Previous Comments

[1] On Apr-09-2007, matt wrote:

re-releasing these two films will take away from the grindhouse feel...please dont dare do this!!!

[2] On Apr-09-2007, Matt wrote:

UGH.

I don't like how this guy is playing it off like it's the fault of the people involved...how about he touches on how it was released against a ton of kiddy-movies on Easter weekend?

Or, maybe how they didn't bother making any attempts to advertise this movie to women? Death Proof really IS a chick flick deep down in it, and my girlfriend really enjoyed it. Granted, she's a QT fan, but she made note that she liked it for more than just that, but she liked all the female characters and everything.

I think they did a bold thing putting this out as one film to begin with, but to separate it now...well, that'd just show the hard truth that it was only for the money to begin with. They saw two great directors with an original idea and thought that they could cash in on it.

This is a mega-bummer.

[3] On Apr-09-2007, Travis wrote:

I HEARD THERE ONLY DOING THAT IN INTERNATION COUNTRYS...NOT THE US.

BUT I HAVE NO PROBLEM JUST PAYING FOR TARANTINOS MOVIE, I THOUGHT IT WAS WAY BETTER THEN RODRIGUEZS ANYWAYS.

[4] On Apr-09-2007, Big Ben wrote:

Hmmm... Maybe the low box office numbers were because he released the movie ON EASTER WEEKEND!!! It's kind of hard to sell the idea of going to see Grindhouse to Grandma and Grandpa and then try to sneak your 30 somethin little cousins into a movie that is a borderline NC-17.

Oh and did anyone see the spoof trailer that did not make the American Release. It's called "Hobo with a Shotgun."

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

[5] On Apr-09-2007, Gilbert Smith wrote:

If they were the extended versions, I'd go see it again in halves. As long as Grindhouse is given a full theatrical run FIRST, this is GOOD news. All it means is a bonus run of extended edition Grindhouse. It means we get to see Grindhouse again, it means Grindhouse makes more money, and that means studios see that experimental films can do just fine at the box office. As long as they're not pulling the first run, there is nothing actually wrong with this idea.

[6] On Apr-10-2007, Garth wrote:

"As long as Grindhouse is given a full theatrical run FIRST, this is GOOD news."

Right, except for the fact that, ESPECIALLY if they split it in two, you can say good-bye to any sequels. If they actually spend the extra money to recut the movies, make new prints and do new advertising, there is NO way that they greenlight a sequel, because that shows they've got zero faith in it.

[7] On Apr-10-2007, Matt Rosen wrote:

We've still got the original versions so I'm not too outraged. If this saves the Weinstein company long enough to get Bastards produced (assuming Quentin doesn't decide to take another seven year vacation, maybe this will be a kick in the ass to get working finally).

The trouble is: it won't. Planet Terror might do alright, but Death Proof isn't the type of movie that can draw a crowd on its own. As much as I loved Death Proof (and do consider the better of the 2 movies), it kinda depends on the leftover energy from the first feature to get to the payoff.

As for it being a blasphemic concept, a lot of people didn't want to see it for the sole reason of its length (I even saw a ticket-seller discouraging moviegoers by reminding them how long it was before selling tickets). If you don't put any emotional effort into your own entertainment, you'll never be truly entertained. The people who'd rather see it split deserve the inferior versions. It's the natural order. They'll hate it, and they'll tell their friends, and their friends won't see it but won't hesitate to tell their friends how much it sucked. Those who loved the original will tell their friends not bother, and the cycle of people not seeing Grindhouse will continue unaltered.

[8] On Apr-10-2007, Toothpick Nick wrote:

To add to Matt Rosen's opinion, I think all the public has heard about Grindhouse are the "bad points," while a lot of its "good points" weren't communicated.

I read the article referenced in this post, which claims that Harvey Weinstein said the movie was "not as well advertised in the north and the south." I think it wasn't well advertised at all! I'm a Quentin Tarantino fanatic, so of course I've searched this movie to death on the net. But if I didn't do that, I would have seen a little poster for a strange-looking film in the metro two weeks before the release like everyone else. There are so many good things in these two movies. I think the public just didn't know what they were missing.

