BTW, I am a huge fan of Doris Kearn Goodwin. I used to love watching her on Meet The Press and Today, until she was found to have plagiarized a book.
I was disappointed in that too. Very sloppy. There's been quite a bit of that in academia lately. Her Lincoln book was good, but frankly, Vidal's historical novel did a better job of presenting Lincoln as a human being -- probably because it was a novel. And yet very accurate, given that it was based on his personal secretary's diary, which detailed at length the day-by-day of Lincoln's life at the White House. Vidal is kind of a kook (IMO), so I wasn't expecting to blown away by it, but I was. Like most Americans I'm used to the marble statue, and seeing a flesh and blood portrait was really a thrill.
Maybe Tarantino should try a Lincoln movie. I imagine he'd have him assassinated with a samurai sword.
Looks like QT may be having humble pie for breakfast this morning. The numbers for 'Grindhouse' are pretty poor according to The Guardian.
The week's big disappointment was Grindhouse, the double-bill feature by Quentin Tarantino and Robert Rodriguez that pays homage to 70s exploitation films. The movie clocked in just $11.6m (£5.9m) and reached fourth place in the chart, when it was expected to earn at least $20m (£10m) and open at number one - like he directors' latest efforts, Kill Bill Volume 2 and Sin City, did.
One of the reasons for its lack of success was the double bill format, which audiences were not used to. Producer Harvey Weinstein told Variety that "it has taken a while to educate the public". For instance, many filmgoers did not know that the films would play back-to-back, with an intermission, when going to the cinema.
Producer Harvey Weinstein told Variety that "it has taken a while to educate the public". For instance, many filmgoers did not know that the films would play back-to-back, with an intermission, when going to the cinema."
How insulting is that? The production company has a bad promotional gimmick and it's the filmgoer's fault that it didn't work? Let me give Mr. Wienstein some free advice: 70's exploitation films were regarded as garbage back then. Since when did garbage become perfume?
I agree with darenhat that it's pretty insulting to blame the filmgoers. I know full good and well that Grindhouse is THREE HOURS AND FIFTEEN MINUTES LONG, and this is what's kept me from the theater. I'd like to see GH, but I'll probably wait till it comes out on DVD.
Producer Harvey Weinstein told Variety that "it has taken a while to educate the public". For instance, many filmgoers did not know that the films would play back-to-back, with an intermission, when going to the cinema."
How insulting is that? The production company has a bad promotional gimmick and it's the filmgoer's fault that it didn't work?
Especially since the idea of having an intermission isn't particularly new. I remember seeing 2001 for the first time at the cinemas, which had an intermission. I didn't need to be educated about that. 8-)
I know full good and well that Grindhouse is THREE HOURS AND FIFTEEN MINUTES LONG, and this is what's kept me from the theater.
That's long. I'm definitely going to be seeing it, but I guess I won't be seeing a late show.
"He’s a man way out there in the blue, riding on a smile and a shoeshine. And when they start not smiling back—that’s an earthquake. and then you get yourself a couple of spots on your hat, and you’re finished. Nobody dast blame this man. A salesman is got to dream, boy. It comes with the territory." Death of a Salesman
His comment of "I don't understand the math" puzzles me. He seems to think that since filmgoers didn't realize that there were two movies instead of one and consequently left the theaters after the first film, that somehow that affected the box office numbers. Is he implying that the filmgoers who walked out halfway only paid half the price?
I don't think they'll have much luck splitting the film into two separate releases...at least not at the same time. Theater-owners will have to designate two whole screens for a film that's already performing poorly. Will they take that chance? I don't know.
I wonder what will happen on the DVD release...For some reason I can already see this 'double-feature' piled up in the dollar bin at Walmart.
TITANIC was 3 hours and 14 minutes long. That didn't keep filmgoers away from the theaters.
