EW aversion

email this story
read comments (38)
post a comment

I've read Chris Nashawaty's Entertainment Weekly cover story (issue #927) on Grindhouse twice, and it seems curious that there's not even a mention -- not even a wisecrack -- about the emotional upheaval that resulted from Planet Terror director Robert Rodriguez's indiscretion with costar Rose McGowan during shooting early last year, and his wife-producer, Elizabeth Avellan, finding out and freaking and then suing for divorce, and Rodriguez allegedly suffering some kind of emotional meltdown and the shoot being somewhat more difficult because of this.

As this was reportedly seismic at the time (i.e., to judge from what Planet Terror crew people told other people), you would think it might rate a brief mention. (Can one discuss the making of Cleopatra without at least mentioning the Liz Taylor- Richard Burton affair?) EW isn't People and what happened off-set (or in the trailers) doesn't belong in any substantial way in Nashawaty's story, but not even anecdotally? The omission seems like a chickenshit call on someone's part.

Resonates at a given time<< previous | next >>Censorship in Wilton

Posted by Jeffrey Wells on March 24, 2007 at 4:17 PM

comment #1

fnt says ...

They also get the budget WAY wrong (It's far higher). But, hey, it's not like anyone expects investigative journalism from EW.

I have the feeling, btw, this may be the ruination of the Weinstein Company.

R-Rated Movie that is more than 3 hours long and cost nearly a hundred million (with P & A). And apparently it ain't tracking so hot. You do the math.

Posted by fnt at March 24, 2007 5:56 PM

comment #2

D.Z. says ...

fnt: The Weinsteins are already ruined. They don't even produce most of their own movies anymore. They're mainly just an outlet for straight-to-video trash.

Posted by D.Z. at March 24, 2007 6:43 PM

comment #3

CitizenKanedforChewingGum says ...

Where are you getting your budget info, fnt? Every source I've checked (variety, boxofficemojo, wikipedia, imdb) has it listed within the $50-$53 million range. This jives with Rodriguez's generally thrifty productions, and is actually quite decent given the 3-hour+ running time and the filmmakers involved. Why all the hate for this movie, sight unseen? Go hate on Michael Bay, or hell, even Spiderman 3. Tarantino's a class filmmaker, and even if he never reaches the highs of Pulp Fiction, his deep love for cinema consistently seeps into the costume design and the soundtracks of every one of his films. You do the math.

Posted by CitizenKanedforChewingGum at March 24, 2007 6:57 PM

comment #4

Circumvrent says ...

My big problem with the EW story is Rose McGowan. Too damn gaunt! She looks like Annette Funicello...NOW.

Usually, I could give a shit about behind the scenes stuff...but did Rodriguez and his wife get back to together? I've read conflicting stuff about that.

Posted by Circumvrent at March 24, 2007 8:03 PM

comment #5

Circumvrent says ...

Addendum: the PREMIERE - may it rest in piece - story on GH didn't mention the McGowan/Rodriguez thing till the very end, and it was two sentences placed inside a paragraph after a quote from McGowan. I guess it isn't enough of a story to merit any real investigation.

Posted by Circumvrent at March 24, 2007 8:04 PM

comment #6

goodvibe61 says ...

All the Tarantino haters out there (and for whatever reason there are many, many of them) will start the chant about how EXTRAVAGANT the budget for this film is. Give me a break.

Brief flashback: The same thing happened for both parts of Kill Bill. I distinctly remember Dave Poland going on and on and on and on about how dreadful those films were, and how "ridiculously out of control" the budget was for them. I remember him going on and on about the budget and the marketing costs, and then, when the first Kill Bill had made enough money worldwide to cover ALL COSTS associated with the production, he wanted to keep stretching the budget to be bigger and bigger, it was a laugh riot.

The Weinsteins made tens of millions of dollars on Kill Bill when it was all said and done. Just an insane amount of money. Anyone who tells you otherwise is lying, and/or hates Tarantino.

Everyone knows the ability Rodriguez has to keep the costs down at his studio. He's known for it. He does this, what he likes to call movie making "Mariachi Style", by writing, directing, photographing, editing, production designing, sound editing, visual effects making, doing every damn thing himself. Somebody tell me all the movies he's made that were budgeted at more than 50 million dollars....Let me know.

I'm sure in the coming weeks we'll all hear how Grind House is one of the most expensive movies ever made, or some other bullshit. People will literally grasp at straws to take QT down.

Perhaps the film will tank, who knows? I'm not counting on it though. I'm thinking the worst case would be the Weinstein's breaking even. And if the movie clicks, more big bucks.

