January 18th, 2008 at 01:54pm Posted by Matt Holmes

9 Comments »

Wow, you just lost me as a reader with your generalization about Americans. Great job. And did it ever occur to you the reason Grindhouse flopped is because people are tired of directors passing off homages to bad movies and bad genres as some new form of great filmmaking. There is a reason grindhouse films were not high grossing, mainstream popular films in their day or any day.

Comment by Despacio | January 19, 2008

It’s just the way Americans are. They bitch all the time about originality and Hollywood providing them with something different and they visit sites like this moaning about the constant remakes and sequels.

So an original movie project comes along… they spend months saying that they can’t wait to see GRINDHOUSE and then no one turns up.

Same with SNAKES ON A PLANE. Same with STARDUST. Same with tons of other crap.

Comment by Matt Holmes | January 19, 2008

I saw Grindhouse. It was more vanity-project than “original” anything. Despacio has a point Matt, like it or not. Grindhouse wasn’t the kind of idea that appeals to a broad audience. That being the case you had better have one hell of a story to tell if you’re going to make that kind of movie. Otherwise it becomes nothing more than an exercise in style, and Michael Bay is the only guy who can a turn a profit doing that kind of shit, not that that’s anything to brag about.
Grindhouse wasn’t based on any sort of “vision,” it was based on Tarantino and Rodriguez’ romantic feelings about 70’s era schlock. The Weinstein’s thought Tarantino’s name would draw in that audience who adores him and would be thinking that at LAST he stopped making homages to 70’s films and just went ahead and made a real one.
Unfortunately Planet Terror was merely watchable and Death Proof stank–face it. Nothing made them particularly notable. You can only ride the novelty of the whole “Grindhouse” idea so far. After that you have to accept that audiences will judge the film on it’s own merits, and not give a damn what your motivation for making it was.
Planet Terror was okay, not awesome, but not a waste of 90 minutes either. It was overly-humorous, corny in places where it didn’t need to be and over-the-top. Yes, Matt I realize that’s what it was supposed to be, but the problem is that not what it NEEDED to be. If Quentin and Robert were making this film for their own personal amusement then they could do whatever they wanted. But the instant they decided this would be shown to the public and that they’d charge money to see it, they were obligated to make it into something AUDIENCES would want to see, not them.
After the loud silliness of Planet Terror I NEEDED for Death Proof to be the kind of kick-ass homage to DUEL that I, and everyone else, was led to think it would be. But instead of getting DUEL with a muscle car I got a road chick-flick? Bullshit!

Notice I didn’t mention the “trailers” Matt? I know you gush over them every time you mention Grindhouse but I didn’t pay my money for clever trailers, I paid it for the two main features. Mainly for Death Proof. Simply put Grindhouse was dependent on one thing and one thing only, Death Proof. If Death Proof failed then Grindhouse failed.

David Fincher committed the same sin with Zodiac. If SE7EN was kenesis then Zodiac was lethargy. Just because directors have romantic notions about 70’s movies they can’t allow themselves to forget this isn’t the 70’s. There was a reason why the 70’s was marked by a glut of high-concept films but low profits.
Grindhouse, regardless of it’s great intentions, took the audience for granted and there’s a price to be paid for that.

Look Matt, if you want to point to a flick that proves Americans don’t want quality, then at least point out a good one–like Michael Clayton or There Will Be Blood. These two movies are tremendous, but MC was completely ignored. TWBB hasn’t even opened but already it’s DOA. And what do you make the most posts about on this site Matt? Cloverfield. Seems Americans aren’t the only ones who don’t support good films.
The American audiences accurately perceived Grindhouse for what it was–Tarantino and Rodriguez indulging their love of 70’s movie fare and taking it WAY too far. That’s the problem with falling in love with an idea: you tend to overestimate it’s appeal. Tarantino/Rodriguez did with Grindhouse, and so have you Matt. You love this IDEA, but it’s not an idea they were selling, it was two stories. Were they really all that good? No, they weren’t.
Joe Carnahan showed how to pay homage to 70’s style (NARC and Smokin’ Aces) while making sure to keep it engaging for modern audiences. Smokin’ didn’t perform well at the box-office, though it found it’s audience on DVD. You should hope for the same for Grindhouse, but is it anywhere near as strong a work as Smokin’ Aces or Michael Clayton? Be honest. It simply isn’t.

And one more thing. Considering that many of your site’s visitor’s are Americans, do you really think it’s smart to call them “lazy bastards?”

