Look, I'm actually old enough to remember these types of films, to remember the theaters and going to them, not to mention having caught these films later along the way in all sorts of ways, film dweeb that I am. Essentially, here's the big problem: while the trailers were comical in tone, they LOOKED and FELT right, at least as far as Grindhouse went. But the minute you see in the opening of PLANET TERROR a credit for Rodriquez's Digital FX studio, my brain instantly thought "For crying out loud, a TRUE Grindhouse filmmaker couldn't have even DREAMED of having the money -- let alone the access -- to digital FX to help his film along. And once you got into the actual movie, sure enough, that was the problem. PLANET TERROR looked far too slick for what a film of that era would have been able to actually ACHIEVE, if they had to make that exact same script given "what" they could afford or had access to at that time.

That was REALLY apparent in Tarantino's half. Give me a break! It doesn't feel like an ultra low budget Grindhouse car film. For crying out loud, by the time you get to the climactic chase, it's fast and sleek and exciting BUT looks like any normal low budget Dimension teen film, where ultimate care and filming tricks and some bucks were pulled out for that portion of the film. The overall production values just "looked" too good.

In the end did I LIKE the movie at all? In parts it was fun. I definitely liked PLANET more than DEATH PROOF (their order really should have been switched so you left the theater on a larger "up" note, just my opinion). And most of all, Tarantino needs to SERIOUSLY stop his personal jerk fest of thinking his psuedo dialoque style of people bantering endlessly on, all the while being OBVIOUSLY "hip" and "witty" by dropping pop culture references, will carry a scene. Sorry, but that diner scene with the second set of women was literally PAINFUL and GROAN INDUCING to sit through since it just... literally... dragged... on... forever. THAT should have been cut drastically and there should have been more Stuntman Mike instead. Frankly, Harry's whole notion that Tarantino's film seques perfectly into an old style female revenge flick is why I think the Tarantino section also fails. It's like he went for two Grindhouse movies in one -- an action car flick AND a female revenge one. The final moment (which I won't spoil) only generated spotted light chuckles at my screening, and by that point most were just happy the thing was over. It was obvious in my screening that people just lost interest in DEATH PROOF about halfway through.

So nice try, nice experiment, but I would only give it 2 1/2 stars at best. Overall, I agree with the major critics. Given the people and talent involved, given the fun of showing some love towards a particular style of filmmaking and the types of films that came out of the Grindhouses, it was a disappointment.

In terms of all that, a big problem for me was that contrary to Harry's assertion that Tarantino's dialogue was sharp, I just thought the whole structure of establishing Set of Girls #2 simply dragged. At my screening, you could look around and literally SEE and HEAR the audience squirming about and whispering -- people clearly lost interest during that whole secondary "establishing" section. For crying out loud, you had to sit through (1) the overly long scene of them babbling in the car about who's doing what, who's fucking who, etc... but then you have to sit through (2) the overly long scene in the diner, where Tarantino once again does too much of his usual self-conscious "Hey, I'll drop witty pop culture references" type of monoloques... which then turns into (3) yet even MORE overly long monologuing at the farm about why they're there, how they'll get the car, who gets to go, etc... followed by (4) MORE overly long monoloques in the car to finally set up the stunt piece. That entire section of the movie just dragged. It just seemed to me that the notion of establishing the plot point that Zoe simply wants to drive a muscle car could have been trimmed a HELLUVA lot. And as I said before, since it DID take so long to establish everything...and were bored by it...by the time the action kicks in, you've sort of mentally back burnered what Mike did earlier in the film. So, yeah, I agree. When the chase is finally on you find yourself actually thinking "What the hell? Kurt was fucking with them... he even stopped and tauntingly thanked them... but he didn't kill anyone. So now Rosario and the other 2 want his blood? Fuck that - die, bitches, die!