Posted by goodvibe61 at March 24, 2007 8:32 PM

comment #7

jeffmcm says ...

"The Weinsteins are already ruined. They don't even produce most of their own movies anymore. They're mainly just an outlet for straight-to-video trash."

I sincerely hope this is true. I like Tarantino, but I hate the Weinsteins and their negative effect on movies.

Posted by jeffmcm at March 24, 2007 8:36 PM

comment #8

D.Z. says ...

jeff: I hate Quentin "presenting" films he helped bury with Harvey for 3-5 years.

Posted by D.Z. at March 24, 2007 9:29 PM

comment #9

jeffmcm says ...

At least he presented them, as opposed to the dozens of films that they never released in any way.

Posted by jeffmcm at March 24, 2007 9:39 PM

comment #10

Joe Leydon says ...

Jeff: With all due due respect, the Weinsteins have done more for cinema than you ever will. If you don't like them -- hell, if you hate them -- fine. But because of them, there are dozens of movies that have been made and/or released that might not have seen the light of day otherwsie. I know you have this chronic dislike of them (and Jeff), but you cannot argue that point.

Posted by Joe Leydon at March 24, 2007 9:50 PM

comment #11

D.Z. says ...

jeff: And he presented them with changed music and inaccurate subs.

Posted by D.Z. at March 25, 2007 1:04 AM

comment #12

jeffmcm says ...

Joe: Sure I can argue this point, at least to the extent that the Weinsteins have done more harm than good. Granted, they released some quality movies, but they never did it out of cinephilia - if they actually loved the films they acquired, they wouldn't have locked so many of them up undistributed for so many years. They're shameless huckster businessmen. Granted that's a term that applies to most Hollywood producers, but most don't have their level of hypocrisy in giving lip service to 'independent film' while turning all their profits towards setting up Dimension and making Halloween and Hellraiser sequels.

Posted by jeffmcm at March 25, 2007 2:10 AM

comment #13

fnt says ...

CitizenKanewhatever - I never mentioned the quality of the film. I merely commented on the business aspect of it. Save your knee jerk platitudes to QT for somewhere else. I'm a fan, but also a realist.

And my sources are accurate. More accurate than Variety, imdb or whoever quotes from the studio sheet. I know you checked the "internet" but god forbid the Weinsteins might play fast and loose with numbers. They certainly have a history of that -- just check every opening weekend for a Miramax film ever.

We'll see how a 3+ hour long film plays. I feel like it'll have a great opening weekend and decline very steeply. Steeply enough for this to be a problem. To discount the running time so casually speaks to ignorance .

I don't hate the film, I'm just stating this is turning into a white elephant.

And the Kill Bill argument is irrevelant. That got turned into TWO movies. This is ONE. If KB had been one movie, it would not have covered the budget. The budget you saw posted online was incorrect and low-balled. Check any of the stories about QT going way over-budget and over-time in China. God bless Harvey for giving him that leeway, but it's going to bite them in the ass this time.

BTW, the Weinsteins have done a great deal for cinema. But that doesn't preclude criticism of them, Mr. Leydon. I've seen enough chopped films by them and sat upon releases to have my doubts. The situation is not black and white, it's simply grey. There's no reason to nullify criticism by stating the "what have you done" argument. That's lazy and weak of you. I'm surprised to see that argument, usually leveraged against film critics, used by you.

And no, it doesn't seem like they've done anything great for cinema since starting their new company. The DVD cover of Transamerica, wherein the "pretty female" version of Felicity Huffman was showcased, speaks volumes of their current strategy.

Without the massive bankroll that Disney afforded them through Miramax, they've forced to showcase their mistakes early and rely on their baser instincts.

Posted by fnt at March 25, 2007 4:09 AM

comment #14

CitizenKanedforChewingGum says ...

"And my sources are accurate. More accurate than Variety, imdb or whoever quotes from the studio sheet."

What are these sources, pray tell, and where are you finding them? It's not that I don't believe you, it's just when you're the only conflicting party and you don't reveal your sources, you start to reek of bullshit awfully quickly.

"I never mentioned the quality of the film. I merely commented on the business aspect of it. Save your knee jerk platitudes to QT for somewhere else. I'm a fan, but also a realist."

Again, a three hour experience loaded with two flicks and a few trailers seems like a pretty good deal to me, and a lot of people I know. Even if both movies end up sucking complete ass (which judging by crotchety old man Wells' positive spin, I sincerely doubt), it's a unique movie-going experience, and a lot of film buffs crave this sort of thing. I don't think a $25-$30 million opening is out of reach, which is around half the budget (RIGHT?!), and considering there's still DVD and Blu-Ray, it looks like a pretty "realistic" bet to make money. Has a Quentin production ever lost money? Four Rooms, a questionable inclusion in the first place, is the only possibility that springs to mind.

