New Quentin Tarantino Flick Grind House

Originally posted by WrathfulDwarf
[B]

Death Proof

As quoted earlier, Vinny summorized DP right on spot. The film begins with some girlfriends doing a little road trip and talking about themselves and their relationships.

(See folks! This is good! This is exactly what every good film must have! In depth to the characters. Telling us who they are and what are they doing)

This becomes an essential factor for the film. Here are some girls who mind their own business and are trying to have a good time. This is what I can relate to! This is factor keeps interested. To sweet them even more QT delightens us the (male viewers) with some very sexy shots of the girls. Very beautiful gals who just want to have some fun. Despite what people might find boring in their conversations, we get at least a more depth to them.

Are you kidding me? The first 10 minutes of the movie is 4 chicks in a car trying to get one of them to confess to sleeping with a guy?! WHO GIVES A SHIT? This is "Death Proof" not "Truth or Dare"! All that did was establish their supposed "innocence", even though they head straight to a bar to smoke pot and drink alcohol. It was fairly obvious they were just girls. Their dialogue was about as pointless as Quentin Tarantino's came, coming in jacking his dick, "homaging" his other movies in his own feature. "Is that a tasty beverage or is that a tasty beverage?"..the Big Kahuna Burger.."Not so fast, Zatiochi"...and that stupid 10 minute diner scene in the 2nd act, gabbing about whatever muscle car movie Zoe Bell was on about.

The conversations did nothing for the characters that we couldn't already tell ourselves. 1st set of girls were innocent, 2nd set had 2 motorhead dykes, a jailbait cheerleader, and a wasted talent in Rosario Dawson.

The death sequences in Death Proof were much, much more realistic...graphic...distubing...morbid...and macabre than Planet Terror. This is where Rodriguez and QT separate. Rodriguez gives you a more extreme type of violence...whereas QT captures a more realistice and sentimental death scenes. I say sentimental because in the film you've gotten to know this people. You've gotten a more indepth characterization of them. You feel rather guilty for enjoying their deaths. QT makes a more humane type of violence (not trying to an oxymoron of course) than Rodriguez.

There were 4. In a row. In less than a minute...and you mean to tell me that

Spoiler:
a chicks leg just falling off after being ejected from a car is realistic? A gals head being taken off because a car jumps over the car she's riding in is realistic?

Leaving that behind. We moved onto the next set of girls looking for some fun. Now, just like first set of girls we get a nice introduction to them. Except this time things will be different. By that I mean the tables are turned.

These girls, unlike the first, had the character development that was missing in the first batch. It's also where the movie got mildly entertaining, but it was still unbareable to lsiten to the black chicks butchy ghetto slang, which did NOT fit the movie whatsoever.

Death Proof have everything and anything over Planet Terror.

Yeah, dialogue perhaps. Because it was missing a PLOT the majority of the time..having been sucked up by all the non-linear gabbing.

I cannot but disagree heavily with anyone saying PT was better than DP. Simply because is NOT true! Honestly. It isn't...you're lying to yourself. Death Proof may not have the adreline action figure of Planet Terror. Because it doesn't need it!

Truth is irrelevant, it's your opinion versus ours. I could have used an adrenaline shot when I saw "Death Proof" personally. A movie billed with a killer car lacked the action you'd expect from it. That action has to be off the bat, not substituted with girls talking about kissing or drinking at bars, with Eli Roth talking about how he's going inevitably rape them all.

Death Proof stands alone! QT once again have done it! He delivers a story of violance, cruelty, sadistic justice, and revenge just like the classic cult movies and B-movies of the 70's.

..and just like the past 3 movies he's done, too. He needs a new gimmick. Female empowerment is boring. Alexander Aja perfected it in "Haute Tension".

I have to ask why you left out incredibly noticable parts in the movie, such as the poor performances from Zoe Bell, the waste of space Rosario Dawson's character was, the overkill when it came to dialogue, the lack of ACTION aside from two redundant car chases, the fact Kurt Russell actually had TWO different cars, aforementioned painful "ghetto" dialogue, and lastly the pathetic ending of the movie with Kurt Russell.