Most of all, I think the two films - especially Death Proof - are extremely female-friendly. However, I think the movie came across as an adrenaline-macho-action movie with lots of blood, which is a shame. I find there's something in them for everybody, ESPECIALLY women. I think women could have warmed to the fact that it was a salute to grindhouse cinema if they had known what personable characters they would meet in Death Proof, what a ride they would go on with them, and how much they would be rooting for them in the end.

Where was Grindhouse in Vanity Fair magazine? On Desperate Housewives commercial breaks? In trailers before movies marketed to women? I think when Weinstein says he "missed the boat," this is precisely "where" he missed it.

[9] On Apr-10-2007, JACK TERRI wrote:

I'm sad where we live in a day and age where people are intimidated by the length of a movie.
Would people today go to see The good the bad and The ugly, The deer hunter or Dances with wolves? Or would they be scared of by the fairly long running times?

[10] On Apr-10-2007, Matt wrote:

hahahahahahahahhahah!! they're dumb, by the time they re-release it, people have already seen grindhouse together, but i really wanna see who wins after they seperate them, RR or QT... ding ding ding!

[11] On Apr-10-2007, Ethan wrote:

That fucking Weinstein he shouldn't split Grindhouse up. It defeats the whole fucking purpose. This movie was fucking awesome and it needs to stay the way it is. That is fucking bullshit splitting Grindhouse up. Just because a bunch of pussy ass film goers don't want to see a great fucking movie isn't the fault of the two greatest directors Tarantino & Rodriguez.

[12] On Apr-10-2007, JACK TERRI wrote:

Your average film goer is getting stupider, it seems. I mean who in their right minds would go to see that damn Will Ferrell ice skating movie.

[13] On Apr-10-2007, P wrote:

People have seemed to miss the point, that "grindhouse" just isn't for everyone. And I saw the trailers run all the time, so it had nothing to do with advertising, people who wanted to see grindhouse saw it in its first week, if not the weekend. To think that your average movie goer is going to see "grindhouse" is crazy, it sems that we have missed the whole point of the movie....the movie is based on the type of films that "didn't" do good at the box-office in the first place, so to think this would be a runaway hit is somewhat-crazy. It also didn't help that it was released during "easter", but still, all the so-called fans of their work should have been enough to at least give it a better number. At least we'll see it on dvd sooner, since they got to recoup that money that was spent.

[14] On Apr-10-2007, ColinS wrote:

"...Death Proof isn't the type of movie that can draw a crowd on its own."

I respectfully disagree Matt (post #7).

QT will be taking the full cut to Cannes (I seriously hope "in competition", but it will certainly be welcomed "un certain regard.")

This little genre bender, sublime gem is a work of art of the highest order. It is going to get a hugh buzz on it's own merits. It's just getting a bit lost by the "fans" who have the wrong notion that all grindhouse cinemas just showed wall to wall trash, sleazy, and/or low production action, and they were disappointed by it's intelligence (of course the lowest common denominator has been saying "boring").

I love "Death Proof" for the beautiful masterpiece it is (just the first half alone should be studied in film school; pure cinematic poetry). Tarantino blew my mind with this movie and I had very low expectations going to see the back-to-back movies "Grindhouse" experience.

PS, I am ambivalent about the Weinstein Company's US distribution "plan" to separate the movies for a new run at the box offices.

[15] On Apr-10-2007, Alex wrote:

if any of you have myspace (or similar)accounts let's post bulletins asking people to go see the movie! Also ask to repost the bulletins.

[16] On Apr-10-2007, Connor Bell wrote:

What the heck? Grindhouse was amazingly great! All my friends agreed, this was the best movie experience we've ever had! The executive producers should just leave it the way it is, and suck it up. It'll do better, after all, it was only the first weekend. Give it time, Tarantino never fails!

[17] On Apr-10-2007, Matt wrote:

hey whoever runs this site, should make a forum so we can talk like this hehe but about QT stuff

[18] On Apr-10-2007, JACK TERRI wrote:

I agree and also I hope that the QT Archives are up and running again soon.

