comment #1

anonymous2 says ...

I think it's because audiences had more enthusiasm for Machete than the rest of his work in a long time. He's going to milk it for his pool movie.

comment #2

actionman says ...

i don't get it either

this film was tank worse than grindhouse

comment #3

George Prager says ...

This is right up my alley. I've been eagerly awaiting for this movie for about one year. I drooled over the trailer and have watched this at least 10 times. I don't own a machete, but a few of my friends do. I love the strong male characters in the trailer- they remind me of my friends.

I love it. and I'm so gonna see it on opening day. I wish it would come out NOW, though.

comment #4

MovieBob says ...

Thing is, the whole "Mexican day-laborer as action hero" thing is probably MUCH more commercially-viable than Grindhouse to people who won't get the underlying "joke."

comment #5

The Winchester says ...

It'll be nothing without the powerhouse of Jeff Fahey. And I'm not writing that in sarcasm.

Machete was the best part of Grindhouse. (Well, 2nd best, "Don't" was genius) but it was nice because it felt like a grindhouse movie and it didn't have the creepy undertones of watching the director fetishize Rose McGowan, knowing his wife was the producer.

And besides, Trejo needs a starring vehicle. More power to this movie!

comment #6

George Prager says ...

This is a mistake. Think of all the countless dead rock star biopics, based-on-a-true-story sports movies and films about homeless guys who can play the cello that he could be making instead of this crap. What a waste!

comment #7

ROTC says ...

I'm into this so long as Rodriguez goes for the "X" rating promised in the trailer.

comment #8

DarthCorleone says ...

What was it about the failure of Grindhouse that Rodriguez didn't understand? Genre spoofs are only for film snobs.

I think he understands it just fine. He's making the movie because he thinks it will be fun. Box office success would just be gravy. Nothing wrong with that.

I'd still rather see him working on Sin City 2, though.

comment #9

Edward says ...

I had fun with the Grindhouse films. Danny Trejo rocks, this could be great fun, but I agree that it needs to be an X or at least a hard R.

comment #10

dinovelvet says ...

Will DeNiro please stop? A few more bad movies, 50 extra pounds, and he'll be in late-period Dr. Moreau Brando train wreck territory.

comment #11

TulseLuper says ...

What Rodriguez, Tarantino, Roth or any of those guys don't understand is that nobody cares about their love of grindhouse cinema. It's self-indulgent and it's boring. Just tell me a goddamn story, for Chrissakes!

comment #12

George Prager says ...

Yes, please, somebody tell TulseLuper a story.

comment #13

AtticusRex says ...

First off to George Prager: That what a waste comment was perfection! Though I think next time they need to find a homeless tuba player who moonlights on corners playing a kazoo seeing how his tuba is in the pawnshop window.

Second: The boxoffice failure of Grindhouse truly had nothing to do with the material within it. Rod/QT set out to make an 70's era theatrical experience. The fault of this lies at the foot of Harvey and his marketing folk. It was mishandled all the way. This should have been a slow-roll-out, and made into an event. For those who saw it at the cinema that got it, loved it the others who went for reasons other than the experience Rod/QT were going for hated it.

Now did it play out only to it's intended audience? Sure but even some of them might not have gone once bad word-of-mouth got out from those not tuned into what Grindhouse was all about. And if that's only for elitist film buffs... well then what do we call those who support foreign, art and Revival fans?

comment #14

Anonymous Bosch says ...

The boxoffice failure of Grindhouse truly had nothing to do with the material within it.

I'd suggest they made a movie targeting the Hip, Urban, Grindhouse-Loving Intelligentsia, without stopping to consider if such a group actually existed. The target market for it was minute.

It was dreadful, lazy work from two filmmakers who had already more than dipped their toe in the genre with 'From Dusk 'Til Dawn', way back when Tarentino was still considered mass-market / cultural zeitgeisty. The world has moved on.

It was also venerating a suspect genre that a large majority of the population would simply not respond to with any excitement, especially for anyone who grew up in the video boom of the 80's, when these titles flooded the shelves and would have guaranteed many boring nights watching unconvincing gunfights, or interminable, murky stalking scenes. The genre is ignorable for a good reason: most people don't find anything worthwhile in watching dreck. Life's too short.

After all that, for the remaining few members of the population who actually got excited over the concept of a rehash of 70's car chase and zombies movies, neither of the movies presented were anything but depressingly below-average versions of either.

I don't mind if the filmmakers masturbate in public, but I don't want to have to pay to see it.

comment #15

TM says ...

This is the guy who gave the world a film based on 7-year old kid's stories. He jumped the shark then.

comment #16

TulseLuper says ...