If you don't agree, fine. I'm not going to take sides..and my reply wasn't in anger..or in trying to call you out..I just think you were really unfair towards "Planet Terror", considering how much crap cinema you and I have seen...expecting such great things from an intentionally over the top movie.

The authenticity of "Planet Terror" won me over. The production was a lot smoother, the plot has been done before, like Tarantino's, but was still presented as fresh as possible, likeable, rich characters..well acted..the whole nine.

Originally posted by Cory Chaos
Totally disagree.

Doctor Block (Brolin) was ****ing awesome. Just a happy go lucky doctor that was supposed to be more loosy goosy than serious. Not only that, but he was a lover scorned.

Doctor Dakota Block, and her 3 friends? She was the strong female figure in pretty much every exploitation movie of that variety. She got tossed around like a rag doll, only to define female empowerment in the grindhouse era.

Blah! What did that do for the film? NOTHING!

To make this film look any stupider....it never was explained why the babysitters attack her and the child in the car. Later they're working together? Don't attribute that to the missing reel...that's a lame scapegoat.

They neither contributed to tension...wait, scratch that! There isn't a bloody ounce of tension in this film. They basically were nothing in the film but background characters. Their marriage is ruin...so how different did that change when he transformed into a deadly killing zombie?

Originally posted by Cory Chaos

Cherry and her useless talents. Down and out go go dancer hardly making a living who sucks it up and becomes a heroine, taking Wray's dream and making it a reality.

Wray himself. Kind of the "lone wolf" of the crew. Obviously having been through hell and back, to lead a strike and save the town, and the woman he still loved.

See! It's not there. That's you analyzing the film rather than been told in the film. You're making your own assumptions.

Originally posted by Cory Chaos

So did "Night of the Living Dead". It's fairly obvious it's toxic waste. The gas was green, so you can draw your own conclusion, especially if you've seen "ROTLD". Trioxin..same damn thing. It's science fiction, styled after shitty 70's movies. You're looking for Oscar worthy storytelling?

As I said it was a homage. How careless then of Rodriguez to give us a near identical tale and not bothering cleaning up the flaws. That's lazy writting. Not good storytelling which not even those shitty 70's movies even made a mistake about it.

We have talk to death on the topic of contamination and infections within the sci-fi/horror discussion before with 28 days later. I'm not even bother to take the same road. This is the stand....if anyone is going to make a movie in which people turn into zombies because of a chemical disaster then they better write it in a reasonable fashion. We don't mind those films of the 70's because they pioneer the concept. To follow the same concept in this day and age of technology and information is mediocre movie making.

To answer to your question directly.....No! I don't look for Oscar worthy storytelling...I look for good, entertaining, and intriguing storytelling.

Originally posted by Cory Chaos

Again, panning for gold in a sewage runoff. It's intentionally over the top.

There are disposable characters that come and go that are intended to do nothing but push the story along. Mr. Block, Ms. Block, Wray, and Cherry are the only ones that lend anything to the story, which is the way it was intended. You can toss in Naveen Andrews for fun, since he's a mild supporting character who started the whole thing.

None of those characters had anything interesting but their simple and obvious "survival" element. The only character that had ANY interest and which the movie should have revolved around was the character of Bruce Willis. Rodriguez flop this film terrible! As I said. The only things that kept me interested were the gun shooting zombies, the gore factor, and Rose Dancing. Storytelling? Not there. It's genetic and neither interesting or intriguing.

Originally posted by Cory Chaos
Are you kidding me? The first 10 minutes of the movie is 4 chicks in a car trying to get one of them to confess to sleeping with a guy?! WHO GIVES A SHIT? This is "Death Proof" not "Truth or Dare"! All that did was establish their supposed "innocence", even though they head straight to a bar to smoke pot and drink alcohol. It was fairly obvious they were just girls. Their dialogue was about as pointless as Quentin Tarantino's came, coming in jacking his dick, "homaging" his other movies in his own feature. "Is that a tasty beverage or is that a tasty beverage?"..the Big Kahuna Burger.."Not so fast, Zatiochi"...and that stupid 10 minute diner scene in the 2nd act, gabbing about whatever muscle car movie Zoe Bell was on about.