Good point. 'Titanic' was brilliantly marketed though and appealed to a wide section of the audience. It was also a huge, epic, style movie. I think people expect those kinds of films to be longer, (Ben Hur, Lawrence of Arabia, Gone with the Wind). 'Grindhouse' is supposed to be a couple of B-movies put together. B-movies tend to be short. 80 to 90 minutes long. I don't understand why Weinstein has allowed QT and RR to put out a cinema version that clears three hours.
It's a shame that THE GRINDHOUSE isn't doing well at the moment. Those who have seen the movie seemed very impressed by it . . . especially the Rodriguez part of the film. Personally, I think this movie was badly marketed.
I agree. I suspect Harvey Weinstein will re-cut 'Grindhouse' and re-release it as two seperate features and make it work this time. He's a canny operator and usually bounces back from a failure with a huge success.
Some directors have a skilled ability to express their emotions, thoughts and inspirations rationally and professionally. Then there are those like Kevin Smith and Quentin Tarantino that sound like they're making stuff up as they go. It many times hurts to listen to them talk about a scene they filmed because they change their tense, go on a tangent and sometimes forget what they were even talking about.
The very worst thing that could happen to the Bond series would be to allow Quentin Tarantino to touch it. Extreme profanity, violence and gore that would make Casino Royale seem tame,
anime sequences, bad music and a cameo from Q.T. himself; I don't think so.
As for his claim that producers stole his idea for a tougher, grittier, less glamorous Bond, many fans have said that they wanted to see a return to Fleming and hoped to see a more realistic Bond.
Mr. Tarantino is not only a bad film maker, it now seems that he is also delusional.:s
NightshooterIn bed with SolitairePosts: 2,917MI6 Agent
Some directors have a skilled ability to express their emotions, thoughts and inspirations rationally and professionally. Then there are those like Kevin Smith and Quentin Tarantino that sound like they're making stuff up as they go. It many times hurts to listen to them talk about a scene they filmed because they change their tense, go on a tangent and sometimes forget what they were even talking about.
Hey... Kevin Smith is funny! Really, I love watching his speeches on Youtube. He's hilarious. I prefer watching him talk than watching his movies.
Harry Palmer Somewhere in the past ...Posts: 325MI6 Agent
I always thought Tarantino wanted to make it a period piece, and do a more literal adaptation of the novel.
I like everything Tarantino's done (Kill Bill is a blast, as is Reservoir Dogs), though he does rather wallow in being '70s Derivative...
He's a talented director, but I can't help doubt if he could ever summon the restraint necessary to do a producer-driven work such as Bond.
I agree, and can't help but quote verbatim. Tarantino is a very competent director (his best, IMO, being *Dogs*) but I suspect he lacks the restraint to make a Bond movie about Bond rather than about himself.
Tarantino-gritty would not have been, I suspect, the kind of gritty we got with CR. It would have been a self-referential sort of thing, with a little too much enjoyment of the precious cinematic detail. (Who knows, maybe that's the sort of thing that could have saved *Die Another Day*)
One director I would have liked to see on a Bond assignment is Steven Soderbergh. Maybe for Bond 24, toward the end of a cycle.
Just don't get Robert Rodriguez near the franchise or else Tarantino will likely get to have his mitts on something as a "guest" director. The whole movie will consist of projected background plates and digital stunts.
(I apologize for not clarifying my tiff on Kevin Smith. He's funny, but he has a terrible habit of getting side-tracked. Only 20% of what he says on the Clerks X DVDs actually pertain to the movie and film process.)
I happen to like Quentin Tarantino's work. Not sure if he could do a Bond though. If he did it certainly would be different. If it were to ever happen, Tarantino and EON would have to have a sit down first to make sure both parties were on the same page.
As for Grindhouse, I saw it this past weekend. I liked it. Not for the gore, because I don't generally go in for the "HALLOWEEN" type movies. But for the homage to the 70's type exploitation movies that were available in "grindhouses" of the period. The movie was a whole "grindhouse" type experience including trailers, grainy film, missing reels etc. It was actually two movies, Planet Terror and Death Proof with period style trailers. One of the best period style trailers was for Machete. It was totally evocative of the 70's type exploitation movie starring a rough looking chracter called Danny Trejo.