Well said, Anonymous Bosch.

comment #17

DeeZee says ...

"What was it about the failure of Grindhouse that Rodriguez didn't understand?"

This is supposed to be a straight-to-video production, so it should make its money back.

Darth: It's not supposed to be in theaters, last time I checked.

Atticus: "The boxoffice failure of Grindhouse truly had nothing to do with the material within it. Rod/QT set out to make an 70's era theatrical experience. The fault of this lies at the foot of Harvey and his marketing folk."

The fault definitely lies in the material, since, last time I checked, people in the 70s did not text each other. Nor did 9/11 take place. Oh, and actresses in b-roles did show their goodies back then. Plus, in most slashers, killers like Russell's character wouldn't reveal themselves to the audience and chat with the victims.
Basically, Grindhouse is like every QT "homage" movie not written by Roger-a failure in understanding what made the source material so appealing in the first place.
That Lost Skeleton of Cadavra flick is better than Grindhouse, and it didn't have to be three hours for it to work.

"The fault of this lies at the foot of Harvey and his marketing folk. It was mishandled all the way. This should have been a slow-roll-out, and made into an event."

I doubt rolling it out slow would have made a difference. The negative WOM about its length would've killed it from grossing what it eventually did.

"For those who saw it at the cinema that got it, loved it the others who went for reasons other than the experience Rod/QT were going for hated it."

They hated it, because it was boring, and they wanted a fun flick.

"Now did it play out only to it's intended audienceSure but even some of them might not have gone once bad word-of-mouth got out from those not tuned into what Grindhouse was all about."

So you're admitting it sucked.

"And if that's only for elitist film buffs... well then what do we call those who support foreign, art and Revival fans?"

Non-elitist film buffs, since they like their movies with accurate subtitles, and not shitty Australian and Brit overdubs.

Bosch: Actually, I think the original grindhouse stuff does well in limited re-releases. [Just ask the staff running the New Beverly and Silent Movie Theater.] The movie just bombed, because it was basically the horror equivalent of Sky Captain, where there wasn't enough actual plot to compel people to see it.

comment #18

poseidon72 says ...

If he can film this for 5 million or less I say go for it, if not who's going to finance it? Mainstream interest-NO way!!

comment #19

Piper71 says ...

Original word on this was it was supposed to go straight to DVD.

I think it will be a success. Grindhouse failed because it wasn't marketed well.

comment #20

buster keaton says ...

"Grindhouse failed because it wasn't marketed well."

What a dope. Grindhouse failed because no one wanted to see it. Everyone who had an iota of interest in that film knew it was out in theaters and made a decision not to go. Weinstein spent a fortune plastering every big city with posters, and QT and Rod. went everywhere they could promoting it. Marketing can't literally force people to leave their house, park their car, and pay ten bucks to see a movie unless there is some underlying desire. And, as others have said, we've all seen these lame exploitation movies before, either in theaters or as direct-to-video crap. Rose McGowan wearing a gun as a prosthetic was the biggest lure this project had to entice the moviegoing public, and it just wasn't enough.

comment #21

Dance Commander says ...

It'll be dirt cheap. Everyone involved will have fun making it. It will make a few bucks in the theater and lots of money on DVD. So who care if it's a silly idea? And isn't the world finally ready for a film that says "Starring Danny Trejo!"?

comment #22

CitizenKanedforChewingGum says ...

"The movie just bombed, because it was basically the horror equivalent of Sky Captain, where there wasn't enough actual plot to compel people to see it."

As opposed to Transformers which has a very intricate plot? I like how you come try to come up with the "reasons" why things bomb, how very "real D.Z." of you. Here's a hint: there's often no real rhyme or reason whatsoever to the financial aspect of distribution.

Also, to all you Grindhouse naysayers, it is sitting at 81% fresh at Rotten Tomatoes. I don't live and die by that site, but one has to admit that's pretty good for a movie that continually gets hammered for having bad WOM.

comment #23

DeeZee says ...

Dunno about intricate story, but TF's supporting characters had something to do with the main story, which is not something that could be said about Death Proof. As for the characters in Planet Terror, they were mostly cliches. The characters in TF were lowbrow as hell, but at least they weren't based solely on B-movie archetypes; nor did they feel tacked on, solely for the sake of some stupid shock value moment which had nothing to do with the theme of the movie. It's annoying having to play actionman's advocate for Bay on this one, but TF was an actual concept, while Grindhouse was just a college movie shot from the perspective of a couple of grade-schoolers. As for rankings, if you IMDB the individual movies, they only get about a "7" each, which is where Jackie Brown and From Dusk Till Dawn happen to stand.

comment #24

TulseLuper says ...