Who gives a shit? We! the audience who wants to know why are the characters there and how that will affect the emotion of the film later. The diner scene was reminscent of Reservoir dogs. Instead of guys...we get girls. You know why it was important to hear Zoe tells us that? That's right! It helps move the film to the car chase.

Originally posted by Cory Chaos

The conversations did nothing for the characters that we couldn't already tell ourselves. 1st set of girls were innocent, 2nd set had 2 motorhead dykes, a jailbait cheerleader, and a wasted talent in Rosario Dawson.

WRONG! It did exactly what the film need it. The conversations gave us an understanding that these were TWO very different group of girls.

Originally posted by Cory Chaos

There were 4. In a row. In less than a minute...and you mean to tell me that

Spoiler:
a chicks leg just falling off after being ejected from a car is realistic? A gals head being taken off because a car jumps over the car she's riding in is realistic?

Give me a break. Besides, "Planet Terror", again, was Science FICTION. Sentimental? Honestly. Sentimental. You're better than that, WD. I didn't give a **** about the broads because they're a bunch of regular girls. Hardly humanitarians.

WHAT? have you lost touch with reality? Have you never seen car accident videos in your life? People lose limbs and body parts and thats only on severe cases. Can you image how severe the case would be for a vehicle travelling a 200mph???? Come on!

Originally posted by Cory Chaos

These girls, unlike the first, had the character development that was missing in the first batch. It's also where the movie got mildly entertaining, but it was still unbareable to lsiten to the black chicks butchy ghetto slang, which did NOT fit the movie whatsoever.

Blaxpotation right there! Another element of the Grindhouse soul.

Originally posted by Cory Chaos

Truth is irrelevant, it's your opinion versus ours. I could have used an adrenaline shot when I saw "Death Proof" personally. A movie billed with a killer car lacked the action you'd expect from it. That action has to be off the bat, not substituted with girls talking about kissing or drinking at bars, with Eli Roth talking about how he's going inevitably rape them all.

You watch Death Proof expecting Terror Planet...see, that's what you happen.

Originally posted by Cory Chaos

I have to ask why you left out incredibly noticable parts in the movie, such as the poor performances from Zoe Bell, the waste of space Rosario Dawson's character was, the overkill when it came to dialogue, the lack of ACTION aside from two redundant car chases, the fact Kurt Russell actually had TWO different cars, aforementioned painful "ghetto" dialogue, and lastly the pathetic ending of the movie with Kurt Russell.

If you don't agree, fine. I'm not going to take sides..and my reply wasn't in anger..or in trying to call you out..I just think you were really unfair towards "Planet Terror", considering how much crap cinema you and I have seen...expecting such great things from an intentionally over the top movie.

The authenticity of "Planet Terror" won me over. The production was a lot smoother, the plot has been done before, like Tarantino's, but was still presented as fresh as possible, likeable, rich characters..well acted..the whole nine.

I was going to post a full review of the movie concept as whole. My response is also not in anger or defense. It's simply my reaction to the film.

Originally posted by WrathfulDwarf
[B]Blah! What did that do for the film? NOTHING!

What did female empowerment do for the movie? It carried it! Cherry and Dakota Block were the heroines of the film! They were the one's that ended up saving the survivors and making the "two against the world, baby" credo come to fruition, respectively.

To make this film look any stupider....it never was explained why the babysitters attack her and the child in the car. Later they're working together? Don't attribute that to the missing reel...that's a lame scapegoat.

The Crazy Babysitter Twins attacked Dakota and her kid in the car because A) they're psychotic, as witness by them fighting on the couch on the phone, B) Dakota was supposed to be there earlier, as they clearly exclaimed they had somewhere to be, and C) she kicked them out of her house. The only reason their in league with one another at the end is because, like in any other movie, every sets aside their differences for the sake of staying alive. Just like in "NOTLD". Black guy, white gal, rich neighbors..all band together to try and survive.