And you're right, that created an odd problem. By the end of DEATH PROOF what I WAS hoping for was that we'd get some kind of shock "jump cut" or something, where a car on the road just comes along and kill the girls, just BECAUSE they had become so unsympathetic to me. Not to mention they were unlikeable pretty much all along and just a bunch of shrilly egotistical snots. Seriously, who would want to hang with them? As characters they were unappealing all the way through.

Well, not the cute one left behind. SHE would be worth hitting on!

I just re-read that and it could sound like sarcasm but I am not kidding: I have a serious fixation with the rewind button. Followed by the Slo-mo button. It takes me four hours to watch a two hour movie.˙

All that said, and as much as I disagree that any of this is very Grindhouse at all, Planet Terror is still a really fun time out, and an enjoyable piece of schlock, while Death Proof is, unfortunately, yet more proof that Tarantino's talent these days is far outweighed by his ego, and he no longer knows how to edit things down to distill the best out of himself, but is instead suffering from the delusion that everything he does, and however he does it, is clearly golden. I wanted to love Death Proof, but in the end I didn't even like it. In fact I'd say the film was so unsuccessful, so bloated and smug, that it washed over me with so little effect that I felt almost nothing towards it whatsoever.

Thanks for the great review harry, I loved every second of this film, and listening to one of my best friends bitching about Death Proof on the way out of the theater just made me think, "man, this ain't the place for me".

I'll be seeing Grindhouse at least two more times in theaters...its more than a movie, its an event. And its the kind of event I wish we got every other month. With a little luck, maybe we will someday...

Like so many others here, I have to question when long, self-indulgent dialogue became synonymous with quality filmmaking. How long do they have to talk about the freaking ditch Zoe fell into? As for pacing, starting the movie over again with a new batch of girls was a huge mistake, as evidenced by the audience shifting in their seats and checking their phones for messages. They could have had 3 groups of girls including an origin story for Mike if they had condensed their yammering into about 10 minutes, which still would have been twice as long as needed to establish these very 2-dimensional characters.

Finally, I found the nostrils on the girl in the first half (Vanessa Ferlito) very distracting. Not her fault of course, but not mine either. And if you're going to have a lingering butt shot of someone, maybe make it of someone with a cute butt. I wasn't even sure it was a girl until they panned up.

HOUSE OF 1,000 CORPSES was made on the cheap for only $7 million, but it made $3.5 million -- half its money back -- on opening weekend alone. It went on to make $17 million, so in the end it made a cool $10 million PROFIT. That's some nice pocket change and a good return on the investment. Hollywood likey.

Meanwhile GRINDHOUSE cost $53 million to make, and despite having more "critic acceptable talent" involved such as Tarantino and Rodriquez it still got bad reviews, and for its opening weekend it came in 4th behind a friggin' Ice Cube movie AND it committed the most cardinal sin of all: it only made $11 million or a measly 1/5 of its money back. Hollywood NOT likey.

Going by traditional box office drop off, that means next weekend GRINDHOUSE will probably only make about 5-6 million, still not even bringing it to 20, which is pretty sad. So for now, the movie's clearly perceived as in the LOSS column. Yes, ultimately GRINDHOUSE will likely break even once you take into account DVD sales and such, but its already looking like this thing is going to limp along badly versus scoring big as a surprise hit like 300 turned out to be.

Just as bad, I sincerely doubt that GRINDHOUSE is going to pull a TITANIC where its box office starts going up based on good word of mouth. For crying out loud, just looking at the talkbacks here on AICN. We're all so-called geeks and should be loving this thing...we're the very audience this thing was made FOR...but even here a helluva lot of people DIDN'T like the movie, or at the very least thought the Tarantino half sucked royal ass. So if even the geeks are clearly split on it being good versus being a shitfest, clearly the studio isn't going to get the positive word of mouth that it wanted, no matter how many columns Harry or Moriarity blather on with makeshift excuses how its "our loss" if we didn't love it or how we must be "sick in the end" or outright "anti-woman" for supporting or liking DEATH PROOF. Truth is, this thing bombed and even Harry and Mori can't spin doctor and polish a box office turd at this point.

