The Hot Blog

it's Planet Terror not Terror Planet

And I'll wait for the DVD, cause I want to see Tarentino's movie, but could care less about watching an overlong Rodriguez zombie movie. Zombie movies have to be pretty damn special and good for me to bother seeing them as I really don't care for the genre at all. 28 Days later and Night of the living Dead are the only two I've seen and liked and I really don't care to see another bit from a genre that does nothing for me.

This is a pretty well-written review. I've seen reviews going both ways on the two movies, so I'm up for watching them both to make up my own mind.

It'll be tough for this Tarantino/Rodriguez two-fer to be better than "Four Rooms".

yeah I'm joking.

Everyone I know wants to skip the Planet Terror and just check out Death Proof. I'm with them. But my excitement for "Hot Fuzz" trumps these movies by a mile.

Maybe I was just beaten down by the Rodriguez movie, but I didn't really like Deathproof. The chase was fun, but one-note. The talky scenes seemed dated and since the characters are cardboard thin, I didn't have the patience to sit through them. All the actors are great, but it still felt a little bit like extra long Four Rooms.

You didn't mention Machete, probably the best of the trailers...

Do you think it's possible that Death Proof might be released eventually as a separate DVD without the nonsense preceding it?

Dave's 100% right - and in perfect agreement with Jeff Wells, too!

I totally don't understand those who prefer RR's dumbass zombie flick to QT's awesome Hawksian hanging-out-movie/car chase flick.

I am happy to say that I haven't read a word by Wells in over 2 months and it's the most pleasant dump I ever took.

Kill Bill 2 was amazing, brilliant. C'mon Jeff.

Shaun of the Dead was a pretty good zombie movie, Movielocke.

I skipped DP's reviews because I like to see movies without peoples opinions floating around in my head, but I've been saying for YEARS Rodriguez needs a better editor. He doesn't think things through and his movies suffer because of it. SIN CITY was so good because it was ripped directly from Frank Millers books. Rodriguez, left on his own, has been a rambling, half-baked mess since ONCE UPON A TIME IN MEXICO.

That being said, I couldn't be more excited to see GRINDHOUSE tomorrow!

I must have fallen asleep when Romero zombies appeared in Julie Taymor's FRIDA.

"I skipped DP's reviews because I like to see movies without peoples opinions floating around in my head, but I've been saying for YEARS Rodriguez needs a better editor. He doesn't think things through and his movies suffer because of it. SIN CITY was so good because it was ripped directly from Frank Millers books. Rodriguez, left on his own, has been a rambling, half-baked mess since ONCE UPON A TIME IN MEXICO."

Er, last time I checked, Rodriguez has made exactly one non-Sin City movie since OUaTiM - Sharkboy and Lava Girl. I'm assuming you meant pretty much throughout his entire career. And for me, the reason Sin City didn't work was exactly the same reason you think it was so good - it was ripped directly from Frank Miller's books.

Technically both "Spy Kids 2" and "Spy Kids 3-D" were made after "Once Upon a Time in Mexico". OUaTiM just took a while to release.

When did Freddy Rodriguez turn into Hal Sparks?

And Rose McG has had serious work done since filming this. She was on Craig Ferguson the other night, and her face looked like a Botoxed mask; I wouldn't have been able to pick her out of a police lineup as the chick from Doom Generation.

THE REAPING + GRINDHOUSE ON EASTER WEEKEND = Can't wait for some early campaigning politician to seize this as an example of "Hollywood being out of touch." Op-ed pieces tried pulling that when SIN CITY's opening weekend coincidentally was the weekend the previous pope passed away.

And while I don't think it's a big deal and I don't see why one's religion would prevent them from seeing a particular type of movie, I'll go out on a limb and wager there aren't many Roman Catholics or Christians in charge of release date scheduling at major studios. Whether there are or not, you'd think someone sitting around that table might have opined that the holiest of holy weekends for some 90% of America just MIGHT not have been the best weekend to release a boob, zombie, and blood drenched splatterfest. Just as a practical BUSINESS DECISION, that is.