They neither contributed to tension...wait, scratch that! There isn't a bloody ounce of tension in this film. They basically were nothing in the film but background characters. Their marriage is ruin...so how different did that change when transformed into a deadly killing zombie?

Why would a town full of people turning into mush by a toxic gas need any tension? It's a B movie! It's intentionally bad, over the top, low budget bullshit cinema! Just because this movie actually had a budget and a big name director doesn't mean it was shooting for anything more than being what it was intended, which was a shitty grindhouse flick with little to no expectations, done out of pure appreciation for the genre. Dakota Block was a MAIN CHARACTER. Dr. Block, not so much..but he still added a presence. There's always one actor in these movies that take it more serious than need be, and he was it.

See! It's not there. That's you analyze rather than been told to you in the film. You're making your own assumptions.

What's not there? You said...

It gives us a bunch of badass characters with NO indepth to them and absolutely no interesting development.

Their development was PLAIN AS DAY. Cherry was a broke ass pole dancer who ended up sucking it up and killing everyone in her path, reaffirming that her talents weren't useless, just like Wray said! Dakota Block was the one that had told Cherry to "just reach up" when she was in trouble. Dakota herself went from lowly nurse to taking things into her own hands, fighting back, and going along with Cherry's plan to save the day. And she did. I'm not making any "assumptions", the movie confirms all of this. If it didn't happen, the character were useless, and wouldn't have been the LONE SURVIVORS at the end.

As I said it was a homage. How careless then of Rodriguez to give us a near identical tale and not bothering cleaning up the flaws. That's lazy writting. Not good storytelling which not even those shitty 70's movies even made a mistake about it.

Disagree. If you've seen all those shitty seventies movies, is it really necessary for a film in 2007 to spell it out for you? It's called "The Shit". It's gas. It's green. It causes people to melt. Self explanatory.

None of those characters had anything interesting but their simple and obvious "survival" element. The only character that had ANY interest and which the movie should have revolved around was the character of Bruce Willis. Rodriguez flop this film terrible! As I said. The only things that kept me interested were the gun shooting zombies, the gore factor, and Rose Dancing. Storytelling? Not there. It's genetic and neither interesting or intriguing.

BRUCE WILLIS? He was in the movie for all of 5 minutes, and was nothing but a crooked Army general looking to buy toxic waste! As far as interesting characters...what other movies have you seen a Go Go dancer with a machine gun leg, a pair of crazy babysitters, a toxic plague, a man who carries around his defeated enemies testicles in a jar, and a psychotic nurse turn heroine in a movie?

Done trying to understand where you're coming from...muchless trying to reason with you and whatever point you're getting at.

To each his own, I suppose..

I liked them both a lot. Planet Terror was authentic grindhouse, I loved it, and I think WD was indeed "panning for gold in a sewage runoff." It was perfect shitty movie. I was dumbstruck, it was absolutely awesome. I've never seen an actual grindhouse film, but after PT, I was pretty damn sure what they were about.

DP, however, was more of a movie and less in tune with the spirit of the genre. I would like to see Death Proof as a feature-length film, but it just didn't work within the parameters of PT and the trailers preceding. Like I said, as much as QT professes to love the genre, he didn't devote himself to making it authentic like RR did.

I'd give both of the films a whopping thumbs up, and the film as a whole was greater than the sum of its parts, that's for sure.

WD, I like your evaluation of Death Proof, but I'm going to have to agree with CC's evaluation of Planet Terror. (btw, I highly enjoyed both films, but Planet Terror was superior to me).

I agree with Myth almost completely. They were both amazing films, but Planet Terror gets my vote because it was truer to the genre

Originally posted by Strangelove
I agree with Myth almost completely. They were both amazing films, but Planet Terror gets my vote because it was truer to the genre

It's truer to the genre because it's a homage. Tarantino actually made a grindhouse film.

just saw it and it wasn't all that good

Originally posted by Cory Chaos
What did female empowerment do for the movie? It carried it! Cherry and Dakota Block were the heroines of the film! They were the one's that ended up saving the survivors and making the "two against the world, baby" credo come to fruition, respectively.

