to go on. With special characters like him the audience only needs to know what it needs to know, but you need to know everything about him. I knew his whole career. He was a full born character. The other thing that's interesting about Kurt is that he's been in this business a long time. He's not a psycho-killer, but he's the same breed of man as Stunt Man Mike, the same breed of actor that comes from that same thing, you know. He's done about two episodes of The Virginian and he knew the stunt man that he'd based Stunt Man Mike on. The first couple of years every stunt man dresses the way Kurt does in the second half of the movie: the black t-shirt, the black jeans and the bad jewellery, you know, that's all there. They don't have a great career but they have done a few things, enough to say that they are a stunt person.

You said something in the 'Times' on the web about how the older the director gets the more out of touch they become. How do you fight against that?

I don't intend to be making movies deep into my old age. There are exceptions to rules and we all know them but I don't really want to be a geriatric filmmaker. I'm not only thinking about myself, I'm thinking about my filmography. I'm thinking also about fans that are not even born, when they are like me when I was 14 and I discovered Howard Hawks. When you find a director like that you wanna seek out every movie they've ever made, but there's also some anxiety he might let you down.

People talk about the death of cinema but all you really see is the death of their particular generation's cinema. Everything you see between the age of 18 and 25 is hugely important.

I remember 25 years ago reading critics slugging on Lucas, on De Palma, on Spielberg saying these guys are so talented but they've dedicated their lives to recreating the junk of their childhood. I guess the same people could say that about me and Robert Rodriguez.

Supposing you get towards the end of your career and you have to make a film in Britain. What would you make?

I might very well make one or two movies in Britain before that time

Good, but what would it be?

It could be a crime film, which I would have a very good attitude to do. Or it could be a hangout movie: a group of lads or girls of their time. Hopefully, it would have a very comedic extent, or it might be more spook-oriented.

You mean a ghost story.

No, spies.

I'd like to see a spy movie from you.

I'd like to make a spy movie. I can't ever imagine that I'm doing it though because, as much as I'm attracted to it, it ultimately would be just pictures of people talking to each other. One of the books that I'm reading right now is Len Deighton's Berlin Game, part of the 'Game, Set and Match' trilogy. So I'm reading Berlin Game. I actually read it before years ago and I didn't properly get into Mexico Set, and now I have to read them all over again.

I know that feeling

To properly set up for Mexico Set, then London Match, I'm doing a lot of editing on it because I'm thinking 'I wouldn't want to trim this in the three movies'. Have you ever read the book before?

No.

It has a great twist at the end of one that sends the stories into a tailspin. So if I were to do it - which I'm doing as an exercise here - I would see if I could boil it down to the fat of the characters, and ignore all this Maquis double agent stuff. It would be interesting if I could reduce the three novels to an hour each and make a three hour movie that would have a big kind of impact, just by responding to the characters, and the wonderful chance of casting actors in it, and the nice environment of the drawing room and the cottages in this part of East Berlin, with the Wall still there and everything.

People make dull films about that.

It's like, does that interest me enough to spend over a year of my life, if not more doing it? That would be a very difficult trip to adapt. Probably not, but it would be fun. I mean, it'd be a movie.

I don't know how much rehearsal you do and whether you storyboard

I never use storyboards because I can't draw. What I use instead is shot lists so I can write and describe things.

Do you rehearse?

I usually rehearse but things have got mucked about because of the way we did Death Proof and Kill Bill was long. What I'd done through Jackie Brown was a solid two-week rehearsal period before we shot the movie. The first week was in the rehearsal space. Sitting around the table, mucking about, having a good time, everyone getting to know each other. The second week was as much as we could do on locations.

What's your shot ratio like?

Well, I got no worries if it's nine, ten or eleven. I do what I need to do. Normally it's more like 1 to 5, 1 to 6. But if I can get it perfect in one I move on. If I get it in 2 or 3 it's the same.

There's something else you've said in interviews about 'Jackie Brown'. You said that the fault with 'Jackie Brown' was that it was somebody else's material [from Elmore Leonard's novel] and that since then you've enjoyed the fact that it comes more from you. Does it all have to come from you?