Which by the way, much as I usually like Mori's reviews and whatnot, is the most half-assed defense for DEATH PROOF that I've heard in ages. I mean, seriously, give me a fucking break. The idea that just because some people went to a Grindhouse film and expected to see more blood and mayhem and cheap theatrics -- right down to seeing more of the women getting it (which would be the WHOLE POINT of it being a Grindhouse film) -- but THEN turning right around and saying that those who didn't like it because it DIDN'T deliver on that Grindhouse promise are "anti woman" or some other ludicrous charges is just whacked in the head and utter bullshit excuse making. Mori's simply pulling the ol' "Let's turn the mirror on the critics" trick to divert attention from the REAL issue at hand, namely the simple fact that DEATH PROOF was weak and a less than stellar outing -- a point that CLEARLY a lot of geeks around here...as well as major entertainment and film critics...agreed on.

Sorry, but now you've slit GRINDHOUSE's throat even MORE with that argument. Yes, you WOULD have to take into account other things like marketing, and in Hollywood the traditional economic model to account for that is to DOUBLE the budget and THAT'S the amount you need to make to recoup all costs -- such as making the film, striking the prints, distributing it, advertising it, etc.

In which case, fine, HOUSE OF 1,000 CORPSES cost $7 million to make...so it needed to make $14 million to break even. So since it made SEVENTEEN in the end (and that's theatrically, not factoring in later DVD sales) you'd still be talking a $3 million PROFIT.

Now let's compare that to GRINDHOUSE. Since YOU brought up the whole "ancillary costs" argument, you're actually making the financial outlook for GH even WORSE.

Using the same model, if GH cost $53 million to make, then doubling that figure to likewise account for production, striking the prints, distribution, advertising...in essence all the same things that we factored against HOUSE...now GH would have to make a whopping $106 million to break even.

And again, keep in mind we only counted the THEATRICAL residuals in the HOUSE equation, so to be completely fair we should only do that here for GH as well. Which means it would need to make $106 million in its theatrical run. That's not good news at all for GH since its opening weekend was only 11 or 12...putting it a staggering $94 million IN THE HOLE at this point in time.

Oh, and by the way, speaking as someone who had a very direct firsthand professional connection to WB back in the day when BATMAN was first released, let me assure you of one fact: they made SERIOUS coin off that movie in its INITIAL release and BEFORE home video, and any claims to the contrary that WB put out -- namely tta it was actually taking a loss on the film during its theatrical release -- was nothing more than WB playing the ol' Hollywood shell game with the ledger books to try and hide the money so it didn't have to pay out to its participants or even the stockholders. Hell, I even remember back in '89-90...that is, as WB was claiming it had "lost money" on BATMAN...the NY TIMES financial section doing an investigative article on just how much the movie REALLY pocketed for the corporation and how WB's claims were utter bunk and just more of Hollywood playing the ol' accounting shell game.

But the "annoying women" that people are really bitching about the loudest was the SECOND set of women -- TO WHOM NOTHING BAD HAPPENED AT ALL. The gripe most of us have is that the second group (Zoe and friends) were utterly annoying and they spent waaaaaaaaay too much screen time talking as part of a QT dialoque jerk fest, which seriously brought DEATH PROOF to a grinding halt and turned the larger portion of it into a true borefest.

So to all those who will defend this no matter what, defend it on its merits and not by personal attacks on those who are criticizing it on its demerits. I didn't hate DP because of the people who liked it, that would be stupid and childish.

The problem with that argument is the PER SCREEN box office. Will Farrell pulled in $23 million on 3,400 screens for an average theater take of $6,800...meanwhile GH was in 2,600 theaters and only managed $4,400 a theater. That's a sizable difference. The bottom line is that despite GH being a 3 hour movie, it still comes down to those who would want to see it so bad that they'd fill those 2,600 theaters and max out the per screen box office. But that didn't happen.