Maybe they figure there's not much overlap between the people who would be religiously offended by these movies and the people who will actually go to them.

Do you think it's possible that Death Proof might be released eventually as a separate DVD without the nonsense preceding it?

Even if it isn't, it's not like it's hard to just go to the chapter menu and skip ahead. But both films being recut and released as separate features in the European market, so maybe the Weinsteins will take advantage of that and double/triple/quadruple-dip on the DVD (the U.S. cut, the European Planet Terror, the European Death Proof, a super-deluxe set with all of 'em in one box, etc.).

LexG

Interesting comment you made about McGowan's appearance. When she first came on the scene a decade ago I thought she was one of the more beautiful actresses out there. The fact that she was not rail thin was also a major plus.

When I saw her on Ferguson I had to look twice and listen before I was convinced it was her. She looked like her face had been stretched; she looked more generic.

Sad.

I'm looking forward to seeing this next week...or not. I find I see these guys films more out of obligation than joy. Like some, hate others. Rodriguez is not the hack people say and Tarantino is not the genius.

Take Pulp Fiction out of Tarantino's ouevre and his stock overall falls considerably.

SHARK BOY AND LAVA GIRL is a mess...and so is SPY KIDS 3. They're both the equivalent of a puppet show. The first 2 Spy Kids were pretty great.

After looking at Rodgriguez's IMDB page, he's all over the map. I actually really liked FROM DUSK TILL DAWN, at loeast the first half and I remember liking THE FACULTY even though I knew it was crap.

My point was intended to be: Rodriguez gets so hyped up on being so fast into production and onto screens for cheap he doesn't put time into the storylines of his films.

I feel the opposite way, that the first half of From Dusk Till Dawn is a waste of time and feature's one of Tarantino's typically horrible on-screen performances, and the second half is fun.

You can't help but wonder if Poland reads Jeff's stuff and vice versa. I believe him. Good review though, I was always counting on Tarantino to come out on top. Kurt Russell is the man!!!

a - it's planet terror

b - your run times are off. death proof and planet terror are just about the exact same length.

c - that's just sloppy.

From Dusk Till Dawn is terrible on all levels. Looks cheap, not fun to watch and just gore for gore's sake. The ONLY saving grace would be Selma's dance. Desperado is the only Rodriguez film I'd watch more than once.

I think there are much, much more interesting filmmakers out there than these two, do we really need another gore fest/ car chase / zombie movie out in the movieplexes?

I am pretty darned sure that they are not the same running time, Anghus. But if they are closer than I estimated, that is just more evidence.

P.S. I know it's asking a lot, but anything to say about the actual content and not just finding a reason to be critical of me?

Anghus probably hasn't seen the movie, DP, like 99.99% of us.

I would assume that he has, J-Mc... or why would he be offering his assertion?

Actually, you're probably right.

Both features run almost exactly the same amount of time, 85 minutes. Add in the trailer and the ephemera, and you get three hours, five minutes.

DEATH PROOF most certainly is not an hour long.

I must have fallen asleep when Romero zombies appeared in Julie Taymor's FRIDA."

Oh god I was gonna mention that when I read it. What on earth does Frida have to do with anything?

I'm so freakin' pissed off that we have to wait until the end of MAY for this movie. But, I guess, Australia gets Sunshine in 6 days so that's sort of compensation.

Anyway. Can't wait to see it. But Dave can you start a spoiler thread RIGHT NOW. I don't wanna read nothin about it.

"But really, it's as simple as three women talking in a car with mismatched shots and overlapping sound edits. It feels exactly right."

I was hoping they'd do that. That's one thing I've always noticed about those low budget movies from the '70s. They just weren't careful about that.

It's interesting that more people haven't mentioned the most obvious antecedent of this film, Stanley Donen's Movie Movie from 1979. I see that Michael Phillips in the Chicago Tribune gave the movie its due, but considering how the concept of these two projects is almost exactly the same, I'm surprised the comparison isn't more widespread.