Yeah, it does. One of the things that is fun about reading books is it puts you in a complete different environment. If you read one of Ian Rankin's books and you think you got a good excuse to go to Edinburgh and shoot this big Scottish thing that could be really fun. But I lost my stamina in the last quarter of the last lap of Jackie Brown and part of the reason was I wasn't taking something I created from scratch from a blank piece of paper and turning it into a full project. When I finished the edit and got my cut the way I wanted, I was emotionally done. I believe people could say it's my best movie, but there's a slight once-removed quality, located somewhere in my balls where that doesn't live.

Can you imagine making a film without violence?

I can't imagine telling a story that has rules, "You can't do this, you can't do that."

There's a different way of phrasing this. Are there any stories you would do that might not have violent cataclysmic moments?

I don't think Jackie Brown has violent cataclysmic moments.

That's true, it doesn't.

People get killed but it is all essentially part of it. It is not an extravaganza.

But you've said apt things about why violence is such an important part of cinema.

So could I make a movie where that was a part of what I was trying to do as a filmmaker, a showman, and the guy trying to give you your money's worth and a good time while showing off a little bit. For sure I did that with Jackie Brown.

That's true.

But to say violence can't enter any world that I'm writing about would be wrong.

I didn't mean as a set of rules. That's ridiculous.

I know you didn't but I don't mind my answer to that.

Can you imagine yourself making a film like 'Sin City'?

I would have thought not. I'm not a fan of digital. And I sound like I'm talking out of both sides of my mouth when it comes to Robert. When Robert does it, it's great. That's where Robert is coming from. He just wants to do everything himself and digital allows him to do that. Why would you hire a cinematographer? If you're doing a digital movie it doesn't make any sense whatsoever. All you need to do is look to the screen to see if you like it. Gaffer do this, do that... you could be your own cinematographer. No cinematographer should be promoting digital. It makes them as obsolete as a dodo bird. But in the case of Sin City, and probably 300, you know you could never have made those movies on film.

I thought it might have intrigued you to make those films.

To me 97 per cent of the use of digital is laziness. They are trying to make it easier on themselves, and it shows. If you don't care enough about your movie to shoot it yourself, I don't care enough about it enough to see it. But in those cases where they are creating a whole new cinematic landscape, I can't be churlish about that. I've got to give it up. It adds another possibility in which to tell stories, and create pictures. But normally, even with, say, what David Fincher used in Zodiac, I think what the fuck is that about? I found it more interesting in my brain than I did watching it. I thought Apocalypto was a masterpiece. Then I found out he did it in digital and it lessened the effort for me. Using this Mount Everest analogy again, the mountain got smaller and the achievement was a little less.

I can see that. I think that's it. I'm done with my questions.

Well let me bring up something that has happened recently. I had a really fantastic time during this regional tour. This is the first time I've done it since Reservoir Dogs. In this last week I've seen my movie four times. I saw it at the Ritzy in Brixton, at the Glasgow Film Theatre, at the FACT Theatre in Liverpool, and in Dublin. One of the things that I wanted to get back to is something you asked earlier on: how do you feel about your movie? I was depressed when Grindhouse didn't do well. I felt rejected. That Friday night that it opened I saw it at the Grauman's Chinese. Robert was there, different members of the cast where there. Simon Pegg was there and Edgar Wright. And it was one of the most magnificent screenings of my film I've ever had, as great, and maybe even a little more exciting than Kill Bill and Pulp Fiction. It was everything we could have hoped the experience would be. Then I had the box office and I was surprised, I was surprised for a while, but then, the show got over. I started working on Death Proof and the first screening we had of it was in Cannes. That ended up being a lot of fun and to really actually watch the chase scene in the Le Palais was something.

All I saw was the press screening.

In the official screening in the Palais with the women in their fine gowns and the men in their tuxedos they were flipping the armrests and then pounding on them and the girls were shouting, "get him, get him, get him." It was like a football game.

The Palais is great

Thierry [Fremaux, Cannes' chief programmer] wanted that. He had never shown a film like this in competition. And to see the response be so good was so much fun. We've been slowly bringing it out, so I've been to a few countries and I've ended up seeing my movie probably more than I had done since Reservoir Dogs, when I went through the whole film festival circuit for a year, and then an entire year long release. I was writing Pulp Fiction during that time. With these screenings I fall in love with my movie again.