"I feel like it'll have a great opening weekend and decline very steeply. Steeply enough for this to be a problem. To discount the running time so casually speaks to ignorance."

Obviously I can't speak for everyone, but among the crowd I know, value trumps running time. And this is the sort of thing I can see doing repeat business among the people that like it, as they take a different friend or 2 along to enjoy the experience. By the way, having a great opening weekend and declining steeply describes about 90% of the #1 movies over the past year. That doesn't make the films unprofitable, it's just been the progressive trend over the years. Not acknowledging this casually speaks to ignorance ;).

Posted by CitizenKanedforChewingGum at March 25, 2007 10:20 AM

comment #15

Joe Leydon says ...

I'm not saying the Weinsteins are above criticism. I'm just saying that some of the criticism they get is ridiculously petty. They re-edit movies they finance or pick up? Well, who doesn't? Just ask Walter Hill about "Supernova" (from which he had his name removed after it was "re-edited" by -- no kidding -- Francis Coppola). They make lots of horror movie sequels? Gee, then I guess Paramount should close down because of the long-running "Friday the 13th" franchise. They refuse to release films they obtain? Well, I can't speak about EVERY film that got that treatment. But is interesting to note that, for several months before the Weinsteins officially left Disney, Miramax and Dimension dumped a lot of long-shelved product directly onto DVD. A few of these oddities are mildly interesting. (Quentin Tarantino "presented" a Modesty Blaise movie? Who knew?) But the others... Well, let's just say that no one who saw them would ever doubt the Weinsteins' business savvy.

And as for dissing the DVD art for "Transamerica" -- hey, lighten up. Miramax shamelessly used tricky ad campaigns for years to lure folks into theaters. My favorite: The newspaper ad art for "The Efficiency Expert," a straight steal of the ad art for "Local Hero." LOL.

I guess what it boils down to is: I have no problem with anybody making lots of money with their movies. (Well, unless they are making snuff movies.) Not as long as they use some of that money to finance risky and worthy indies. Some other folks on this blog are so repulsed by the very idea of moviemaking for profit that their posts sometimes read very much like my late father's socialist rants. And, frankly, they're boring.

Posted by Joe Leydon at March 25, 2007 10:35 AM

comment #16

D.Z. says ...

I actually wasn't impressed with the Weinsteins' output. It always felt like I was watching a low-budget studio film. I'm not sure how making art digestable for the masses is doing anything for art, since I'd rather have a compelling story and characters than Big Name Actor/Actress slumming by recreating some key performance from the 60s.

fnt: "We'll see how a 3+ hour long film plays. I feel like it'll have a great opening weekend and decline very steeply."

I think it'll have a mediocre opening weekend, because the "let's reference trashy 70s films" phase of "cinema" has played itself out long enough with American movie-goers.

Joe: "I'm not saying the Weinsteins are above criticism. I'm just saying that some of the criticism they get is ridiculously petty. They re-edit movies they finance or pick up? Well, who doesn't?"

Yeah, but the Weinsteins do the equivalent of putting a gun to a filmmakers head and force them to agree to the edits, and even then, that's no guarantee the film will see the light of day.

"They make lots of horror movie sequels? Gee, then I guess Paramount should close down because of the long-running "Friday the 13th" franchise."

Paramount hasn't made horror movie sequels in years. Personally, I don't really care about that myself, but every other flick of the company is a horror parody/satire, which makes it hard to tell the difference between their comedic stuff and their serious stuff. Plus they haven't been big since Scream, which makes you wonder why they crank them out to this day.

"I guess what it boils down to is: I have no problem with anybody making lots of money with their movies. (Well, unless they are making snuff movies.) Not as long as they use some of that money to finance risky and worthy indies."

The problem is that-as Jeff noted in his gripes regarding Little Miss Sunshine-"indies" are rarely risky or worthy.

Posted by D.Z. at March 25, 2007 12:48 PM

comment #17

jeffmcm says ...

Joe, just please note that I was mostly talking about the Weinsteins' hypocrisy. They found the fastest way to leverage themselves as Hollywood players was to find cheap movies and market the hell out of them, and the cheapest movies they could find were indies. Plus I can't think of a single filmmaker whose career entirely resulted from the Weinsteins' help except Kevin Smith - Tarantino would have still made Pulp Fiction, it just wouldn't have gotten nominated for Best Picture without them, and Rodriguez had still made El Mariachi and Desperado - did we really need him to be hired to make The Faculty?