Then if you're going with the female empowerment of the film...what's your deal with Dead Proof then?

Two agaisn't the world was nothing a cheesy one liner. If that's the case then what's the point of a helipcoter pilot to get them out of there when neither knew how to fly one? Same with the rest of pack? Doesn't make sense. Indeed digging for gold in a raw sewage.

Originally posted by Cory Chaos
The Crazy Babysitter Twins attacked Dakota and her kid in the car because A) they're psychotic, as witness by them fighting on the couch on the phone, B) Dakota was supposed to be there earlier, as they clearly exclaimed they had somewhere to be, and C) she kicked them out of her house. The only reason their in league with one another at the end is because, like in any other movie, every sets aside their differences for the sake of staying alive. Just like in "NOTLD". Black guy, white gal, rich neighbors..all band together to try and survive.

That's not the reaction anyone got. You making that up. They weren't psychotic just plain weird and annoying...see, that entire scene were their chatting on the cell phone was pointless and stupid. What was the purpose of those two? See, that same essence of criticism you're applying to Death Proof should be apply here.

Originally posted by Cory Chaos

Why would a town full of people turning into mush by a toxic gas need any tension? It's a B movie! It's intentionally bad, over the top, low budget bullshit cinema! Just because this movie actually had a budget and a big name director doesn't mean it was shooting for anything more than being what it was intended, which was a shitty grindhouse flick with little to no expectations, done out of pure appreciation for the genre. Dakota Block was a MAIN CHARACTER. Dr. Block, not so much..but he still added a presence. There's always one actor in these movies that take it more serious than need be, and he was it.

Hold up! Why would it need tension? gee...let me guess...it's a horror movie...it needs some...but I guess that goes out the window with the zombies.

Originally posted by Cory Chaos

Disagree. If you've seen all those shitty seventies movies, is it really necessary for a film in 2007 to spell it out for you? It's called "The Shit". It's gas. It's green. It causes people to melt. Self explanatory.

Yes! of course it is necessary if you're telling a story. It causes people to melt? then how come no one melted in the end? Why only the people at the hospital were getting mutated and not melting? Flop story...you know what movie was smart enough NOT to go with the chemical storyline and still use zombies?

Night of the Comet.

Originally posted by Cory Chaos

BRUCE WILLIS? He was in the movie for all of 5 minutes, and was nothing but a crooked Army general looking to buy toxic waste! As far as interesting characters...what other movies have you seen a Go Go dancer with a machine gun leg, a pair of crazy babysitters, a toxic plague, a man who carries around his defeated enemies testicles in a jar, and a psychotic nurse turn heroine in a movie?

Let's see.... the character ofBruce Willis starts the whole thing by killing the people in the military base. Bruce Willis captures the posse of people in the bridge. Bruce Willis character gives a tells how he and his men were infected.....yet the story didn't revolve around him??????

Originally posted by Cory Chaos

Done trying to understand where you're coming from...muchless trying to reason with you and whatever point you're getting at.

To each his own, I suppose..

Yes, be done, please...I want to get to part III of my review. I don't mind you interrupting my review. However, if you just want to defend a movie that really is below average on the B-movie level...then I'll keep arguing.

Originally posted by Solo
LOL

It's truer to the genre because it's a homage. Tarantino actually made a grindhouse film.

I honestly didn't find any elements of a grindhouse movie in "Death Proof" other than the title. The movie had mostly mainstream, not to mention, very modern elements, which really ruined the feel. He didn't even bother going with the scratch filter. The funny thing is, "Planet Terror" was shot digitally and looks more authentic than the 35mm filmed "Death Proof", which came off only as over the top, late grindhouse, Troma-esque movie should.

Originally posted by WrathfulDwarf

That's not the reaction anyone got. You making that up. They weren't psychotic just plain weird and annoying...