You know why Grindhouse is so highly rated by the critics? Because they don't want to admit they were wrong about Tarantino being the second coming. Take Death Proof out of it and I don't think they would've been as kind to Rodriguez and his buddies without their master to lend them some prestige, as proven by the fact that Death Proof was shipped off to "Le Festival de Cannes" and its auteur was treated like a god even though Planet Terror is easily the better film (though that's not saying much).

That's what struck me during the press conference for Inglourious Basterds. Tarantino is first and foremost a celebrity. He is worshipped by the French because he goes into their country and acts like the kind of auteur they love, praises the gods of films, which leads them to swoon like little girls at a Jonas Brothers concert. All this because nobody wants to admit that he hasn't been on his A-game in over 10 years.

comment #25

JD says ...

Something tells me RR understands the film biz better than you, Jeff. Grindhouse failed because the concept was confusing, the TV ads sucked and it was way too long. I can't confirm this with DVD sales info, but in conversation, I've found that most people really liked at least one of the two movies. Plus, I highly doubt this is being budgeted like a Transformers-style blockbuster. There's a place for every movie, it's just a question of budgeting correctly.

comment #26

JapAdapters says ...

Speaking of genre spoofs, what's the deal with BLACK DYNAMITE? I read it was supposed to open on 7/17 but it didn't hit the Bay Area.

comment #27

CitizenKanedforChewingGum says ...

"All this because nobody wants to admit that he hasn't been on his A-game in over 10 years."

I actually agree with this statement completely, but at the same time his B-game isn't bad, is it? I wasn't a big fan of the Kill Bill movies (they seemed like the cliched Tarantino thing to do, and five years too late), but I think you have to at least give Death Proof credit for giving his characters room to breathe, and letting situations develop organically.

I know this is going to sound like a cop-out -- so by all means fire away -- but I think we could do with a bit less plot for plot's sake in this country. The deus ex machine can grow tired and uninspired, esp. in these big summer tentpoles. I like the fact that DP had its own flow, and wasn't in any rush to get to the conclusion.

I understand that the movie didn't work for you, that's certainly understandable -- even I don't think it's perfect by any stretch. But I did appreciate the return to unconventional filmmaking, esp. after KB Vols. 1 & 2. I think you have to respect this form of filmmaking, whether it's successful (Che) or not (Tetro), because the fact of the matter is that it's absolutely dying out with American filmmakers. And it kills me.

comment #28

CitizenKanedforChewingGum says ...

*machina

comment #29

DeeZee says ...

Tulse: He's not a celebrity, either, though. He's just a guy who thinks he's a celebrity, and tried to create that image, by being the "go-to guy" for obscure flicks. The problem is that people found out he mostly likes crap. Not even the "so-bad-it's-good" crap, but the "not even worth talking about" crap. And for the films which are good, he just chops up and/or sits on with Harvey's help, so that he can continue to create the illusion that he's an "innovator" in the genre.

At least RR doesn't pretend that he's doing anything original; and he could care less whether he succeeds or fails, as long as he's having fun with his work. But QT keeps padding his movies with boring shit, just because he needs to impress people. And the only reason he got away with it in Jackie Brown was because it was his first movie to do that. But ever since then, it's all been pointless conversation to compensate
for his inability to shoot action scenes. I'm just surprised people fell for it in Kill Bill, when that movie suffers from the "close camera" problem as much as any other Hollywood exec-produced action flick.

Kane: What characters? The actresses just speed-read through their lines, which are still too fucking long. And who cares if the movie takes its time, when it doesn't do anything useful with its extra time? If you want to listen to pointless conversations at a bar for half an hour, you go to a bar. Seriously, just admit that QT's a horrible improviser without the help of his "reference material". And even when he "borrows", he still can't write worth shit without Roger. Really, he's been coasting off the backs of others for too long-sort of like his fanbase. So I'll be glad to see IB fail hard.

comment #30

CitizenKanedforChewingGum says ...

"and he could care less whether he succeeds or fails, as long as he's having fun with his work."

I'm glad you're able to speak as proxy for Rodriguez. By the way, does "having fun with his work" include breaking up his long-term marriage with a fling with a flavor of the month most famous for being a rock star's ex?

"But QT keeps padding his movies with boring shit, just because he needs to impress people. And the only reason he got away with it in Jackie Brown was because it was his first movie to do that."

First movie to do what? Impress people? No, that would be Reservoir Dogs...

"I'm just surprised people fell for it in Kill Bill, when that movie suffers from the "close camera" problem as much as any other Hollywood exec-produced action flick."