DZ, Scary Movie 4 still grossed $178 million worldwide. That's pretty big.

I think Grindhouse will open as big as a 3-hour movie can and fall off quickly. Everyone I know wants to see it, for what that's worth.

Posted by jeffmcm at March 25, 2007 1:35 PM

comment #18

Cadavra says ...

Last time I checked, the two biggest-grossing films of all time--TITANIC and RETURN OF THE KING--were three-hours-plus.

Posted by Cadavra at March 25, 2007 1:50 PM

comment #19

Joe Leydon says ...

But before there was "Pulp Fiction," there was "Reservoir Dogs," another Miramax release. And before "Reservoir Dogs," there was "sex, lies and videotape," which pretty much "made" Sundance as well as Soderbergh. There are lot of lesser-known directors, and many other good movies, that I think wouldn't be nearly so well-known and/or successful without the Weinsteins. I'll leave it up to history to make the final judgment. But I must say: I take much of the criticism directed at them with several grains of salt. (If you want to see exmples of SERIOUS re-cutting and mishandling of offbeat movies, go talk to the folks involved with movies like "92 in the Shade," "Cutter's Way,""The Hired Hand," and on and on....)

Also: I simply don't understand the intensity of the personal attacks on the brothers. In my admittedly few direct encounters with them, they have been nothing less than gracious and respectful. But, then again, to paraphrase what a noted character actor once told me about his career: If someone took my indie movie away from me and re-cut it, I'd probably be prety f**kin' pissed off.

Posted by Joe Leydon at March 25, 2007 3:43 PM

comment #20

D.Z. says ...

jeff: "DZ, Scary Movie 4 still grossed $178 million worldwide. That's pretty big."

That was mostly due to the Tom Cruise parody. And Weinco had to split the profits with Disney, so they didn't make as much money as they would in the past.

Cadavra: "Last time I checked, the two biggest-grossing films of all time--TITANIC and RETURN OF THE KING--were three-hours-plus."

They were also PG-13.

Joe: "But before there was "Pulp Fiction," there was "Reservoir Dogs," another Miramax release."

You mean that remake of City on Fire?

"And before "Reservoir Dogs," there was "sex, lies and videotape," which pretty much "made" Sundance as well as Soderbergh."

Hooray for smug yuppie movies!

"There are lot of lesser-known directors, and many other good movies, that I think wouldn't be nearly so well-known and/or successful without the Weinsteins."

Peter Jackson and Stephen Chow were successful without them.

"(If you want to see exmples of SERIOUS re-cutting and mishandling of offbeat movies, go talk to the folks involved with movies like "92 in the Shade," "Cutter's Way,""The Hired Hand," and on and on....)"

Two words: Shaolin Soccer.

Posted by D.Z. at March 25, 2007 6:36 PM

comment #21

le corbeau says ...

Not to defend the Weinsteins too much, but jeez, it wasn't that long ago that frickin' Seven Samurai was only known to Americans in a 140-minute version (in other words, an entire 40s B movie cut from it) and you're worried about what happened to Shaolin Soccer?

Posted by le corbeau at March 25, 2007 6:46 PM

comment #22

D.Z. says ...

Mgmax: "Not to defend the Weinsteins too much, but jeez, it wasn't that long ago that frickin' Seven Samurai was only known to Americans in a 140-minute version (in other words, an entire 40s B movie cut from it) and you're worried about what happened to Shaolin Soccer?"

The company which fucked over Seven Samurai didn't issue injunctions against vendors who imported the original film.

Posted by D.Z. at March 25, 2007 6:52 PM

comment #23

Joe Leydon says ...

DZ:

"Smug yuppie movies"? Oh, dear, we know where you're coming from.

Posted by Joe Leydon at March 25, 2007 9:59 PM

comment #24

christian says ...

didn't KILL BILL make like 60 million bucks the day it was released on DVD? GRINDHOUSE is gonna do just fine.

Posted by christian at March 25, 2007 10:28 PM

comment #25

jeffmcm says ...

DZ, please stop. I really feel embarrassed when we agree on something and then you continue to press your point beyond any sense of reasonability.

Especially on the Tarantino hatred. He's said on numerous occasions that it was a major point of inspiration, and the two films are substantially different enough beyond that, plus your dogged hatred of him seems more personal than based on any sense of principle, any righteousness other than self-.