And let us not forget that EON ventured into the Blaxploitation genre during that era with Live and Let Die. It was certainly a cut above the average fare at that time because of EON craftsmenship, but is still considerd a Blaxploitation flick.
DG
So, what sharp little eyes you've got...wait till you get to my teeth.
"People sleep peacefully in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf." Richard Grenier after George Orwell, Washington Times 1993.
NightshooterIn bed with SolitairePosts: 2,917MI6 Agent
DG, I thought the best fake preview in Grindhouse was for Thanksgiving. That was HILARIOUS.
Yes, I liked that one too even if rather gruesome with the human corpse stuffed and dressed like a turkey. I also thought the one for "DON'T" was over the top too.
DG
So, what sharp little eyes you've got...wait till you get to my teeth.
"People sleep peacefully in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf." Richard Grenier after George Orwell, Washington Times 1993.
NightshooterIn bed with SolitairePosts: 2,917MI6 Agent
Agreed, my friends and I have not stopped yelling Don't! at each other since we've seen the film.
Grindhouse is yet to be released in Australia, however, apparently it is going to be released as two separate films. I'm a little reluctant to see the complete film, however I might see the two films if they are indeed released separately.
"He’s a man way out there in the blue, riding on a smile and a shoeshine. And when they start not smiling back—that’s an earthquake. and then you get yourself a couple of spots on your hat, and you’re finished. Nobody dast blame this man. A salesman is got to dream, boy. It comes with the territory." Death of a Salesman
I imagine they'll do the same for the UK. I'll go and see the Rodriguez movie at the cinema, but I'll wait for the DVD release of Tarantino's effort.
I'm going to do the same thing. That is, I'll definitely see the Rodriguez film, but I'll only see Tarantino's film if the reviews impress me enough.
"He’s a man way out there in the blue, riding on a smile and a shoeshine. And when they start not smiling back—that’s an earthquake. and then you get yourself a couple of spots on your hat, and you’re finished. Nobody dast blame this man. A salesman is got to dream, boy. It comes with the territory." Death of a Salesman
Well, to me you're missing the point of the whole "grindhouse" type experience by seeing Planet Terror (Rodriguez) and Death Proof (Tarantino) separately. The "grindhouses of the day often showed more than one feature on the same bill, sometimes several. A lot of "grindhouses" stayed open all night and became a place to stay for bums and the like. They were somewhat seedy places.
Tarantino's effort (Death Proof) is more in keeping with the exploitation fare of the 70's in terms of how the film is structured. However, most peole like Rodriguez's effort (Planet Terror) better because the storyline is less disjointed and I guess more satisfying in terms of flow.
I liked them both, but I'd have to give the edge to Tarrantino because his film is closer to what the exploitation films were. Those films were cheaply made on very low budgets. Although Tarrantino obviously spent money, the film does not have the explosions and make-up effects that the Rodriguez effort has. The money Tarrantino spent to make his retro movie is hidden like good CGI or a well done matte painting.
DG
So, what sharp little eyes you've got...wait till you get to my teeth.
"People sleep peacefully in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf." Richard Grenier after George Orwell, Washington Times 1993.
Always thought QT could do a Bond, especially after watching JACKIE BROWN, a pretty sober Elmore Leonard story. Doesn't have all the playful stuff, just good genre story-telling.
Well, to me you're missing the point of the whole "grindhouse" type experience by seeing Planet Terror (Rodriguez) and Death Proof (Tarantino) separately. The "grindhouses of the day often showed more than one feature on the same bill, sometimes several. A lot of "grindhouses" stayed open all night and became a place to stay for bums and the like. They were somewhat seedy places.
I don't think you can recreate the feeling of what these grind-houses must have been like. As you point out, they were quite seedy places and the experience of going to these cinema's and seeing some fairly dubious activities going on in and around them must have been a huge part of the appeal.