And you reconnect with those who love your stuff.

I'm liking it more the more I see it. It has undeniable audience signal moments that make it really fun to watch with somebody you are close to who hasn't seen it yet. You're watching through their eyes. For me it's like reacquainting myself with my adoration of my child again And the two best audiences were Dublin and Manila. They were off the chain. We all just had a great cinematic experience. It was everybody - the people, the environment, the building - everything!
Title: Re: Grind House
Post by: cinemanarchist on February 04, 2008, 04:36:47 PM
So then I started thinking about what I could do. And the first idea was a bunch of young college history students that were going through a tour of the plantations of the old South. And there's a ghost of an old slave that is part of negro folklore. Jody the Grinder actually went down and bested the devil, by fucking him. And so the devil put him on earth for all eternity to fuck white women. And that was the devil's punishment.

The opening scene would take place in the classroom, with the professor telling the story of Jody the Grinder in a big four-page monologue. I would probably have had Sam Jackson playing that part. And it was really good. But then I didn't have anywhere to go with it, because if you have a story about a killer slave with supermacho powers done in the style of a slasher films, then even if he's doing it today, and even if the white girls are innocent, how can you not be on the slave's side?

 :shock: :shock: :shock:
Title: Re: Grind House
Post by: ©brad on February 04, 2008, 04:59:38 PM
couple things that irked me:

Where does your girl dialogue come from?

This is gonna sound like a smartass answer, but I have to say, it's obvious, but it so needs to be said. I'm a good writer. It's what I'm supposed to be able to do. It needs to be said.

…I'm a very very very good storyteller.

jesus, what a jerkass. i know it’s just Quentin being Quentin but still, a little humility and self-deprecation go a long way, especially for a guy whose dialogue and story-telling skills have been steadfastly declining for some time now.

Can you imagine yourself making a film like 'Sin City'?

I would have thought not. I'm not a fan of digital. And I sound like I'm talking out of both sides of my mouth when it comes to Robert. When Robert does it, it's great. That's where Robert is coming from. He just wants to do everything himself and digital allows him to do that. Why would you hire a cinematographer? If you're doing a digital movie it doesn't make any sense whatsoever. All you need to do is look to the screen to see if you like it. Gaffer do this, do that... you could be your own cinematographer. No cinematographer should be promoting digital. It makes them as obsolete as a dodo bird. But in the case of Sin City, and probably 300, you know you could never have made those movies on film…To me 97 per cent of the use of digital is laziness. They are trying to make it easier on themselves, and it shows. If you don't care enough about your movie to shoot it yourself, I don't care enough about it enough to see it. But in those cases where they are creating a whole new cinematic landscape, I can't be churlish about that. I've got to give it up. It adds another possibility in which to tell stories, and create pictures. But normally, even with, say, what David Fincher used in Zodiac, I think what the fuck is that about? I found it more interesting in my brain than I did watching it.

i don’t have the technical know-all to make this argument but i can’t believe that digital is just an alternative for lazy directors or that it will render cinematographers obsolete. and to say it's okay when his best buddy uses it but not someone like fincher is ridiculous, especially when fincher made one of the best movies of the decade this year.
Title: Re: Grind House
Post by: Sleepless on February 05, 2008, 07:47:36 AM
I completely agree with his comments about digital being a benefit for someone like Rodriguez who has always wanted to have complete control over every aspect of his movies, it goes back to El Mariachi, but with new technology. And for year QT has been banging on about how much he hates CGI, and to be fair most of it is crap and overdone. But the fact remains that Zodiac has the best use of CGI for any movie in 2007. I think that's what Tarantino fails to realize - the distinction between something like Zodiac and say Alvin And The Chipmunks. Bottom line is, and we should all be well aware of this my now - Tarantino just loves to talk out of his ass.
Title: Re: Grind House
Post by: Alexandro on February 05, 2008, 02:04:08 PM
"I'm Quentin Tarantino, I don't make mistakes"

-Quentin Tarantino

(that's an allegedly true quote)
Title: Re: Grind House
Post by: MacGuffin on March 31, 2008, 12:38:14 AM
Grindhouse Slaughters Region Two
Six-disc release proves how much better Europe can be.