So name 10 action sequences this decade as exciting as the House of Blue Leaves segment of Kill Bill. Nah, I didn't think you could.

"What characters? The actresses just speed-read through their lines, which are still too fucking long."

Um, that's part of his style? Besides, you already said he can't shoot action, why would you want to see more of that?

"And who cares if the movie takes its time, when it doesn't do anything useful with its extra time?"

Useful meaning what exactly? He's obviously more concerned with the tone and moments in his movies than plot mechanics. I think that's a legit -- if unconventional -- choice. You're more familiar with Asian cinema than European cinema, aren't you?

"If you want to listen to pointless conversations at a bar for half an hour, you go to a bar."

And which bars have coherent and cultured patrons willing to discuss the pros and cons of Vanishing Point?

"And even when he 'borrows', he still can't write worth shit without Roger."

The Roger Avary influence is getting to the point where it's far overstated. He gave a certain amount of structure to some of his early screenplays, but the dialogue (save for that "Top Gun" speech in Sleep With Me which he admits to thieving) is all Quentin's. Out of the three main story threads in PF, RA has even claimed only partial credit on ONE (Gold Watch).

"Really, he's been coasting off the backs of others for too long-sort of like his fanbase."

Of all the things you have said here, this is by far the bullshitiest. Like them or not, but how are Kill Bill and Death Proof coasting off the backs of others?? If anything, he's been guilty of NOT coasting...people have said that he should return to the crime/gangster genre, but he continues to explore different genres of film. Your fanbase comment is an entirely incoherent afterthought, and just thrown in as a cheap shot.

"So I'll be glad to see IB fail hard."

Well, according to you it already has.

comment #31

DeeZee says ...

Kane: "By the way, does "having fun with his work" include breaking up his long-term marriage with a fling with a flavor of the month most famous for being a rock star's ex?"

Yeah, he's a dick, but at least he has the decency not to parade it around like Pitt. Oh, wait, Aniston sucks, so she deserves to be cheated on, while QT is a genius, so he can punch a critic who doesn't like his work.

"First movie to do what? Impress people? No, that would be Reservoir Dogs..."

It impressed people, until they realized it was two remakes. What I meant was the first movie in which he dragged out the material longer than necessary, because he doesn't know a damn thing about editing or conveying the essence of what makes those b-flicks he loves work.

"So name 10 action sequences this decade as exciting as the House of Blue Leaves segment of Kill Bill."

Every fight scene in Unleashed, Neo vs the Smiths,
every fight scene in Versus, the final shoot-out in Hot Fuzz, every shoot-out in Boondock Saints, every shoot-out in Rambo IV, the Batman Begins rail hand-to-hand combat scene Nolan stole from the Cowboy Bebop movie, the Jet vs Jackie fight scene in Forbidden Kingdom, and probably other stuff...That's probably more than 10, but then he can't do one right, so...

"Um, that's part of his style? Besides, you already said he can't shoot action, why would you want to see more of that?"

Well, I want a reason to sit through his long monologues and dialogues. If there is none, then don't insert them into the film in the first place.

"Useful meaning what exactly? He's obviously more concerned with the tone and moments in his movies than plot mechanics. I think that's a legit -- if unconventional -- choice. You're more familiar with Asian cinema than European cinema, aren't you?"

European cinema is never that full of pointless bullshit, unless the director is trying to fool people into thinking the flick is "deep". The characters might take more time to get to a particular moment, but they try to make it worth the trouble to convince me to be invested in their particular interests. The girls in Death Proof just try to pad the conversation with uninteresting bs only the director would care about, or believe the audience cares about, because he's not really a people-person in real life.

"And which bars have coherent and cultured patrons willing to discuss the pros and cons of Vanishing Point?"

Who would go to bars to discuss Vanishing Point in the first place?

"He gave a certain amount of structure to some of his early screenplays, but the dialogue (save for that "Top Gun" speech in Sleep With Me which he admits to thieving) is all Quentin's."

QT's dialogue comes from whatever he managed to steal from other movies.

"Well, according to you it already has."

It's definitely failed at the box office. I'm just wondering how badly.

comment #32

CitizenKanedforChewingGum says ...

Well, you definitely convinced me of one thing -- you may actually be the real D.Z.

comment #33

crazynine says ...

""If you want to listen to pointless conversations at a bar for half an hour, you go to a bar."

And if you want to read pointless conversations on a blog for years, you read D.Z. (or fake D.Z.; I've lost track).

comment #34

Natali Watson says ...

QT's dialogue comes from whatever he managed to steal from other movies.

utorrent