We remember something in a certain way because we associate it with other aspects of the memory that give it meaning, emotion, and relevance. So it makes sense that people would say, “oh, I loved those Grindhouse pictures because my friends and I used to sneak into them and it was so fun,” or “my dad, god rest his soul, took me to them,” or “me and my brother would watch them and then play kung fu action stars in the parking lot afterwards,” or whatever. But you almost never here someone say, “I loved those Grindhouse movies because they were good.” At best, you might hear “I love them because they were bad, and that’s the point,” which is like saying “sure, sour milk smells horrible and it makes you sick, but I like it because that’s what it’s supposed to do.”

So here we have two movies that are obviously made to be “bad in a good way,” whatever that means for people who use such a criteria in deciding what movies they are going to see. But just about anyone who looks back at the ‘70’s movies doesn’t say they were good, or even “bad in a good way.” Most (but not all) simply say “they’re bad, but that’s why I like them.” (Which is nuts, in my opinion, but whatever.) There’s so much out there that’s effortlessly bad that it seems grotesque for someone as talented at Quinton Tarantino to take a year or two out of what is essentially a limited amount of time on this planet to produce something as culturally disposable as this stuff.

Robert Rodriguez’s inherent talent is still up for debate: SIN CITY was trash, ONCE UPON A TIME IN MEXICO was even worse, and, if you pay really close attention to his movies going all the way back to EL MARIACHI, one is struck by the realization that he absolutely does not know how to cover a scene in which there’s lots of action happening. His action scenes are incoherent. Furthermore, if you watch closely, you’ll notice that he covers up this lack of scene coverage with jump edits and by repeating shots over and over again. If that’s not the hallmark of a weak storyteller, I don’t know what is.

Now, should someone present a plausible and compelling argument to the contrary, I’m willing to admit that I’m way off base. Until then, I can’t comprehend the value of movies made to be bad on purpose in an era when cineplexes are awash in terrible movies that have been produced by people who thought they were making something good.

Let the Canary bashing begin.

Perhaps that’s the source of the ambivalence (and disconnect) I’m feeling now regarding these films. At some level I’ve been feeling the same way about THE GOOD GERMAN, a movie shot in the same manner and with the same equipment that was used in 1940’s era Hollywood. As an exercise, it has its merits, and many of the noir films of the time were works of art.

I guess what I’m not able to appreciate with this Grindhouse project is that QT and RR are not bringing the Grindhouse films into the 21st century, they are dragging the 21st century back to the era of the Grindhouse picture. Whereas the first film you describe (shamefully, I have not seen these specific films) deals with themes that could be found in any great story, no doubt the budget determined its look and feel. The story sounds as if it transcends its budgetary limitations.

But from what I’ve read and from what I understand about the QT and RR project, they aren’t making Grindhouse movies for our era, an era informed by the 80’s 90’s and the first part of the new century, they’re making copies of Grindhouse films from a past era. They’re emulating the aesthetic and storytelling techniques from a period of filmmaking without considering the fact that those movies were shaped by the times in which they were made. Why not make Grindhouse pictures that reflect the times we live in now, both aesthetically and thematically? I just don’t get it. (I remember someone on another TB saying that in many ways THE DEVIL’S REJECTS is a modern Grindhouse film, and I think there’s some truth in that assessment.)

And maybe that’s what my real problem is: Its not the kind of movies QT and RR are making, but the fact that, ultimately, this will be yet another exercise in style over substance, another example of using the techniques of a different era of cinematic history not to inform contemporary cinema, but to exploit past aesthetic in lieu of creating a new aesthetic. Which is why, despite being moderately entertained while sitting in the theater watching the KILL BILL movies, I’ve come to detest them. I guess I just can’t live on style alone.

Unfortunately, I think QT is in serious danger of becoming a parody of himself. His first two films were brilliant; you’ll get no arguments from me there. And apparently I’m one of the few people who actually thinks JACKIE BROWN was a pretty good film too. It was the last movie in which QT tried to tell a story, not just present a series of episodic clichés cobbled together from 30 years worth of world cinema (KILL BILL). But if he doesn’t stop wearing his “homage-to-films” on his sleeve, the world of cinema, which is dynamic and constantly changing (and yes, being informed by what came before without descending into haplessly derivative schlock), then I fear he’s going to get left behind, and someday people on this TB are not going to be saying “oooh, hey, can’t wait for the new QT movie,” but rather “aw damn, yet another Tarantino crapfest.”

Bit harsh on QT and RR in my opinion. They are doing what all film makers should which is - to make films for themselves about things that mean something to them. If people dig them it's a bonus. At least they are being true to themselves unlike a lot of hacks out there I could mention.

And you're point about being too harsh on QT and RR may also be valid. I certainly don't mean to be dismissive of them. I appreciate the fact that they are making movies that appeal to them, popular opinion be damned (the worst kind of opinion, to be sure).

In the end, though, I do stand by my assessment of RR. While I can appreciate what he does, I guess I don't really appreciate his final product.

QT on the other hand could be a cinematic prophet. I guess I just feel that after JACKIE BROWN, he started speaking with a voice other than his own, or, at least, he seemed to be using his directorial style to tell a story that didn't have a particularly meaningful function other than highlighting his directorial style. And to me, that's not a reason to make a movie, or for me to watch one.

Alas, I will be seeing these movies, and hoping beyond hope, it appears (coming full circle back to my deficiency of character), that I'll see something I like.

...isn't this the bit where we both think we are right and fight on here til we are red in the face with insults? This conversation is going all too well it's disturbing hehe

I'm right and your wrong... uh... and, uh... your momma's so (fill in the blank) when she (fill in the blank) she's actually (fill in the blank).

Ahhhh. I believe that fulfills the rudeness mandate.

Now, as far as DESPERADO and FROM DUSK TILL DAWN, you've named his two best films. And you know, it's funny, because when I saw them I really liked them a lot. It was only on multiple viewings that they started to diminish in quality for me.

Thing is though, a lot of movies are like that, so maybe it's a little unfair of me to come down so hard on RR. I guess the massive disappointment I felt after ONCE UPON A TIME IN MEXICO and SIN CITY have soured my perspective on, and therefor my expectations of, his films. But hey, I still go to them, so what the hell am I complaining about?

...sorry just reading Spandau Belly's mad rant...unintentional comedies...The Quick and the Dead!? How fucking dare you, Spandau Belly! That's a Rami masterpiece!...oh you hate movies like Magnolia and Short Cuts. I see, you just have bad taste...

Sorry Supernatural. where was I?

I also happen to love THE QUICK AND THE DEAD, though I'll readily admit it's a big slice of Western comic book cheese. But everyone is so great in it and it is so fun! I read once that Sam Raimi was sort of depressed afterwards because he didn't set out to make a film that had that "Raimi look and feel," but that he had been immersed in his particular style for so long that he couldn't break free of it when making the movie. And then he did A SIMPLE PLAN, and the rest is history.