Speaking for myself, my theater on Saturday evening was only about ONE THIRD full at best, which made me and the friend that I was with look at each other and say "Hmm, not looking good here."

Also, you mentioned that maybe the fact that it was Easter weekend hurt it. Well, that can be argued either way. On the one hand, there will be those who'll say the movie DIDN'T perform well BECAUSE it was Easter weekend. But on the flip side, you could just as easily argue that it SHOULD have done well because it WAS Easter weekend, when kids and familys and geekoids were home, and that aside from sitting down for Easter dinner, they'd want to get out and "do something" like see a movie.

And let's be honest: clearly that's why the studio booked the release date for this weekend. They thought the holiday would work in their favor and that teens who were home from school or whatnot would flood out to see this thing. I mean, let's be honest -- it's not like the studio said "Hey, what the best weekend we can choose for KILLING this thing? I know! Let's go with Easter!"

Would he care to try and explain this opening?

On the flip side, give me a fucking break when it comes to DEATH PROOF. After 90 minutes, here's the character arc for Kurt Russell: I try to kill people on the road...and then I try to kill people on the road. And likewise after 90 minutes, here's the character arc for Set of Girls #1: We're annoying, whining, self-centered, egotistical bitches...and after long, boring, heavy dialogue scenes we're STILL annoying, whining, self-centered, egotistical bitches. Who are only topped by that amazing plot driven character arc for Set of Girls #2 which was: We're ALSO a bunch of annoying, whining, self-centered, egotistical bitches...and after a bunch of overly long, boring, heavy handed dialogue scenes we'll STILL be a bunch of annoying, whining, self-centered, egotistical bitches. Boy, what dramatic development! Such reach! Such screenriting genius and insight into the human psyche and characterization! Boy, THOSE arcs were worth 90 minutes of onscreen blathering that went NOWHERE.

Look, were the action scenes in DP done well? Sure. In fact, I'd say the first half of DP -- up to where Kurt is in the hospital -- was basically fine. I would have accepted the annyoing women gabfest up to THAT point if it then turned out that one of them survived and THEN it turned into a true Grindhouse era revenge film with her gathering together some friends to stalk and pay back Kurt. But what I...and clearly many, many others around here are arguing...is that the whole introduction of Set of Girls #2 and being forced to listen to THEIR continual whining, having to go through the blathering all over AGAIN... all of which went NOWHERE and essentially added NOTHING except to waste screen time... was a BIG miscalcuation on QT's part, not to mention the dialoque was fucking flat as hell and overly self-indulgent on QT's part. Those saying it was "real" must live in a parallel universe from those of us that DO live in the real world. I mean, give me a break -- just because you have (1) a strong black woman and (2) she says "Fuck" every other word does NOT make her a "real" character. Hell, my ex-girlfriend WAS black, and let me tell you had I taken her to this movie I KNOW she'd have had a shit fit over the stereotypical Hollywood concept that a "strong black woman" is someone who shakes her hips and who raises and points her index finger to punctuate every other sentence with "Fuck" and "Bitch." To be honest, if I was a modern Black woman, I'd have found the character almost downright insulting. What, we're supposed to buy that she's a professional Hollywood person herself BUT she can't be literate and composed and well-spoken like the other women in the car? Instead she's gotta talk like she just came off a bad episode of THE JEFFERSONS? Talk about a cheap characterization cop out.

In the end, here's the bottom line: when LOTR came out, each of the movies received critical praise at 4 star levels AND were nominated for Oscars, with ROTK actually winning...what, like 12? Do you ACTUALLY think GH or DP was at the level of filmmaking that LOTR was? They're not even in the same league, regardless of the respective genres they're paying homage to.