Has it been gone for a solid week now? If not it certainly feels that long.

[19] On Apr-10-2007, faucethead wrote:

While I loved the Grindhouse experience, I actually think Tarantino's segment suffered from the double-feature format. Death Proof is very experimental, structurally: the first half of the movie is deconstructed in the second half. While a very interesting idea, it means that Death Proof has essentially two endings. On top of that you have the ending of RR's segment,plus, the ending of Grindhouse. Put it all together and you have something very different from the rising action-climax-falling action plot diagram we all memorized in 7th grade.

Because I think Death Proof is a much better movie as a stand alone, I want to see it released separately. But I don't want it to be released separately because the Grindhouse concept failed at the box office.

I don't think RR's Planet Terror survives artistically as a stand alone. The movie leans so heavily on the Grindhouse motif that if you strip it from its context, there is really nothing left except for jelly-filled skin leisions and melting testicles. But maybe that's your thing.

[20] On Apr-11-2007, Gilbert Smith wrote:

Planet Terror is some of the best pure viscera ever put to screen along with some great character scenes. I think it'll work just fine on its own.

But then I'm still fresh out of the Grindhouse experience. When I see them on their own, that's when I'll cast final judgement, but I'm pretty sure Planet Terror is Rodriguez's best film yet.

[21] On Apr-11-2007, Brando wrote:

I agree with pretty much everything ColinS said. I loved both movies so much, but Death Proof blew my mind. The whole experience was incredible and it really saddens me that they want to split the films. I think the Weinsteins should just leave it alone and let it run its course and theater. It's not like theyre not going to make a killing on dvd sales alone. I was wondering, do Robert and Quentin have any say in this at all?

[22] On Apr-11-2007, Brando wrote:

I also agree that these films are not for everyone, and releasing it Easter weekend was a curious move. However, I think that cutting it up and re-releasing them seems like a panicked overreaction. For one, it's going to confuse people. Second, it's ruining everything that this film set out to do. Quentin and Robert had the idea to do a double feature and recreate the grindhouse experience, and they did a fucking awesome job! Are the Weinsteins going to freak out every time one of their films is hyped and under-performs? Hm, probably, but I just don't think they should tamper with it. What I believe it comes down to is, sadly, alot of people just don't have the attention span for this kind of project. Releasing it Easter weekend was a kick in the pants too. Who knows, maybe it will be a sleeper. I went again tonight and the theater was full. Versus the first time I went and it was hardly half full.

[23] On Apr-11-2007, JACK TERRI wrote:

Yeah, good question: Do QT And Robert have a say in whether or not this movie gets divided in two by the weinsteins?

[24] On Apr-11-2007, Pete wrote:

Planet Terror was fun but I still like From Dusk Til Dawn more. Planet Terror was just action and some gore and none of it really shocked or impressed me too much.

[25] On Apr-11-2007, misterpink867 wrote:

the forum that was on here was so mucb better though.

[26] On Apr-11-2007, Patrick_Ryan wrote:

Fucking horrible. You might as well not go to either if they're split up. The wohle idea is to simulate an experience. Idiocy wins again.

[27] On Apr-12-2007, Raul Gonzales wrote:

I strongly believee Grindhouse will do better this weekend. Reasons: Word of mouth, no other big new realeses. I will be willing to bet that it will be in the top 3.

As for spliting it in half. In my opinion, it will be better to do so when it goes to DVD. It makes better marketing sense as well as consumer sense. Once the movies go on DVD it will no longer have the same Drive-Inish, 70ish theater feel to it as watching it on the big screen.

The move should not happen now, the whole purpose was to create that feeling of the era of movie exploitaiton, which was done perfectly. I hope they do not give up on this idea and decide to do another double feature. My hats off to both of them.

[28] On Apr-12-2007, JACK TERRI wrote:

ITV.com quote QT as saying that GH will now be split in 2 for international release, with both features being extended with added footage.

I wonder does this mean it will be split in 2 in the UK and ireland?