Just curious, Dave: Why is it that when someone in MSM makes an error, you feel free to razz him or her about it, but when you make a mistake, and someone points it out, you get all defensive and complain that "it's not about me, it's about my actual content"? And BTW: If part of that content is an error, then it's flawed content. Like, damaged goods.

And Drew is right: "Death Proof" most certainly is not an hour long.

Wrecktum: You're right, of course. But it's kinda-sorta like when I compared elements in "Josey and the Pussycats" to "Privilege" -- after the fact, I had a lot of people tell me they had no idea what I was talking about, because they'd never heard of the movie. "Movie Movie" may be even more obscure. Is it even available on DVD?

Joe, Wrecktum

I agree that the bulk of critics probably have not even heard of Movie Movie which in and of itself is kind of sad. Another film that had a similar concept was National Lampoon's Goes to the Movies.

Now this is an atrocious film that never even received a theatrical release, but it still is the same rough concept of Grindhouse, if different genres are chosen.

Most critics who are giving Grindhouse raves would not give the films that inspired it the time of day; which makes you have to at least question the validity of some of the reviews.

It's wonderful hearing critics do flip flops to call Death Proof about 'female empowerment' when the films that seemingly inspired it...I Spit on Your Grave, Last House on the Left etc. are anything but.

From just having read about it, the premise kind of reminds me of Creepshow, too.

Nicol, I don't see how what you're saying is contradictory re: critics. I haven't seen Grindhouse yet obviously, but it would seem that it's the difference between poor execution in a movie like I Spit on Your Grave and solid, intentional execution in a movie like Death Proof, where Tarantino is allowed to excel at all the things you constantly say a critic should be watching for: story, performances, etc. You seem to be saying that both types of movies should be judged the same way because of what, basic subject matter?
Plus of course, Death Proof can easily be about 'female empowerment' without the earlier films being so - it's called 'improving on one's source material'.

Jeff,

I think you are missing my point. Obviously Grindhouse will have good acting, cinematography etc.

But the execution is also part of the concept; or the concept is part of the execution, if you will.

How then can one properly review Grindhouse if one is not familar with the very concept that it is dealing with?

Now, I'm sure many critics are aware of these films; and I'm equally aware that many critics are not. Kind of like, how can you tell if someone made a good western if you have never seen a Western before?

Can QT elevate the material so that it is about 'female empowerment'?. Sure. But first we would have to agree on a definition of what 'female empowerment' is.

Then, though, how can one say he has elevated the material if one is not familiar with the material to begin with?

I haven't seen the film yet, and I'm debating even bothering due to my mixed emotions on Tarantino. With Rodriguez, I have no mixed emotions - he IS a hack. It just so happens that when he apes John Woo's stuff, he occasionally gets it right. The kinetics, anyway. The bit with the gun-leg just looks stupid, not cool (granted - again, I haven't seen the film yet, so perhaps I'm WAAAAY off and the context is hysterical, hip, and oh-so-very-cool).

Tarantino bothers the hell out of me. I still think there's a really good filmmaker stuck somewhere inside that big ball of a dork. Liked Dogs, loved Fiction, grew to love Jackie Brown. Everything else...not so much. I'm tired of Tarantino making the same garbage he grew up adoring, but because he makes them 18 hours long and some critics are terrified of being labeled "unhip", they scramble to see who can felate him quicker (yeah, I'm mostly talking about Kill Bill).

But the guy DOES have talent. If you watch Dogs, Fiction, and Brown there *is* something running through all of those films, he is NOT a fluke.

Anyway, back to Grindhouse. The film obsessive in me wants to see it, but the adult doesn't trust that the whole enterprise is a giant waste of time. Do I really want to pay money to see yet another of Rodriguez and Tarantino's vanity projects?

I'd like to ask you to clarify your point: are you saying that most critics are unable to properly gauge Grindhouse because they're not familiar with that mode and period of filmmaking? I don't think that would make the reviews 'invalid', but merely less useful/interesting.

Also, probably opening a big new topic, I would say that Last House on the Left is a better film than you are giving it credit for. It's very flawed but there's more going on in it than mere exploitation. I wouldn't say the same about I Spit on Your Grave, but that movie does have some interesting, revealing facets.