Proving once again that DVD releases overseas are sometimes – and often -- way cooler than what we get here in the States, we'd thought we'd report on the upcoming Region Two DVD Release of Grindhouse. This six-disc release streets across the pond at the end of March 2008 and features the two-disc editions of Planet Terror and Death Proof, the 191-minute theatrical Grindhouse release and a disc of Japanese supplementals.

Horror fans – start drooling...and importing:

DVD 1 - DEATH PROOF FEATURE FILM

Anamorphic (16:9) Widescreen (2.35:1) Version
English DTS, English 5.1 and Japanese 5.1 Audio Options
Optional Japanese subtitles
TV Spot
Trailer

DVD 2 - DEATH PROOF BONUS FEATURES

Quentin Tarantino Introduction
The Hot Rods of Death Proof
Stunts On Wheels: The Legendary Drivers Of Death Proof
Introducing Zoë Bell
Kurt Russell as Stuntman Mike
Finding Quentin's Gals
The Guys of Death Proof
The Uncut Version of "Baby, It's You" Performed by Mary Elizabeth Winstead
Quentin's Greatest Collaborator: Editor Sally Menke
Double Dare Trailer

DVD 3 - PLANET TERROR FEATURE FILM

Anamorphic (16:9) Widescreen (1.78:1) Version
English DTS, English 5.1 and Japanese 5.1 Audio Options
Optional Japanese subtitles
Audio commentary by writer/director Robert Rodriguez
TV Spot
Trailer

DVD 4 - PLANET TERROR BONUS FEATURES

10 Minute Film School
The Badass Babes of Planet Terror
The Guys of Planet Terror
Casting Rebel
Sickos, Bullets and Explosions: The Stunts of Planet Terror
The Friend, the Doctor and the Real Estate Agent

DVD 5 - GRINDHOUSE FEATURE FILM

Anamorphic (16:9) Widescreen (2.35:1) Version
English 5.1 Audio
Optional Japanese subtitles

DVD 6 - JAPAN EXCLUSIVE GRINDHOUSE BONUS FEATURES

GRINDHOUSE US Version Original Trailer
2006 San Diego Comic-Con - Director and Cast Q&A
Tarantino Interview in Japan
Cast & Crew Interviews (including Tarantino, Rodriguez, and Fake Trailer Directors and others...)
Grindhouse Films Featurette (with Tarantino & Rodriguez)
Making of DEATH PROOF
Making of PLANET TERROR
'Trailers' Behind the Scenes
GRINDHOUSE Trailer
Title: Re: Grind House
Post by: tpfkabi on July 05, 2008, 04:03:43 PM
i noticed Grindhouse playing in Dallas, so it may be coming to your local arthouse theater...in case you missed the whole thing in it's short theatrical run.
Title: Re: Grind House
Post by: Sleepless on July 07, 2008, 09:34:38 AM
Which cinema in Dallas, and when?

Edit: No matter, found it. Missed it. Cinemanarchist, you're slacking...
Title: Re: Grind House
Post by: RegularKarate on October 22, 2008, 10:41:39 AM
Found this interesting, Stars is showing the theatrical double feature with the trailers and everything.

Which means Netflix is streaming it.... which means I can watch it on my Roku box.

http://www.netflix.com/Movie/Grindhouse_Double_Feature/70106486 (http://www.netflix.com/Movie/Grindhouse_Double_Feature/70106486)
Title: Re: Grind House
Post by: MacGuffin on July 06, 2009, 06:23:39 PM
Director Robert Rodriguez has confirmed (via his Twitter page) that he's working on a new DVD and Blu-ray release of Grindhouse. Presumably, this would be the long-awaited "ultimate" version, combined with the fake trailers and the like.
Title: Re: Grind House
Post by: MacGuffin on July 08, 2010, 03:25:48 PM
Full Grindhouse DVD, Blu-Ray Release?
Source: ShockTillYouDrop

Edgar Wright revealed via his Twitter account that he's sitting down this week to record an audio commentary for Don't, the faux trailer sandwiched between Planet Terror and Deathproof during Grindhouse's theatrical run.