Well, to me you're missing the point of the whole "grindhouse" type experience by seeing Planet Terror (Rodriguez) and Death Proof (Tarantino) separately. The "grindhouses of the day often showed more than one feature on the same bill, sometimes several. A lot of "grindhouses" stayed open all night and became a place to stay for bums and the like. They were somewhat seedy places.
I don't think you can recreate the feeling of what these grind-houses must have been like. As you point out, they were quite seedy places and the experience of going to these cinema's and seeing some fairly dubious activities going on in and around them must have been a huge part of the appeal.
True, but in terms of what was shown on the screen , you certainly can re-create what was in a "grindhouse", and I think Rodriguez/Tarrantino did just that. And may I add, I think they did it very well. Seeing the films separately would be counter to what the whole thing was about in the first place. It's not about horror movies per se, but about how such exploitation fare was exhibited during a certain time frame and perhaps only within the confines of the U.S.A. I don't think "grindhouses" and Drive-Ins existed elswhere in the same way.
DG
So, what sharp little eyes you've got...wait till you get to my teeth.
"People sleep peacefully in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf." Richard Grenier after George Orwell, Washington Times 1993.
Comments
I was disappointed in that too. Very sloppy. There's been quite a bit of that in academia lately. Her Lincoln book was good, but frankly, Vidal's historical novel did a better job of presenting Lincoln as a human being -- probably because it was a novel. And yet very accurate, given that it was based on his personal secretary's diary, which detailed at length the day-by-day of Lincoln's life at the White House. Vidal is kind of a kook (IMO), so I wasn't expecting to blown away by it, but I was. Like most Americans I'm used to the marble statue, and seeing a flesh and blood portrait was really a thrill.
Maybe Tarantino should try a Lincoln movie. I imagine he'd have him assassinated with a samurai sword.
Or in a 'Wild Bunch' style shootout with the entire Mexican army.
President: "You didn't think it would be that easy, did you?"
Assassin stabs him.
"Yep, actually, I kinda did."
Roger Moore 1927-2017
The week's big disappointment was Grindhouse, the double-bill feature by Quentin Tarantino and Robert Rodriguez that pays homage to 70s exploitation films. The movie clocked in just $11.6m (£5.9m) and reached fourth place in the chart, when it was expected to earn at least $20m (£10m) and open at number one - like he directors' latest efforts, Kill Bill Volume 2 and Sin City, did.
One of the reasons for its lack of success was the double bill format, which audiences were not used to. Producer Harvey Weinstein told Variety that "it has taken a while to educate the public". For instance, many filmgoers did not know that the films would play back-to-back, with an intermission, when going to the cinema.
http://film.guardian.co.uk/news/story/0,,2053607,00.html
How insulting is that? The production company has a bad promotional gimmick and it's the filmgoer's fault that it didn't work? Let me give Mr. Wienstein some free advice: 70's exploitation films were regarded as garbage back then. Since when did garbage become perfume?
Given that I pretty much avoided the REAL grindhouse features like the plague, why would I spend that long watching two of 'em?
http://film.guardian.co.uk/news/story/0,,2054409,00.html
I don't think they'll have much luck splitting the film into two separate releases...at least not at the same time. Theater-owners will have to designate two whole screens for a film that's already performing poorly. Will they take that chance? I don't know.
I wonder what will happen on the DVD release...For some reason I can already see this 'double-feature' piled up in the dollar bin at Walmart.
Good point. 'Titanic' was brilliantly marketed though and appealed to a wide section of the audience. It was also a huge, epic, style movie. I think people expect those kinds of films to be longer, (Ben Hur, Lawrence of Arabia, Gone with the Wind). 'Grindhouse' is supposed to be a couple of B-movies put together. B-movies tend to be short. 80 to 90 minutes long. I don't understand why Weinstein has allowed QT and RR to put out a cinema version that clears three hours.