Oh, and lastly, the whole "You guys who didn't like it must have ADD" argument is so ridiculous, so ass-kissingly apologetic towards Tarantino in an effort to try and excuse simply piss poor screenwriting that's its lame and no one's buying it. In fact, it's why everyone's being so vocal and standing their ground over it. We don't have ADD, but one thing is for sure -- DEATH PROOF was the cure for insomnia.

After reading some of the positive reviews on here, I tried again yesterday, theater-hopping in at the halfway mark (when DP starts), and again, I just couldn't stand it. Listen, I work in fucking strip clubs, and I KNOW how women talk, alright? I don't have ADD, and I'm not out of touch. Hearing quentin's empty, pointless and painfully inauthentic dialogue coming out of those actresses' mouths for ten, fifteen minutes at a time? That's unwatchable.

Anyone who says otherwise is merely attempting damage control.

The reason the box office talk is somewhat interesting is because of a solid point that someone mentioned along the way here. A lot of geeks and action movie fans really wanted GRINDHOUSE to do a helluva lot better simply to ram home the point to all the studios that hardcore, R rated action flicks could become a renewed staple of moviemaking again. As someone noted, IF this had knocked it out of the park and scored big, coming on the heels of the success of "300", that argument would have held some water.

The wacky thing now is "what" studio heads are left thinking. On the one hand, a hard R action film that was a period piece and which centered on ancient history (which you might have thought would ensure its death at the box office) succeeded... meanwhile a hard R action movie that centered on zombies and car stunts bombed. Similarly, the action film directed by essentially the no-name guy did great... meanwhile the movie directed by two established action directors, one of whom was a geek/media darling (Tarantino) bombed.

So right about now the suits in Hollywood are sitting at their desks nursing a drink and thinking "Fuck me. William Goldman was right yet again. No one knows anything."

Somebody else please make fun of that statement. I'm laughing too hard.

SnakePlissken, thanks for agreeing with me on the racial stereotyping of the girl. It just really bugged me, and combined with her piss poor delivery it basically pulled me out of the movie to be honest. However, I can ALMOST buy the DohDoh's argument that since this IS supposed to be a mock exploitation flick, the characters SHOULD be played at their most exploitive level.

On the other hand, DohDoh, where that falls apart is the whole argument that DEATH PROOF supporters are likewise putting forth, namely that QT was "deconstructing" the Exploitation film and all that other psycho-babble to try and cover what was simply a bad script job. Because if QT really WAS trying to deconstruct the genre and Grindhouse films, gee, I guess he shouldn't have made the Black character the typical finger wagging, "Fuck" and "Bitch" swearing street girl we've all grown tired of seeing. Yes, I am white and male, but I really do have to believe that Blacks are tired of perpetually seeing themselves portrayed the same way over and over again -- and I would have to believe (as I said earlier) that would particularly hold true for REAL intelligent Black women out there. You know, like the kind who REALLY DO exist in today's 21st century world. As I noted before as well, the character is SUPPOSED to be a fellow Hollywood professional, so why can't she talk and act as literate as any of the others? Why does the Black woman HAVE to be the overly standard ghetto girl?

In fact, here's another problem I would have with your argument, DohDoh. Its not like QT was setting the film BACK in the Sixties to capitalize on how she acted or spoke. Bottom line, I just felt that she was portrayed as such the stereotype that it was lame. Then again, part of that could be attributed to the fact that -- Kurt Russell aside, who was great -- I thought EVERYONE sucked ass in the acting department for DP. I mean, don't even get me started on how totally bad Zoe was. As others have noted, if QT is in love with her stunt work, that's one thing. Yes, she clung to a hood really, really good. But in terms of acting that woman needs an acting coach and she needs one yesterday...