Well, lets see... they attacked a mother's car and what was the other thing? Oh yeah, at the beginning of the movie it credited them as "The Crazy Babysitter Twins". But no, their characters weren't psychotic, just "weird". 😉

Originally posted by WrathfulDwarf
[B]Then if you're going with the female empowerment of the film...what's your deal with Dead Proof then?

There's a fine line between what Rodriguez did, which was heroism, and what Tarantino banks on in all his movies, which is revenge. I'm tired of the female revenge element.

Two agaisn't the world was nothing a cheesy one liner. If that's the case then what's the point of a helipcoter pilot to get them out of there when neither knew how to fly one? Same with the rest of pack? Doesn't make sense. Indeed digging for gold in a raw sewage.

Those two things have nothing in common, as it was a phrase to explain Wray and Cherry's relationship/outlook, considering they're outcasts. Makes perfect sense if you'd stop and digest what's going down instead of looking for faults in things.

That's not the reaction anyone got. You making that up. They weren't psychotic just plain weird and annoying...see, that entire scene were their chatting on the cell phone was pointless and stupid. What was the purpose of those two? See, that same essence of criticism you're applying to Death Proof should be apply here.

That's not the reaction YOU got. At the beginning of the ****ing movie they're billed as "Introducing the CRAZY BABYSITTER TWINS". They're crazy! Is that not explanation enough? Their scene was established because they're the babysitters that Dakota calls upon at the beginning of the movie, so that she can meet up with Fergie, the first person who falls victim to the infected/zombie characters, and puts the plot of the entire movie into gear! The same criticism can't be applied to this movie because they're entirely different movies. "Death Proof" was full of filler to move along a paper thin plot, which was rehashed for the 2nd half, just with a different ending.

Hold up! Why would it need tension? gee...let me guess...it's a horror movie...it needs some...but I guess that goes out the window with the zombies.

Do you need tension when you already know what's going to happen in the movie? It was tense at times, but I was there to see a balls out Sci Fi movie. Not some Hitchcock one-off.

Yes! of course it is necessary if you're telling a story. It causes people to melt? then how come no one melted in the end? Why only the people at the hospital were getting mutated and not melting? Flop story...you know what movie was smart enough NOT to go with the chemical storyline and still use zombies?

Do you not remember when Naveen Andrews character was in the bunker with Bruce Willis and Freddie Rodriguez when he said that some people wouldn't be affected by the toxins? I guess not.

Let's see.... the character of Bruce Willis starts the whole thing by killing the people in the military base. Bruce Willis captures the posse of people in the bridge. Bruce Willis character gives a tells how he and his men were infected.....yet the story didn't revolve around him??????

Naveen Andrews' character was the one that shot "The Shit" causing it to leak. Not Bruce Willis. If it revolved around anyone, it would be him. He's the one that started it all. Willis was a one dimensional character that was used in 2 acts to get a story going.

Yes, be done, please...I want to get to part III of my review. I don't mind you interrupting my review. However, if you just want to defend a movie that really is below average on the B-movie level...then I'll keep arguing.

Argue all you want, I'm debating your OPINION that it's below average, especially compared to "Christine"..I mean "Duel"...I mean "Jeepers Creepers"...gah.."Death Proof".

Originally posted by Myth
Well, lets see... they attacked a mother's car and what was the other thing? Oh yeah, at the beginning of the movie it credited them as "The Crazy Babysitter Twins". But no, their characters weren't psychotic, just "weird". 😉

But then explain why they didn't go on attacking everyone else if they were psychotic? it just didn't add up...the characters were just simple pointless.

Well, enough...moving on.

Part III of my Grindhouse review.

Now that the feature presentations have been reviewed. Let's move to review the whole film itself.

The presentation and look of the film it's extremely well done. Each director gave us films that were homage to the classic b movies they grew up with. Since we're living in a very different world now. Both directors introduce us to the movie world of that area.