"Some of you will know what that means is finally happening," Wright says following his announcement. Yes, that means it appears we'll finally get a proper DVD/Blu-Ray release of Grindhouse.

With Dimension exhuming their catalog titles for Blu-Ray (Feast, Pulse and Black Christmas were recently announced), we might just be getting the special edition of the Robert Rodriguez/Quentin Tarantino mash-up we're looking for.
Title: Re: Grind House
Post by: KJ on July 08, 2010, 04:08:43 PM
YEEEEEEEEEEEEEEES, finally!
Title: Re: Grind House
Post by: Pubrick on July 08, 2010, 10:30:47 PM
YEEEEEEEEEEEEEEES, finally!

hahaa oh man, you've been so cool lately i totally forgot your one flaw.

oh well, gotta take the good with the bad i guess. now let me stroke your hair.. :hammer: maybe i can crack that thick norweigan mane just a smidgen, enough to let the QT parasite ooze right out.
Title: Re: Grind House
Post by: KJ on July 08, 2010, 11:37:21 PM
You have forgotten alot of things lately, haven't you?

norweigan mane

I don't really know what an "mane" is, but I'm pretty sure mine isn't norweigan.

And for now, Tarantino is still a favorite. Mayby it will change if you crack the right mane next time. :shock:
Title: Re: Grind House
Post by: Pubrick on July 09, 2010, 12:06:01 AM
I don't really know what an "mane" is, but I'm pretty sure mine isn't norweigan.


haha i meant swedish.

a mane is like the hair on the head of a male lion or a horse:

(http://www.smith.edu/libraries/images/research/libguides/corbis_lion_mane.jpg)
Title: Re: Grind House
Post by: New Feeling on July 09, 2010, 03:33:44 PM
Oh man I am so excited about the prospect of a full-length commentary for this.
Title: Re: Grind House
Post by: 72teeth on July 10, 2010, 02:47:16 PM
im excited at the prospect of a full-length mane
Title: Re: Grind House
Post by: modage on August 10, 2010, 11:20:10 AM
(http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/41-pgH%2BQaTL._SL500_AA300_.jpg) (http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51Rpo8uaBnL._AA300_.jpg)

$24.99
This title will be released on October 5, 2010.

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/B003VMFWYI/
Title: Re: Grind House
Post by: KJ on August 10, 2010, 12:22:44 PM
Beautiful!
Title: Re: Grind House
Post by: Stefen on August 10, 2010, 03:18:51 PM
I'll probably pick this up. It's fun. I like the idea even if I didn't really like the outcome.

Does anyone think this would have been more fun is RR and QT made these low budget instead of spending a fortune to make them look low budget?
Title: Re: Grind House
Post by: Alexandro on August 11, 2010, 01:00:01 PM
yes, it's major flaw is precisely that.
Though I don't know how much money went into actually making them look cheaper. Death Proof's car chase sequence seems pretty expensive and I think it was worth the investment. Planet Terror is not really fun.
Title: Re: Grind House
Post by: socketlevel on August 11, 2010, 02:36:22 PM
yes, it's major flaw is precisely that.
Though I don't know how much money went into actually making them look cheaper. Death Proof's car chase sequence seems pretty expensive and I think it was worth the investment. Planet Terror is not really fun.