If they go ahead and release the two features separately in Europe as I've heard, it will be interesting to see how each is received on its own. A large part of the dissatisfaction with DP may come from following such a high-energy visual feast as TP. /No ADHD

Seriously, note to QT: those 5 scenes are what killed DEATH PROOF, again at least in my opinion. They... just... went... on... forever... with... seemingly... no... point. All the plot points you needed could have been covered in 2 shorter scenes, not 5, at which point we could have had MORE Kurt exposition or MORE Kurt ominous stalking moments or even MORE car chase stuff -- any of which would have helped to make DP a far better "Grindhouse" film, which is what it was SUPPOSED to be rather than a boring, gabby episode of the "Young Golden Girls."

In terms of acting ability, I won't go so far as to compare her to Denzel Washington's skills, but I will say the opening scene of her pole dancing was one of the HOTTEST things I've seen on film in ages, particularly since she didn't even remove anything. So that was great "acting" and it gave me a nice, warm feeling that didn't go down -- oops! I meant didn't go away -- for quite a bit into the film. Ahem!

Easter wasn't a factor. And chances are Grindhouse will drop even moreso in the coming weekend, where there are SEVEN new releases to enjoy.

Even Weinstein said it was a disappointment. And the fact that he said said they will tweak "the movie's marketing materials to reinforce to auds that "Grindhouse" will only be a theatrical experience and won't be rolled out on homevideo as one film," is basically saying, hey, we're desperate to get SOME box office business so we're going to play it up like this is a one time experience... don't wait for DVD.

In truth, here's what he's REALLY saying...

"We lost our shirts on this thing, so there's no way in Hell it will be released as one film on DVD. THAT'S why it's a one time theatrical experience. Fuck this shit! I intend to split it up and make you buy TWO DVDs and make TWICE the money off home video sales. Hell, even in terms of people who didn't like DEATH PROOF, there will still be a carry over percentage of "completists" who will pick up the $15 DVD on sale at Best Buy the day it comes out just for the hell of adding it to their collection. So I'll STILL make more money by splitting it up."

Of course, they might keep it together -- that way they can milk it by making you buy the "theatrical version" (the two films together) VERSUS the split apart and "expanded versions" for each film...followed of course by the inevitable "Unrated Grindhouse Directors Cut versions."

Dear Weinsteins: given the piss poor ticket sales on this film, don't think for a second that we don't already see where you're going to go with this once it comes to home video!

...As much as I bitched about it, I would actually support that idea IF they sprung a few million to actually make THANKSGIVING or DON'T or MACHETE or WEREWOLF WOMEN OF THE SS on the cheap and fast and then you actually got one of them when you did buy PLANET TERROR or DEATH PROOF separately. So, yes, they'd be splitting the movie up, but for home video you'd now be getting a "new" double feature.

I mean, come on, the REAL fun to making THANKSGIVING or DON'T or any of the other trailers should be in making them fast, furious, in under 2 weeks and for only a million bucks or something paltry like that (well, paltry relative to usual Hollywood films. I mean, come on, for any of us working Joes, a million bucks is still nothing to sneeze at!). And they should be shot on 16mm or something, all effects have to be old style rubber molds and whatnot, to TRULY recreate Grindhouse filmmaking.

Now THAT would be cool and I would buy it for the sheer fun of it...

Yes, I spend a good chunk of time listening to aggravated females, women with motormouths and "tough" mentalities, holding forth on the exact subjects of weed, text messages and relationships.

Thus I feel qualified to judge: Uncle Quentin claiming his cardboard mouthpieces in DP are "how real women talk" (as he has in some interviews) is ludicrous. You know what had great dialogue? Jackie Brown. You know what had contrived, rehashed nattering? Death Proof.

If that makes you want to "take me down" on a TB, as you so awesomely say, then gosh, do ahead and do your worst...

Seriously, the article at the top of the page proudly proclaims "Grindhouse tanks at the B.O. Right underneath it, in the first comment, is this statement:

"What stands out is the function of the internet and places like Aint It Cool News, CHUD, etc as a megaphone for a very small group: film/video geeks who are upper class and bored, amped up in publicity/awareness beyond their true numbers."