In my own life experience I've only been to one grindhouse show. It was back in 1998. I had a wonderful experience to catch some old skool kung fu flicks. It was entertaining but not really something you cherish for the rest of your life. I've grown with large multi cinema theathers. I was never part of that generation to which Tarantino and Rodriguez grew up. However, the films that they love, happen to also be my favorites.

When you think of Grindhouse you think of B movies. Everything in the feature film was a combination of that genre. Most of the B movies nowadays can either be found in VHS or DVD format or even late TV and also Cable TV.

See, as far as understand the concept of Grindhouse movies is that is very low budget and cheaply made. That however never stop the directors to provide the audience with some entertaining storytelling.

Since movie theaters carry films that are mostly backed up by big studios these low budget films really had no home. So eventually they end up in a smaller theather.

Going back to the film. When you think about it....a film like Planet Death really doesn't have that status of a classic B movie. It's more Next Gen B movie like Snakes on A Plane. It really shouldn't be categorize as a grindhouse film. There is CGI involved in this flick. Technically that disqualified the film for me. Again, the film is good it's fun...it's entertaining....but it really isn't a film I would take seriously. It's too absurd and over the top.

Remenber when the character of Kurt Russel is talking to Rose outside the bar in Death Proof? Remenber that dialogue about old movies stunts and CGI and how the times have change? Well, see that itself does provide a bit of history of the Grindhouse.

Tarantino is more cinematic than Rodriguez. The entire film revolved in two very different ideolgies. One is old cinematics (in which traditional Cult movies present themselves) the other is CGI (this is where Snakes on the Plane comes in) Both ideas are fine....but the one in which old movie tricks is based on the spirit of a Grindhouse movie.

Because Tarantino remains firm in his belief not to use CGI so much makes feel that he IS the one who really capture the sould and body of a Grindhouse movie.

Let's come back to our time. Honestly the days of the Grindhouse films are behind...not gone! (there still grindhouse movie theaters out there) but pretty much behind.

Most of you might be asking: "WD you seen to know about these movies why don't you mention some?"

If you don't mind...here is a good list of Grindhouse movies:

Cannibal Ferox, The Beyond, Five Fingers of Death, The 36th Shaolin Chamber, Bone, Switchblade Sisters, Django, Contraband, Truck Turner, Cannibal Holocaust, Death Race 2000, 2010 The fall of New York city and so on....

To me the term "Grindhouse" is practically a new release B movie shown in as small cheap theater. Most of these were made during the 70's in time when CGI was only fantasy. Times have change and movies as well.

By now all of you heard that this movie commercially didn't do well. Okay, that's a plus! Most of the movies shown in Grindhouses never were million dollar makers. This is why...

...THE MOVIE SHOULD HAVE BEEN NC-17 AND NOT R. That's just me of course.

The entire concept of the film Grindhouse was well done. Not perfect but close enough for us to enjoy. Well, here are the final score:

The "Coming Attractions and movie Ratings and food advertising" well done. Don't deserve any kind of rating.

All the movie Trailers get a 5 out of 5.....Don't! 😉

Planet Terror 3 out of 5.

Death Proof 5 out of 5.

The film with all it's part, presentation, image, illustration.....

4 out of 5.

Thank you and Enjoy the film. 🙂

The Film as a whole was greater than the sum of its parts. A whopping thumbs up thumbsup

death proof was super bad. that is all.

The Edgar Wright trailer is the latest to get the full movie being made rumour

i havent seen the trailer as im waiting to see it on the big screen but Wright says if he did make a movie out of it itd be his Argento flick as it wouldnt make any sense

in a newspaper today it says that people are leaving after Planet Terror because they dont understand that its a double feature

jesus

they arent missing much. death proof put me to sleep.

Originally posted by vintageSW77
The Edgar Wright trailer is the latest to get the full movie being made rumour

i havent seen the trailer as im waiting to see it on the big screen but Wright says if he did make a movie out of it itd be his Argento flick as it wouldnt make any sense

Funny fake trailer, but would make the worst movie. The trailer is funny because of the announcer, not what actually happens in the visuals (except for the baby guy).