agreed, planet terror would have been better without RR sense of humor, which is childish. it was supposidly "the film that john carpenter never made right after escape from NY" but JC would have never had a guy collecting testicles for example.
Title: Re: Grind House
Post by: AntiDumbFrogQuestion on December 12, 2010, 09:40:10 PM
I must say to all those who think RR's sense of humor was a flaw in "Planet Terror": that was the ONLY thing that gave me any redeeming value in Robert Rodriguez's work.  I mean, Sin City was fun but sometimes the SFX were just...KINDA bad. even if most of them weren't. and the pacing.  with Planet Terror, it seemed like he wasn't afraid to make bad stuff fun.  I know some of us want him to be the next John Carpenter, yeah, and there was a major 80s influence over this film, but if it wasn't for the humor mixed with over the top carnage, this would not have been worth half of my 4 hours in the theatre.
Title: Re: Grind House
Post by: Reelist on December 12, 2010, 10:31:16 PM
oh yeah, he's definitely right. I like Tarantino's movie better overall but if I didn't have all that schlock and cheez to start out with I'd be in for a major upset.
Title: Re: Grind House
Post by: socketlevel on December 13, 2010, 10:53:43 AM
I must say to all those who think RR's sense of humor was a flaw in "Planet Terror": that was the ONLY thing that gave me any redeeming value in Robert Rodriguez's work.  I mean, Sin City was fun but sometimes the SFX were just...KINDA bad. even if most of them weren't. and the pacing.  with Planet Terror, it seemed like he wasn't afraid to make bad stuff fun.  I know some of us want him to be the next John Carpenter, yeah, and there was a major 80s influence over this film, but if it wasn't for the humor mixed with over the top carnage, this would not have been worth half of my 4 hours in the theatre.

I don't want him to be john carpenter, when i mentioned Carpenter it's because that's what he and tarantino say on the commentary/special features. to call it the john carpenter movie that was never made is idiotic, john carpenter never intended to ham it up. when he did ham it up, it was unintentional or just bad taste without the intent of it, something that RR doesn't get.  In a John Carpenter movie the 4th wall is never broken.  RR's films are fanboy made and thus breaks the 4th wall constantly with a post modern, tongue and cheek wink at the audience all throughout.  he oozes reference and constantly attempts to connect with the audience's tastes. John Carpenter made a film, for better or worse, and his audience connected with the film or didn't.

no film maker will have a lasting fanboy picture unless he/she focuses on the material. these aren't exploitation films he's making, he's making farce bubble gum exploitation with no grit or sense of adventure.
Title: Re: Grind House
Post by: Reelist on February 15, 2012, 10:11:35 AM
Neill Cumpston's GRINDHOUSE review
source: AICN


Remember, when George W. Bush was elected, and he said that thing about how, by 2008, we’d have “movies that would explode in our balls like a shotgun filled with handjobs”?

Well, that promise came true two days ago when I saw GRINDHOUSE in Hollywood. Except not only was it a shotgun full of handjobs exploding in my balls, but also my balls suddenly knew how to make fire using karate. All from seeing GRINDHOUSE, a movie that’s made of screaming car crash zombie boobs.

It isn’t even a movie – it’s TWO movies with some trailers and stuff at the beginning, and also between the movies. The directors – more about them in a second (there’s TWO!) – wanted to recreate the way movies were back in the 1920’s, when you could sell a script that was one page that just said, “TITS THEN A MONSTER THEN MORE TITS THEN AN EXPLOSION THEN BONUS TITS” and everyone knew what you were talking about.

Also, there’s zombies getting killed by a helicopter, which is not only cool to look at, but shows how the movie-makers did some research, to make things realistic.

First off, the movie lets you know you’re going to get your poop kicked out of you, formed into a set of brass knuckles, and now here comes a poop-punch.

Because they show a trailer for a movie I need to see RIGHT NOW with my eyes (I already saw it in my head when I was driving last week and Van Halen’s “Panama” came on the radio and I’d just started eating a Payday). It’s called MACHETE, and it’s got that Mexican guy who’s always in movies where there’s people who really need knives stuck into them, and he’s always, “Here, let’s get those knives in you”. Danny something.

Whatever his last name is, he should change it to, “Fuck-a-dilly” because everyone says that automatic when they see him, because he’s going to bring the fuck-a-dilly to the movie, which will probably involve a foot, a face, and foot-face-fuckup. Also, Cheech from Cheech and The Chong is in the trailer, and he’s a priest and he’s shooting people, which is ironic, I think.

Then the first movie starts. It’s called PLANET OF TERROR, and it’s about a planet (which looks a lot like Earth) that’s made of pure terror. Here’s how shit-scream terrorizing it is: there’s these mutated kill-monsters, but even BEFORE they show up there’s all this fucking terror. Like a doctor who wants to kill his doctor wife, and the doctor wife is always sticking these three needles into people which fucks them up, and there’s a sheriff who’s played by that Reese guy from TERMINATOR robot. The sheriff looks like he’s always going to kill someone by crushing a bunch of walnuts in his mouth and spitting the shells through their skull.