UPPER CLASS AND BORED. They're calling US the bourgeoisie! Not enough to make you mad? How about THIS:

"The internet echo chamber of film geeks, critics totally removed from the tastes of the actual filmgoing public, and pay-me first Hollywood create this bubble that has nothing to do with what Joe Sixpack and his family are going to see or rent this weekend. Look at how shocked the media was when “Wild Hogs” and “300″ opened big. I have to put up all of the time with AICN geeks who predict some pet project will make a gazillion dollars and will be the Biggest Thing Ever only to see it open at oh, $8 million in fifth place opening weekend."

These people hate any movie thats creative and personal. They also claim that AICN tried to KILL 300, which harry, Mori, and everyone else here should be HOPPING mad about.

The jerks the run this site won't even let me post anymore, everytime I try to post I get a message telling me its a duplicate message...and it never went up the first time!

So if you care about Grindhouse, AICN, or just great movies in general, please go to this site and tell these people they're wrong. They clearly hate movies, and its our job to fight back!

Just Copy and Paste the name into your browser, register (it takes 2 minutes tops), and defend this movie against these nitwits who fault RR and QT for trying to provide audiences with "an experience", which the poster says is "always doomed to failure". He then says the only thing that matters is "story" and praises 300 for its "maturity" compared to Grindhouse.

Seriously, this site defends WILD HOGS because its "what the average American wants to see". Can anyone else see the problem with that?

Now is your chance to show these people that AICNers won't take this crap lying down. FIGHT BACK!

The whole problem with Grindhouse is that they're trying to create an "experience" that was terrible when the real thing existed. Sorry, but making a bad 70s exploitation movie in the year 2007 doesn't make you hip, it just means you have no original ideas left and you're just trading on your reputation.

The fact is that the people who post here are a tiny tiny minority of the viewing public. Once you realize that, you won't stress over the fact that Grindhouse won't make back it's $70 mil production costs until DVD sales start flowing in.

McNaughton shot an exterior around Austin, the only other locale than Chicago. I think it's actually the last scene with the luggage drop, IIRC.

You're right, though. Henry's a Chicago film and it was Ebert's review that got it screened across the country which led to it's eventual release.

For a while, I had lost faith in Rodriguez. Pretty much everything he did since El Mariachi I considered fundamentally unsuccessful (I didn't see the spy kid movies), but then came SIN CITY, which was tremendous, and now Planet Terror. I'm back to being a Rodriguez fanboy!

Would I do it? Of course not, nor am I suggesting she's a fraud or anything less than an excellent stuntwoman. But anyone who thinks she's hanging on by her fingernails or risking certain death is fooling themselves. It's a movie stunt. Not real.

Since it was telegraphed that none of these women would die, especially not the girl who didn't fall into the ditch, there was little to no tension when she was on the hood. Since the driving scene wasn't that impressive to begin with, the long wait for the payoff was that much more of a disappointment.

The end, from Kurt's wailing to the boot heel, was great but hardly worth the journey. Did I say journey? I meant odyssey.

And RR absolutely MUST make MACHETE into a full length flick.

Also, did he forget that he was making a grindhouse movie halfway through? The first 20 minutes are laden with poor edits, lost reels, etc. Then we get to the car crash and its all glitz, glamour, computer effects - it didn't fit at all with the overall film.

From that point on, Tarintino loses (or forgets) the poor cuts, the film scratches, everything. It becomes another Dimension movie. Thank God he had a car chase in there (that starts off original, then becomes predictable, then cliche'd with the hwy stuff) otherwise I imagine people would be asking for half-their money back.

Planet Terror? That's cash well spent.