If Grindhouse does well, does this mean John Landis can make Kentucky Fried Movie II? Or maybe more movies like Cannibal Women in the Avocado Jungle of Death? These were joys to find on video as a teenager. :)

Amblinman,

I agree with pretty much everything you said although I have committed to seeing Grindhouse next week more out of obligation than desire.

Jeff,

I recently watched Last House again. I am a huge Craven fan. I met him once and spoke to him about his films and he is a very bright guy who is also courteous and kind.

I know Last House is loosely based on The Virgin Spring.

But really...it's just not that good and has much more in commen with the schlock of the era than anything meaningful and the production values are so poor that it takes away from any latent intent that might be intended.

It's a bad movie.

I'm away for the weekend now, so if I do not respond it does not mean I am not reading. Just have to pack and stuff.

Best.

It's a flawed movie to be sure, made by somebody who didn't really know what he was doing. I guess this is a case where you see the glass as half empty (if not less) and I see it as half full - as a comment on the repetitive, never-ending nature of violence, as a movie that aligns us in empathy with the victims but not in a way that asks us to be angry for revenge but just asks us to empathize with their plight, and as a portrait of its almost-post-Vietnam era, it's pretty unique.
And it's better than 300.

300 aside,

Do you really think that was the intent?

Or do you think it was made by a group of guys trying to cash in on a new laxness in the rating system and an exploitation craze to make money?

I can't possibly see how you could think that was the intent.

I think it was made by a bunch of guys trying to make money, _and_ the movie that came out of Craven's head at that point was something nasty yet cognizant and sensitive. If he didn't have something greater than pure exploitation happening in his head he wouldn't have bothered to remake a Bergman story, after all. Any familiarity with the movie within Craven's career could tell you this.

I can't possibly see how an attentive viewing would show that such was _not_ the intent, flaws in execution aside. There's a huge difference in the directorial intelligence between Last House and I Spit, even if the execution of the two is generally similar.

Have a nice weekend.

Joe - Please feel free to quote me the last time I picked on Old Media or anyone else over the factual issue of running time.

Your point is taken. But as far as Traditional Media goes, you are a pathetic apologist.

"All defensive" is your spin on what you assume I feel. My point about Anghus and now you is that I really am not the discussion. Had Anghus made his point and then discussed the film, I wouldn't have had anything to say about it. At least you added another post and mentioned the great "Movie Movie," Harry Hamlin's only valuable contribution to film not wearing a toga.

And do you not concur that if I felt, watching the films, that one was MUCH longer than the other - I will be going back to time them this weekend - that it speaks to the OPINION I was offering about them? Or are my reviews now fact for you?

The funny thing is, I am willing to discuss your point/attack. But you go so far to try to win the point - which has no win - that it's no longer a discussion, but an attack/defense thing... which as you point out, I can't win.

Would you like to start a "David vs MSM" post for you where we can discuss that I am the issue and Grindhouse isn't?

You're seriously going to go back just to time them?

Really?

Dave, let it go, man. If you're going back because you enjoyed the experience and want to see it again, I can understand that. I've seen it three times now.

But if you're going back for the sole purpose of sitting there staring at a stopwatch, I suggest you might want to spend your time otherwise. That just seems joyless and petty.

Would you like me to point you to the multitude of interviews where the guys talk about how they both turned in 85 minutes cuts of their films? Wouldn't that be easier?

Oh, and bonus points to whoever mentioned KENTUCKY FRIED MOVIE above. Yes, the notion of a double-feature movie isn't particularly new, but I'd say there's pretty much nothing that MOVIE MOVIE has in common with this in terms of tone or style. KFM is a much clearer precedent.

When I went to see it the second time, John Landis was sitting two rows in front of us. And when the helicopter-killing-zombies scene started, a good ten or twelve people in the theater turned to look and see his reaction.

Awkward.

Nah.