So, there’s a lot of shit like that, plus Fergie’s cleave, some bar-b-q, bad parenting, Bruce Willis turning into a monster, and Rose McGowan with a machine gun for a leg. I’ve never seen a woman I wanted so bad to rub one out to, but also kind of killed my boner in a way that gave me a bigger boner. Oh yeah, she almost-nude dances for the first three minutes of the movie and even though she doesn’t get totally naked I need to go buy three extra PAUSE buttons for my remote by the time the DVD comes out.



!!!WARNING, MAJOR SPOILER!!!










Rose McGowan will make you cluster-spooge in your pants.











!!!END SPOILER!!!



PLANET OF TERROR is directed by Robert Rodriquez, which is all I need to say. In fact, instead of his name on poster saying, “Directed By”, he can legally change his name to a picture of a naked Viking woman on a snowmobile with flamethrowers out the back and the flamethrowers are killing a Yeti. That’s the level of guaranteed quality his name brings to stuff.

Then there’s three other trailers – one by Rob Zombie that involves Nazis and werewolves (more factual research), one by Edgar Wright that made me laugh harder than seeing an old man give the finger to a fat kid, and then one by Eli Roth that Eli Roth should make.

Actually, the fake trailers are kind of a bummer, because I really wish they weren’t fake. Maybe the government will put some “don’t be a pussy” drug in the water supply, and everyone will go see this instead of PILLOW FIGHT AND SCENTED CANDLES AND BOREDOM, or whatever Sandra Bullock movie’s coming out, and they’ll make more of these.

Then the second movie started. It’s called DEATH PROOF. You know what it isn’t-PROOF? Boner-inducing proof.

This one was directed by Quentin Tarantino, who’s been an actor in stuff like RESERVOIR DOGS and PULP FICTION (he’s also in PLANET OF TERROR and DEATH PROOF). This is his first directing job and the dude KICKS ALL SPECTRUM OF ASS. He kicks ass that isn’t even in the ass area. Like, his director skills are so stripper-with-chainsaw good they make you grow asses on other parts of your body that he then kicks. I hope he directs more movies. I would see them, burn down the theater, and then call the fire department so I could tell all the fireman about what a kick-ass movie it was. When they started to attack me with axes, I’d fly away because Quentin’s movie would have given me ninja flight.

DEATH PROOF is about this dude, Driver Mike, and he’s played by Kurt Plissken, and goddamn but that dude just gets more bad-ass as he gets older. You know how Sly Stallone kind of looks like Bea Arthur now, and Jean-Claude Van Damme looks like Ally Sheedy? Well, Kurt Plissken looks like a dumpster full of drop kicks. He could fuck a bulldozer into eight Mini Coopers. Fuck, I should pitch that to someone.

Anyway, he’s this crazy dude who gets off by killing four girls at a time in cars. Like, he’s got this car, this death proof stunt car, and he kills women by either

1. Giving them a ride in the car, and bashing them around in this special seat so they feel like they’ve watched the PINK PANTHER remake twelve times or

2. Going all Mad Max meets Humungous head-on dead-on kill-crazy.


!!!WARNING, MAJOR SPOILER!!!










The title, DEATH PROOF, refers to Kurt’s car being “death proof”.










!!!END SPOILERS!!!




We get to see Kurt fucking up these four hotties with a car crash, but then – and this is where, if you’re with your girlfriend, she’ll realize how sensitive you are – he fucks with the wrong women, and let’s just say the audience I saw it with almost gave the ending a standing ovation. But their boners would have knocked over popcorn and sodas, so they just happy- screamed instead.

First 300 and now this? I think the summer of 2007 just went, “Hey, let me take you to a free taquito buffet” and you eat all these taquitos and then the summer goes, “Here comes a foot to your stomach”, but you go, “It’s full of taquitos” but it’s too late – there’s a boot in your stomach only the boot is really a motorcycle and you puke up a bikini girl who blows you and then kills your boss with a hammer.