Comment by JaySmack | January 19, 2008

Wow, bravo Jaysmack, you put up a great argument there.

Look Matt, I can’t stay away, I love this site. And I know great original films get looked over a lot here in the states. It kills me that Children of Men was not a box office smash. More people have to see that film.

But it’s not all the time. Look at what is a huge hit right now. Juno, a critically raved independent comedy whose biggest mainstream appeal is that it has “those guys from Arrested Development.”

Maybe you overestimate the amount of people who visit sites like this and their effect on the box office. And Snakes on a Plane, really? You want to throw that out there as some original piece of work people avoided? Really? Maybe they were smart enough to see it was a bad film hyped merely by a over the top name.

Case in point how your generalizations miss the mark. Cloverfield. How much did that make again opening day here in the states? Oh yeah . . . and if that isn’t something original, what is?

Also, have Brit audiences made everything original and unique a big hit while making every big dumb popcorn film a flop? Is there something different in the water over there that allows one to see a unique original film as a must see at theaters and actually makes you go?

Comment by Despacio | January 20, 2008

I think it’s ok for me to be pissed at this because without the domestic gross we didn’t get GRINDHOUSE in the U.K, we aren’t getting SIN CITY 2 anytime soon, and any further GRINDHOUSE or even slightly risque-projects.

In the case of MICHAEL CLAYTON, it suffered a really terrible marketing campaign both in the U.K. and in the U.S. That film was it’s own out-doing.

I loved GRINDHOUSE, just the shear feeling of getting something different. Whether it’s a 70’s homage or not it was completely different from anything we were getting from Hollywood. Most people (including me) had never seen too many exploitation flicks and didn’t care if it was a homage or not, it was something we weren’t getting from elsewhere.

Something that felt fresh, that felt fun, that felt like a ride. 300 was the same.

And I would argue that DEATH PROOF hit the mark in more ways than many (including me again) previously gave it credit for. Tarantino’s experimental style of film-making here is commendable, his fluid camera work, his integration of music, his amazing car sequences in the final third.

His color scheme, his sense of humor. DEATH PROOF is a pretty damn fine stand alone movie when you see that extended cut.

On the weekend of the release of GRINDHOUSE…

1. BLADES OF GLORY ($22 million, 2nd week)
2. MEET THE ROBINSONS ($16.7 million, 2nd week)
3. ARE WE DONE YET? ($14.2 million, lst week)
4. GRINDHOUSE ($11.5 million, lst week)
5. THE REAPING ($10 million, lst week)

Films were making money that weekend. BLADES OF GLORY? Will Ferell again, are you kidding me? Are any of those films better than GRINDHOUSE or are they regurgitated studio crap?

But don’t take it personally. I’m not really having a go at anyone, I’m just pissed it never made it across these shores.

Comment by Matt Holmes | January 21, 2008

Blades of Glory was pretty crappy, Meet the Robinsons is another computer animated sub par flick….Are we done yet? A sequel to a flop? Nice.

People just like to put down anything that’s not mainstream, like when they pick on the weird kids in high school. “It’s different so it must be bad.” is just part of the american mentality…unless the media spoon feeds them that “it’s good”

Comment by Edwin | January 29, 2008

Agreed with Despacio. Lost another reader here, Mr. Holmes. Ironic your commenting on Americans since it’s American cinema you’re reviewing. Let me know when the UK releases anything cinematic worth viewing. Oh, wait, let me sum it up, outside of Monty Python, Danny Boyle and Edgar Wright you have nothing. Christ, Asia puts out 1000x more interesting cinema than the brits. It’s okay, though. The Grindhouse boxset is STILL cheaper at Amazon.jp, maybe while you’re at it they can send you some Vitamin D and good dental insurance, Matty. LMFAO, even your Royals have fu*ed up grills, lol

Comment by AnotherLostReader | March 25, 2008

Lol.

Have I really “lost another reader”?

Were you really a reader to lose?

You stumbled on this article from searching on google… your not a frequent reader of the site… we are not going to miss you man.

I never said all American cinema were dumb you idiot. I was saying there are so much good stuff that Americans are not bothering to see over crap like Norbit.

And you can knock off Danny Boyle… I don’t partcuarly like his work.

And for the record… I HATE 99% of BRITISH CINEMA!

Ok done.

Comment by Matt Holmes | March 25, 2008

Well maybe 70% actually.

Comment by Matt Holmes | March 25, 2008

Leave a comment