Posted by jeffmcm at March 26, 2007 12:54 AM

comment #26

D.Z. says ...

jeff: "He's said on numerous occasions that it was a major point of inspiration,"

No, he has not, because if he did, I'd find an actual quote online in some form or another. From what I gather, he's acknowledged City on Fire's existence, but he has not said it inspired Reservoir Dogs.

"and the two films are substantially different enough beyond that,"

Um, not really. http://www.impossiblefunky.com/qt/RD_4.html

"plus your dogged hatred of him seems more personal than based on any sense of principle,"

The sense of principle is that he's taking credit for other people's work and using Harvey to bury the original material, so that he gets all the recognition.

Posted by D.Z. at March 26, 2007 2:29 AM

comment #27

D.Z. says ...

Oh, sweet. Mike finally expanded to Youtube! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ScR6_l2-Fmk&mode=user&search=
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QVd_oxuAuQc

Posted by D.Z. at March 26, 2007 2:31 AM

comment #28

dobbsy says ...

i love all this talk about the grosses of grindhouse. this is the state of american "indie" film. clever marketing, chockablock bank accounts and empty films.

drivel, he said.

meanwhile, i think i'll watch lives of others again. what did it gross? oh, never mind.....

Posted by dobbsy at March 26, 2007 7:14 AM

comment #29

jeffmcm says ...

Dobbsy, I don't think anyone actually thinks of Grindhouse as an indie film.

DZ: QT's "I steal from every film ever made" quote is adequate for me. Plus, he improved upon City on Fire, which is really kind of dull and mediocre.

Neither of those links means anything to me because they're from sites that are even more influenced by zealotry than you are. Give me an objective outsider's website if you want to have a leg to stand on. Plus, I still don't buy that your opinion is purely based on principle - this is a really tedious, uninteresting thing to be hot and bothered about. Name me one American filmmaker who never borrowed something from another filmmaker. Even D.W. Griffith did it.

Posted by jeffmcm at March 26, 2007 7:27 AM

comment #30

dobbsy says ...

borrowing is acceptible.

boring is not, unless you're bresson.

and neither of these guys are.

bresson, that is.

Posted by dobbsy at March 26, 2007 8:31 AM

comment #31

jeffmcm says ...

I have never seen a boring movie from either Tarantino or Bresson.

Posted by jeffmcm at March 26, 2007 11:06 AM

comment #32

D.Z. says ...

jeff:
>QT's "I steal from every film ever made" quote is >adequate for me.

Not for me. It's one thing to "steal"; it's another to keep other people from achieving the same success. It's no wonder he picked Carradine for Kill Bill, since they're two peas in a pod in that regard.

"Neither of those links means anything to me because they're from sites that are even more influenced by zealotry than you are."

Actually, the guy who made 'em loves Reservoir Dogs, while I can't stand it. But he just thinks that artists should get their due. I know that's a hard concept to "grok", but I wouldn't equate it with a guy blowing up a building.

"Plus, I still don't buy that your opinion is purely based on principle - this is a really tedious, uninteresting thing to be hot and bothered about."

You're the only one who seems to be uninterested.

Posted by D.Z. at March 26, 2007 11:11 AM

comment #33

jeffmcm says ...

I've said it before and I'll say it again: You're obtuse.
My primary objection isn't about Tarantino's personal ethics, but rather your totalizing 'I have spoken' mode of discourse. It's juvenile and destructive to civil communication.

Posted by jeffmcm at March 26, 2007 11:25 AM

comment #34

dobbsy says ...

jeffmcm: couldn't agree more about bresson. just meant that it's ok IF you are bored at bresson as you know what kind of glacially-paced meditative reflection upon human existence you are in for. might come as more of a surprise when the film is titled "death proof"...

Posted by dobbsy at March 26, 2007 12:18 PM

comment #35

RoyBatty says ...

Anyone who seriously thinks a single film which has even a supposed budget of $100M+ can take down Harvey Weinstein knows fuck all about how he works deals.

On the other hand, this particular 3 hour film cannot seriously be compared to TITANIC and LOTR other than running length. What those films had going for them was broad appeal to a fan base willing to sustain repeat business for months. GRINDHOUSE, if it's lucky, will open like 300 and lose the fan base just as quick. Losing 50% the second week was understandable, but dropping close to 40% this week does not a phenom make.

Posted by RoyBatty at March 26, 2007 1:39 PM

comment #36

D.Z. says ...

Roy: "Anyone who seriously thinks a single film which has even a supposed budget of $100M+ can take down Harvey Weinstein knows fuck all about how he works deals."

Cold Mountain and Gangs of New York already kicked him out of his own company.

Posted by D.Z. at March 26, 2007 2:41 PM

comment #37