Comments on: Movie Review – Grindhouse (2007)

By: Jeff Faulkner

Jeff Faulkner — Sat, 14 Apr 2007 08:36:45 +0000

Death Proof featured two of the best car sequences EVER filmed, and this is not from a 15-year old posting on IMDB. It is a fact. I immensely enjoyed the build up with the, almost blatant non-related everyday dialog that Tarantino puts in his segment, followed by the climaxes that each deploy cinematically. Kurt Russell was perfect. The payoff was a true audience pleaser.

As for Planet Terror, I felt that Rodriguez tried too hard in digitally getting that feel of a grindhouse movie. As well as really not caring for the characters as much as Death Proof. It looked a lot of times too cartoonish. Although it was indeed fun to watch.

The between the movie trailers were the price of admission, even the much maligned Werewolf Women of the S.S. by Rob Zombie. The others being “Don’t” by Edgar Wright director of “Shaun of the Dead”. “Thanksgiving” by Eli Roth, which in my opinion was the most gruesome. And finally, “Machete” done by Rodriguez, makes me want to see these movies, though they don’t really exist.

This movie was made for true film people with a knowledge of a time that was so long ago.

By: Jason Greenwood

Jason Greenwood — Fri, 13 Apr 2007 00:29:58 +0000

The problem with all Tarantino movies is that Tarantino cares more for writing witty dialog than any other aspect for the movie. Many of his movies have very memorable lines or individual scenes, but his movies are never a cohesive whole. The speech about quarter pounders in France is very memorable but really does not have anything to do with the rest of the movie. Death Proof is an example of this. There are many unrelated scenes of witty dialog interspersed with the driving scenes which does not always connect with each other.

By: Elaine

Elaine — Thu, 12 Apr 2007 20:24:36 +0000

I was thinking about what Jim and Helen said about how Hollywood needed to market Grindhouse properly. I agree, I had not heard of the movie before Jim mentioned it to me.
Also, movie watching in theaters seems to be lessening lately and I know that the reason why we don’t go that much is because the prices have risen so much. I like that Grindhouse was a double feature, because then it’s like a 2 for 1 deal.

On the missing reels, I like that it was more a 70’s horror movie, than a horror movie with sex scenes mixed throughout. That might be a girl’s opinion though. However, if they added those to the DVDs as special features that might fill in the gap to those that thought something was missing.

As for the actual movies, I enjoyed Planet Terror immensely. It fulfilled horror, funniness, and as Jim put it the primal self.

Death Proof, the first half I liked, however I felt like it was leading somewhere going up and up a little bit more, I was on the edge of my seat and then nothing, it never got there, it was like it started over again and then they killed him. That left me feeling unsatisfied, because I wasn’t into the 2nd part as much as the first.

All in all, I did enjoy Grindhouse.

By: Helen

Helen — Tue, 10 Apr 2007 13:44:16 +0000

From my position as disinterested observor I’ll argue that what made this film so enjoyable for both of you – the meta aspect, as Rishi put it, and the participatory aspect James describes – is precisely what makes Grindhouse inaccessible and unappealing to most moviegoers. Grindhouse is a movie made by and for dedicated moviegoers with a particular interest in exploitation films. It assumes a certain degree of familiarity with exploitation films and that its audience will actively engage with the material. Most moviegoers do not fulfill either prerequisite. Most people only see a handful of (formula-driven) films a year, are unfamiliar with or put off by exploitation films and are accustomed to viewing films as passive consumers. I do agree with James’ comment to the box office recap that Grindhouse was poorly marketed and that its box office chances would have been improved by a rolling release beginning some time other than Easter weekend, a traditional time for family moviegoing. However, that aside, Grindhouse is still a movie with intrinsically limited audience appeal.

By: Rishi

Rishi — Tue, 10 Apr 2007 04:09:09 +0000

I don’t know if I enjoyed the film more than you, James, but this is my first 4-star film of the year. Of course, if you see my comments on the Box Office Recap post, I would not like the film as much as two separate films. Most of what I enjoyed about the film is the meta aspect: a film that comments on an entire era of film.

With the changing face of cinema, it is possible that some people may never experience a double-feature or a drive-in or a projector failure or missing reels, and I like that they are all preserved in this film.

This film is simultaneously an homage, a parody and a critique of the 1970s movie-going experience, and I love the film the way it is. For me, adding in the missing reels or cleaning up the scratches or splitting it into two films would destroy this gem of a film. I would not trade the as-is experience of seeing the film with an active audience for anything.