I saw Grindhouse last night, and I was disappointed. The chase sequence and stunts by Zoe Bell were awesome, but it until then it was uninspired and boring. And for my money, if I want to hear "realistic" dialogue, I'll have a fucking conversation? I don't go to movies to see someone attempt to show me real life. Movies aren't real, so don't act like they are capable of delivering authentic real life. Movies can deliver amazing stories and truths, but even documentaries struggle to depict "reality." When I go to see a movie called "Grindhouse," for the love of all things holy, I don't want an ABC Afterschool special.

These words by Harry deserve another look: If you had a miserable time - that's your loss. I absolutely love it. Seen it twice now, and Yoko is demanding I take her as soon as she's back from SC. I found the dialogue to be highly realistic and entertaining. Feel free to disagree though, it is your loss, not mine."

Why is it our loss? Because you're right and we're wrong? Harry, opinions aren't right or wrong, they're just different. There is no way on this Earth that you could have reviewed "Grindhouse" any differently than you did. From the moment the Alamo Drafthouse appears on screen, this movie was guaranteed to give you a great time, and that is great. It's a wonderful thing to see our love on screen, be it a city or a sport. But if we disagree with you, be a grown-up about it.

And Immortal_Fish was dead-on. Harry, you should be ashamed of yourself for your disrespectful treatment of Christians. I don't recall ever reading you slam Jews like you do Christians. That's because you now you'd get your ass destroyed on this site, and rightfully so. I'm an atheist, and I cringe when I read your narrow-minded words. (I also cringe at your butchering of the English language, but you can't help it if you're illiterate.) Why do you think it's acceptable to tear down Christians? That doesn't make you liberal, it makes you a bigot. A rotten little small-minded bigot. In other words, a typical Texan. Go fuck a cow, you lousy excuse for redhead. And pass the sauce.

And before any of you douchebags jump on me for being bigoted toward Texans, I'm employing the tools bigotry to make a point. It's called rhetoric. Now, go back to loving on each other, you sexy beasts.

...But I REALLY agree on the idea that GRINDHOUSE should have been a balls out, full fledged NC-17 film to get back to true grindhouse cinema roots. If they had they gone all out in that way, I think the controversial rating coupled with the media buzz it would have generated would have drastically spiked interested in the thing and certainly helped the box office (if not opening weekend given that it was Easter, then certainly in the weeks thereafter). Not to mention, if Tarantino had gone NC-17 and done MORE car, MORE gore, MORE Kurt in an over the top grindhouse way, half the bitching here about the overly long dialoque scenes and dragging pace would be moot.

So, yeah, I think they blew it there. They should have made the films for less, but likewise gone more balls out in terms of the actual onscreen envelopes of "taste" that they were pushing.

Tarantino was never going to make a straight up exploitation movie, and if he did, he came closer with KILL BILL VOL. 1. We had to know the girls, like and dislike them a little and see them interact with Stuntman Burt. In a traditional slasher flick, they would have been picked off one by one. Instead, we get a set up. I liked how the Hollywood girls were very different than the Austin girls, although I generally don't like movies about "movie" people because it always seems like the filmmaker is losing touch. Still, we needed a set up for Zoe Bell.

I think the difference between DEATH PROOF and PLANET TERROR is in the slight difference between QT's and RR's ages. Like someone said, PLANET TERROR seemed like a really good Cannon Film, while DEATH PROOF was a more like a '70s film. Movies were paced differently before STAR WARS, RAIDERS, and THE ROAD WARRIOR. I liked both movies, but I'm favoring DEATH PROOF a little.

Here's a half hour interview with Q where he addresses much of the complaints I seem to be seeing here RE: length, dialogue, pacing, what Grindhouse was meant to be and what it wasn't, what Death Proof was meant to be and what it wasn't...

But fair warning: this is a 30 minute "interview" and there are lots of pesky little things called "words" so if you're not a big fan of paying attention, you may want to steer clear.

From 3/28 in L.A.: http://www.kcrw.com/etc/progra ms/tt/tt070328quentin_tarantin o