I agree. I suspect Harvey Weinstein will re-cut 'Grindhouse' and re-release it as two seperate features and make it work this time. He's a canny operator and usually bounces back from a failure with a huge success.
anime sequences, bad music and a cameo from Q.T. himself; I don't think so.
As for his claim that producers stole his idea for a tougher, grittier, less glamorous Bond, many fans have said that they wanted to see a return to Fleming and hoped to see a more realistic Bond.
Mr. Tarantino is not only a bad film maker, it now seems that he is also delusional.:s
Hey... Kevin Smith is funny! Really, I love watching his speeches on Youtube. He's hilarious. I prefer watching him talk than watching his movies.
I agree, and can't help but quote verbatim. Tarantino is a very competent director (his best, IMO, being *Dogs*) but I suspect he lacks the restraint to make a Bond movie about Bond rather than about himself.
Tarantino-gritty would not have been, I suspect, the kind of gritty we got with CR. It would have been a self-referential sort of thing, with a little too much enjoyment of the precious cinematic detail. (Who knows, maybe that's the sort of thing that could have saved *Die Another Day*)
One director I would have liked to see on a Bond assignment is Steven Soderbergh. Maybe for Bond 24, toward the end of a cycle.
(I apologize for not clarifying my tiff on Kevin Smith. He's funny, but he has a terrible habit of getting side-tracked. Only 20% of what he says on the Clerks X DVDs actually pertain to the movie and film process.)
As for Grindhouse, I saw it this past weekend. I liked it. Not for the gore, because I don't generally go in for the "HALLOWEEN" type movies. But for the homage to the 70's type exploitation movies that were available in "grindhouses" of the period. The movie was a whole "grindhouse" type experience including trailers, grainy film, missing reels etc. It was actually two movies, Planet Terror and Death Proof with period style trailers. One of the best period style trailers was for Machete. It was totally evocative of the 70's type exploitation movie starring a rough looking chracter called Danny Trejo.
And let us not forget that EON ventured into the Blaxploitation genre during that era with Live and Let Die. It was certainly a cut above the average fare at that time because of EON craftsmenship, but is still considerd a Blaxploitation flick.
DG
"People sleep peacefully in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf." Richard Grenier after George Orwell, Washington Times 1993.
Yes, I liked that one too even if rather gruesome with the human corpse stuffed and dressed like a turkey. I also thought the one for "DON'T" was over the top too.
DG
"People sleep peacefully in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf." Richard Grenier after George Orwell, Washington Times 1993.
Tarantino's effort (Death Proof) is more in keeping with the exploitation fare of the 70's in terms of how the film is structured. However, most peole like Rodriguez's effort (Planet Terror) better because the storyline is less disjointed and I guess more satisfying in terms of flow.
I liked them both, but I'd have to give the edge to Tarrantino because his film is closer to what the exploitation films were. Those films were cheaply made on very low budgets. Although Tarrantino obviously spent money, the film does not have the explosions and make-up effects that the Rodriguez effort has. The money Tarrantino spent to make his retro movie is hidden like good CGI or a well done matte painting.
DG
"People sleep peacefully in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf." Richard Grenier after George Orwell, Washington Times 1993.
Always thought QT could do a Bond, especially after watching JACKIE BROWN, a pretty sober Elmore Leonard story. Doesn't have all the playful stuff, just good genre story-telling.
I don't think you can recreate the feeling of what these grind-houses must have been like. As you point out, they were quite seedy places and the experience of going to these cinema's and seeing some fairly dubious activities going on in and around them must have been a huge part of the appeal.
True, but in terms of what was shown on the screen , you certainly can re-create what was in a "grindhouse", and I think Rodriguez/Tarrantino did just that. And may I add, I think they did it very well. Seeing the films separately would be counter to what the whole thing was about in the first place. It's not about horror movies per se, but about how such exploitation fare was exhibited during a certain time frame and perhaps only within the confines of the U.S.A. I don't think "grindhouses" and Drive-Ins existed elswhere in the same way.
DG
"People sleep peacefully in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf." Richard Grenier after George Orwell, Washington Times 1993.