If so then this is the shittiest news I have ever heard and it has ruined my YEAR!

[29] On Apr-12-2007, adam wrote:

i wont be seeing this movie until next weekend, so hopefully it will still be around in its 3 hour form until then

[30] On Apr-12-2007, Ben wrote:

Noooooo!

The cutting of the films into two features has already happened. I live in Appleton, Wisconsin. Tomorrow (Friday), the theatre is putting the films on 2 separate screens. What a shame. The suits strike again.

[31] On Apr-13-2007, misterpink867 wrote:

i live in a super small town in indiana. we had two showings of GH last week when it opened. they're not going to split up the film where i live at least. it would cost them too much money. no one around here has any interest in it.

especially when that hitchcock rip-off comes out today. what garbage.

[32] On Apr-13-2007, Jesus M wrote:

Quentin Interview on OPie and Anthony

http://break.com/index/quentin_tarantino_on_opie_and_anthony2.html

[33] On Apr-13-2007, Charles s wrote:

Knowing how particular Quentin Tarantino is, and how meticulous his movies appear to be edited. Knowing how many movies these two great directors have put together. I wonder if this isn't just a stunt to create more buzz for the movies.

I highly doubt, knowing the huge clout that both of these directors have, that it is legal for the company to even split the movie into two seperate runs.

Especially since it isn't really two seperate movies.

That's like saying Four Rooms was four different films.

Time length or not, the movie is in the box office, and the deal is done. If they pull it and chop it up, then there's even less of a reason to see these movies.

Sure, the movies themselves could probably stand on their own, but the value is in the fact that they are sold as a two for one feature. You try and sell the same ticket price for one of those movies? MMM, point lost, not going.

Charles

[34] On Apr-13-2007, Evan wrote:

Just saw it 2 days ago and man, was it BLAST! I like both of the parts equally and by the end of the "experience", everyone was clapping. Fucking Awesome.

[35] On Apr-13-2007, Ben wrote:

~Charles, you make some very good point, but...

"I highly doubt, knowing the huge clout that both of these directors have, that it is legal for the company to even split the movie into two separate runs."

Clout doesn't matter when your movie pulls in $12 million on opening weekend.
The Weinstein brothers own the rights to the film, they can do what they want with it. Besides, the cutting of the films has already happened. The movie has been cut in one theater, (Marcus UltraScreen)in Appleton, WI (pop. of northeast wisconsin is 200,000+).

I hope it doesn't spread.

See it in its original form while you can.

Damn suits!

[36] On Apr-13-2007, Ben wrote:

GRINDHOUSE: DEATH PROOF (R)
4:30, 9:30 100min.

GRINDHOUSE: PLANET TERROR (R)
1:30, 7:30 91min.

[37] On Apr-14-2007, Alex wrote:

i wonder if the theater management just split the Grindhouse in half themselves, because 100min plus 91min is 191min. Original Grindshouse lenght is 192 minutes...

[38] On Apr-14-2007, JACK TERRI wrote:

That sounds about right Alex.
When/if they split it up properly they will add the extra footage that will go in for the separate releases overseas.

[39] On Apr-14-2007, Matt wrote:

Grindhouse
[18A] (CL) 3hr 10min - Dolby Digital
3:40 7:30

im going today, i guess im still lucky, i very highly doubt my theatre with 10 theatres in it will split up grindhouse, they'll most likely just take it out.

[40] On Apr-14-2007, Marcus wrote:

I'd like to say that Planet Terror was better than Death Proof even though I was not expecting to feel that way at all, being a gigantic fan of QT and standard fan of Rodriguez. When PT's missing reel came on I thought it was hilarious, when DP's missing reel came on I was pissed because I knew they shot that shit (lapdance scene) and I thought it'd be one of the best parts. I didn't feel I missed anything with PT, but I felt like I missed a good chunk of gold from Death Proof along with photos I've seen with the broads heading over to a Circle K. Planet Terror was much more thrilling and entertaining and anyone who disagrees is either a gearhead or such a Tarantinophile they've let their lust for him cloud their judgement. Not that I'm saying I disliked DP, it's a pretty badass picture, but I expected more from it. For instance more than one vehicular death scene, also there was a tad too much female chatter that could've been spent on getting to know Stuntman or even the girls on a more personal level other than their cheeky banter and believe me I know Tarantino is all about superfluous conversations, that's why I was excited about his movie the most, but some discretion please, it is afterall supposed to be an exploitation movie. Tarantino seems a little cocky with his dialogue and being such a film muff should've realized that a hardcore grindhouse film-goer would be throwing popcorn at the screen during that diner scene. Any-hoo, I wasn't complaining about it after my viewing (I was still giddy), just reading some comments that said DP was way better than PT just riled those feelings up and out of me. Needless to say re-realeasing the picture in two parts with extra footage would be EXPLOITING the loyal fans who the movie was meant for in the first place. IRONY! I didn't read all of the comments so excuse me if someone already pointed that out, but it was just too juicy to pass on.

[41] On Apr-14-2007, Marcus wrote:

And when I say "superfluous" dialogue, I mean his brand of superfluous conversations that tickles my fancy so much got me more hyped for his segment. I didn't mean superfluous dialogue in general, that would just be retarded. "Oh, yeah, that movie would've better if they talked about whole bunch of shit that had no importance. The more extra dialogue the better, I say." Negro, please.

[42] On Apr-14-2007, Alex wrote:

to reply to the comment above-
many people seeem to complain about long and chatty dining scene in Death Proof. Has nayone noticed that it's an uninterrupted 7 minutes take? There is no cuts and all dialog was done in one sitting. I thought it was amazing. I didn't enjoy the first long dialog scene at first, but in retrospective i like it because those two long dialog scenes are basically the comparison of characters between the first and the second group of girls.
No one should judge Death Proof as the continuation of Planet Terror. If DP was shown on its own no one would complain how slowly it begins. Double features are not all about showing similar films but sometimes about experiencing totally different films back to back.

[43] On Apr-14-2007, Matt wrote:

i too loved the 7 minute without interuption i think it's amazing and its on of QT's trademarks

[44] On Apr-14-2007, Marcus wrote:

Alex, in no way was I implying that Death Proof was a continuation of Planet Terror nor did I say that they should've been alike in any way. I just thought Death Proof was less whole as a movie in itself because of the double feature status that required a shorter version. If the movie was shown by itself I would have no problem (not that I had too big of a problem with it in the first place) with the long bull sessions if the movie was longer and they'd put more story and action in it. The thing is, obviously, they needed to trim it for the sake of the average restless movie-goer, but if you're gonna cut it up for the double feature wouldn't you think you'd leave more of the exploitive elements in, being that your paying homage to exploitation movies? Obviously, all exploitation films aren't action-packed zombie movies but they're supposed to be quite risqué there was plenty of room for his trademark dialogue but he could've gotten rid of some of that

[45] On Apr-14-2007, Marcus wrote:

... for some exploitive shit. It was like Planet Terror knew it was what it was, but Death Proof was it's own movie, more of an homage to '70's car chase flicks than an homage to grindhouse cinema as a whole, and really didn't want to be cut up and shown with with all other stuff or it was more of an exploitatation homage flick but they cut out all the really hardcore exploitive shit, which wouldn't make sense. I agree with you, Death Proof would do better as a solo than Planet Terror, but that's because they'd have to put more scenes which is what I was craving, but that doesn't mean it was better for the Grindhouse experience. One true kill scene, no nudity or sex (I don't mean to be a boor, but that's what the Grindhouse is all about, especially with an almost all gal cast), and a hot heaping a load of talk may make a good Tarantino movie but doesn't add up to an exploitation movie, ken? I'm not the kind of guy who watches movies for those elements but if you're gonna pay homage to the films that glorify said elements you might wanna include some of them. Now I'm already on edge to get my hands on the DVD so I can see the DP deleted scenes which might've been one of Tarantino and/or the Weinstein's ploys to make more money from hot to trot fans.