That’s what GRINDHOUSE is. It’s a taquito buffet that you puke up after getting hit with a motorcycle, and it turns into a bikini chick that blows you and kills your boss with a hammer.

Rodriguez and Tarantino probably don’t read this site, but someone should tell them they can use that last paragraph as a quick blurb.
Title: Re: Grind House
Post by: Just Withnail on February 16, 2012, 04:19:51 AM
Seriously, what year is this?
Title: Re: Grind House
Post by: Reelist on February 16, 2012, 06:02:47 AM
5 years later than it should've been when I discovered the brilliance of Neill Cumpston!
Title: Re: Grind House
Post by: RegularKarate on February 16, 2012, 10:04:12 AM
In another year, you'll be five years too late to be imagining Remy the Rat giving these reviews.
Title: Re: Grind House
Post by: KJ on January 11, 2016, 06:23:00 PM
just rewathed death proof and i'm really happy that he made this. it seems to me that people was disappointed because they was expecting something else after kill bill, but I can't understand why people dislike it so much. it doesn't try to be anything that it isn't and it's really good at being what it is (worst sentence ever). what do you guys think about it nowdays?
Title: Re: Grind House
Post by: Garam on January 11, 2016, 06:34:36 PM
i saw it the other day and i hated it still




edit: ok that is reductive i promise i'll elaborate at some point
Title: Re: Grind House
Post by: Reelist on January 11, 2016, 07:40:59 PM
I love 'Death Proof'! I think what people find off putting about it is how talky the movie is, and that the action isn't sprinkled enough into the talk. We were expecting more of a horror movie, but this really isn't. Quentin said the movies they would mostly watch around the time of shooting for inspiration were 80's sex comedies. It really does have the feel of like a "John Hughes Midnight movie", but most of us were so unfamiliar with that genre of the 70's road flick. He really does expect a lot on the audiences part in this one, and I think we were less eager to go along with his signature stamp of the drawn out conversations because it seemed like he was being a little too cute having his dialogue come out of such beautiful women's mouths. A criticism I'll give is that the movie could use a lot less characters. It gets to a point with the second gang of girls where it just seems like we're inside Quentin's head while he's talking to himself. Now that I bring that up, I remember listening to a podcast where Nacho Vigalondo ('TimeCrimes') goes into his theory that the second gang of girls were all part of the crew on 'Kill Bill' and the director Rosario's in love with is Quentin. So he's taking the male gaze one step further by having these women chat about him in the way we'd LIKE to think that they talk about us when we're not around, but we're really watching a heightened fantasy of his like we so often get in these slasher films with the gratuitous nudity and gore. Only Quentin is EMOTIONALLY masturbating on us with this. Is he onto something? I looked all over and that podcast was nowhere to be found.
Title: Re: Grind House
Post by: Fuzzy Dunlop on January 12, 2016, 12:47:58 PM
...theory that the second gang of girls were all part of the crew on 'Kill Bill' and the director Rosario's in love with is Quentin. So he's taking the male gaze one step further by having these women chat about him in the way we'd LIKE to think that they talk about us when we're not around, but we're really watching a heightened fantasy of his like we so often get in these slasher films with the gratuitous nudity and gore. Only Quentin is EMOTIONALLY masturbating on us with this. Is he onto something? I looked all over and that podcast was nowhere to be found.

I'm not sure about all of that, but on this year's Hollywood Reporter roundtable, Quentin goes on about how proud he was to teach Zoe Bell to act on the Kill Bill set. She was Uma's stunt double and they clearly formed a huge bond, to the point where he wrote her a role in Death Proof and has worked with her in every film he's done since. So if Zoe's playing Zoe here, there's something to the theory of them being the Kill Bill crew.

She also probably taught him that hauntingly authentic Australian accent he graced us with in Django, so thanks for that Zoe.
Title: Re: Grind House
Post by: jenkins on January 12, 2016, 02:34:45 PM
the podcast:
http://directory.dev.libsyn.com/episode/index/show/shortstorylong/id/2155750

Death Proof arrives at 1:17:48

related to the conversation in the QT v PTA thread, Vigalondo talks about Death Proof being biographical, specifically dealing with the topic of female power killing male power.