[46] On Apr-14-2007, Scott wrote:

So, I guess this is what happens when the suits take a bath. I suppose that because I practically grew up in the drive-in theatres of the 70's I found the double feature aspect of this picture to be a genuine representation of that era. It's definately not being split up because of the length. I remember people lined up for city blocks to see the 194 minute movie about the big sinking ship, and they lined up the same to see the 188 minutes of the green mile. But I suppose that if you would have split these movies up people would have been obligated to pay twice to see the entire movie. Oh hey, maybe I hit on something there. While Grindhouse was billed as a double feature, I don't remember an intermission between the two which makes it a SINGLE film. It was meant to be seen back to back. So it seems the Weinsteins are merely exploiting the fact that it was billed as a double feature to draw two different types of crowds, Rodriquez fans to one and Tarantino fans to the other. What a shame, I believe what makes the experience of Grindhouse complete is that these two films each work off the other. This situation reminds me of a farmer I knew that sold wood for a living. One day he cut down a tree and sawed it into 12" lengths. After loading them into his truck, I told him that he had a fine load of wood. He replied that after he put the pieces through his log splitter he would have twice as much.

[47] On Apr-14-2007, Garth wrote:

"Planet Terror was much more thrilling and entertaining and anyone who disagrees is either a gearhead or such a Tarantinophile they've let their lust for him cloud their judgement."

Or they just have a different opinion than you. I could say that you're a complete retard for liking PT better, but I'm a person who realizes that different people like different shit.

No reason for you to be an asshole because people have a different opinion than you.

It's like the saying goes, opinions are like assholes. Everyone has one.

And, in your case, you are one.

[48] On Apr-14-2007, Mr. X wrote:

7 minute shot with no cuts...

See:

Brian DePalma

and

Robert Altman

It is not one of QT's trademarks.

It was a cool shot though.

[49] On Apr-15-2007, Marcus wrote:

Garth, you're the type of guy who when someone gives you an opinion you disagree with, you say, "Hey, but that's just your opinion," like the person doesn't know he's stating an opinion. When someone says, "I can't believe you liked Stealing Christmas, that movie was goddamned terrible. You don't know good movies," that's an opinion, which obviously doesn't make it invalid. That also doesn't mean said person has to let everyone know it's an opinion for instance, "I personally thought Stealing Christmas sucked, but, hey, that's just my opinion." Anyone that timid shouldn't bother giving an opinion at all. Okay, I was being a bit glib on the two major reasons I'd think someone would like Death Proof more, I could've added a few more, and included the completely redundant "Or that's just your opinion which I don't really grasp. We're all different and that's okay!" I was just speaking with some conviction. I don't understand why'd you'd be so touchey, I wasn't knocking DP. I liked it and wanted to see more of it than I got. An articulate guy would've just said why he thought it was better and added an asshole in it for me, but I guess all you had to do is put in the asshole to get the point across. And of course you could call me a retard for liking Planet Terror more, why not? I don't care, you chuck any clumsy insult you want at me, I'll take solace in the fact that I'm being berated by some ass who'd rather use dull jibes than points to express his opinions like an adult.

[50] On Apr-15-2007, Sam wrote:

About the rumor of re-releasing Grindhouse as 2 seperate films.
I live in Australia and the film is still being advertised as Grindhouse. Not seperately as Quentin Tarantino's Death Proof and Robert Rodriguez's Planet Terror. Its released in a few weeks over here on May 10th.

Does anyone know if it will stay as a Double Feature? I hope it does!

Thanks

[51] On Apr-15-2007, Pete wrote:

The difference between the two movies is: Tarantino has lived and breathed exploitation cinema his entire life and since he knows what it is all about from A-Z, he decided to deconstruct/reinvent the genre in his own unique way. Rodriguez isnt as well versed in Exploitation cinema so his film is a pretty straight forward cover so to speak.

[52] On Apr-15-2007, Larry wrote:

I gotta agree with Marcus, Death Proof felt a little incomplete. If Tarantino disagreed he wouldn't have brought the extra footage to Cannes. He's known to never put back deleted scenes into his completed films. He doesn't believe in the Director's Cut, so there must be some stuff he really wanted to have in the final cut.

[53] On Apr-15-2007, Anton wrote:

There wasn't any titis and ass but there was a ton of barefeet and that's about as arousing as it gets for Tarantino. So there was a big explotive element in Death Proof for people with foot fetishes, although he could've had a foot job scene, but that've been a little much, no?

[54] On Apr-16-2007, Garth wrote:

"I'll take solace in the fact that I'm being berated by some ass who'd rather use dull jibes than points to express his opinions like an adult."

Yeah, you're right. Calling someone deluded for liking one movie more than the other is a very adult way to express your opinion.

Bravo to you! I'm impressed that you're willing to kill or die for you convictions that PT was a better, more complete movie, I only wish that I could do the same.

You have your convictions that PT was better, so is it wrong that I liked both movies to a similar degree and therefore don't have your oh-so-mature-and-adult convictions?

Well, if that's the case, then I'm sorry. I'm sorry that I don't feel the need to berate the masses that might like one movie more than the other.

If you so desparately need this victory, then take it. I don't mind. As far as I'm concerned...
It's Only a Movie,
It's Only a Movie,
It's Only a Movie,
It's Only a Movie,
It's Only a Movie.

[55] On Apr-17-2007, Marcus wrote:

I only meant you'd be immature if the only retort you had was that I was a retard or an asshole. I like a rebuttle to be peppered with insults while still having valid points. It's not about being classy. And all conviction (and I did only say some) means is a firm belief, a passion if you will. I wouldn't die for it, I know it's not a big deal, but damn it if I won't use generalizations to get a point across. It's not "an adult way to express an opinion" it's just an opinion, one that's not very placid. And as for any victor? This is just an exchange of thoughts, friend. There are no winners, just meditators and listeners. No big deal.

[56] On Apr-17-2007, KW wrote:

Face it, the true grindhouse experience is dead and gone and we're just wading through Tarantino and Rodriguez's collective memories. As good as the film may be (or at least Tarantino's half), there's nothing replicating the experience they want us to have, because most of us will probably be seeing it in upscale theatres that actually clean the trash off their floor and don't allow you to bring your own food, let alone foreign substances. Where are the hookers giving head in the balcony or the drugged-up psychopaths in the seats behind you? Christ, the theatre barely had any people in it when I went to see the film. And forget about seeing the film any later than an 8:30 showing. Apparently the theatre managers don't want to miss sleep on account of my enjoyment. I might as well wait for the DVD to replicate the true grindhouse experience.

[57] On Apr-18-2007, b.one wrote:

this movie will be on Cannes and you can be sure it will win something...

[58] On Apr-18-2007, JACK TERRI wrote:

I highly doubt that it will win anything because I doubt that it will be entered in competition.
It will be a part of the out of competition section at Cannes.

Does anyone know if Planet Terror will also be at Cannes?

[59] On Apr-19-2007, Ulee wrote:

"Where are the hookers giving head in the balcony or the drugged-up psychopaths in the seats behind you?" Too fuggin' right, K-Dub. That would'a rocked my world. The theater you went to sounds terrible. No eleven or midnight showing? That's balls! I don't care Grindhouse is box-office bust, the directors aren't gonna be ostrasized from show business. They're rep goes unfettered. And the producers should'a promoted it more and Easter weekend?, so nuts to them. I know there won't be anymore double feature follow-ups, but they're could be "GRINDHOUSE presents" movies where it's just one flick, but with the fake trailers, like "GRINDHOUSE presents Quentin Tarantino's 'BLAH, BLAH, BLAH'" or whatever.

[60] On Apr-19-2007, JACK TERRI wrote:

My mistake: Death Proof is up for the Palm D'Or at Cannes.

[61] On Apr-20-2007, Garth wrote:

"I know there won't be anymore double feature follow-ups, but they're could be "GRINDHOUSE presents" movies where it's just one flick, but with the fake trailers"

I think that's a really cool idea.

Recent Grind House Headlines

Or check out all the entries in the Grind House category.