Firstly, gauging myself is important to me. If my inner clock is off, for whatever reason, I want to know that and consider it in a real way. As you know, Drew, we all do a lot by instinct. So even if it was just that, which it isn't, it would be important to me.

I'm always curious to see how movies like this play a second time. I'll be hoping to enjoy My Dyslexia Planet more this time. (No, I don't have dyslexia and I am not trying to avoid responsibility for that error... a joke.)

And at the moment, there is so little out there worth seeing that seeing Grindhouse again seems like a reasonable use of time. Didn't need to see 300 again. Won't really be anxious to see another wide release - though I will - for another month.

Grindhouse will be discussed through the rest of the year, spiking again at year's end. I respect the effort and the conceit. And I enjoyed more than half of it. So... return I shall.

SPOILER ALERT (just in case...)

After stumbling out of the theater hardly an hour ago, I'd have to say that my take on the film was the polar opposite of that offered by the "respectable" reviewers. I thought "Planet Terror" was pretty darn good and very funny in spots, but "Death Proof" seemed interminable. The loooong conversations between Jungle Julie and her too-hip-for-the-room clique made me so glad to see them all killed, and Julie's death in particular was especially humorous because she was EXACTLY the kind of woman who would hang her bare feet out the window of a moving car. The conversation between the second group of women was only slightly more entertaining than the first only because Zoe Bell was obviously playing herself, but the faux-insider-info also dragged on overly long, as did the debate over what the women actually planned to do with the car (were they going to steal it or...what?). The climactic car chase reminded me of the old dictum "If you've seen one sword fight, you've seen them all."

As for the trailers, "Machete" and "Don't" were great, "Thanksgiving" was ehh, but I was rather disappointed by "Werewolf Women of the SS." After hearing about the concentration camp full of topless women, I expected to see a concentration camp full of topless women--instead, I think there may have been a grand total of six breasts. The werewolf effects were awful (I guess that's the grindhouse way), but how could you feature Nazis and milky-white she-bitches of the SS and yet no one seemed particularly...evil? Sadly enough, I thought the "execution" scene in "Monty Python's The Meaning of Life" came off better than this.

For anyone still sitting on the fence about "Planet Terror," you have to admit that Tarantino's scenes alone were worth that half of the ticket!

P.S. There were paragraph breaks in here when I originally wrote this, but whatever software you're using took them all out.

Fair enough, Dave. I think the point that one FELT longer than the other is valid. DEATH PROOF is a very busy dense bit of business, but that's totally in keeping with the films it's riffing off of. Everyone has some secret connection to everyone else, and everybody's got family drama or romantic tension to resolve, and that's even without considering the horror storyline.

What works so well in QT's is the way that first half of it really takes its time. It's leisurely in the best possible way. Slasher movies always make cursory nods at getting you invested in the victims, but here, Quentin spends an entire boozy evening with the girls before anything happens, so you get far more character than one might expect.

I hope you enjoy it the second time.

David: Excuse me, but now I am the one being defensive? Yeah, right. You know, I don't come here nearly as often as I used to. And when I do -- I am reminded why I don't come here as often as I used to. But let me add this: Rod Amateau's "Drive-In" actually predates "KFM" by a year, and can also be read as a precursor to "Grindhouse."

Nicol: Oh, yes, I remember "National Lampoon Goes to the Movies." Pretty freakin' dreadful, actually. But, then again, I also remember some of the movies that are specifically referenced throughout "Grindhouse" -- including a few, I will admit, that I actually saw while chugging beer and/or gnoshing pizza in the front seat of a Camaro at a drive-in. And yes, I think it does add to your experience of this movie if you have vivid memories of watching "Vanishing Point" or "Dirty Mary, Crazy Larry" behind the wheel of your own car (or in the passeneger seat of you girlfriend's car).

for those who've seen the Grindhouse double are there any references to "School of the holy beast" ?

Don't give much of a spoiler, you can just say yes or no.

No nuns.

"I'd say there's pretty much nothing that MOVIE MOVIE has in common with this in terms of tone or style. KFM is a much clearer precedent"

Absolutely wrong, McWeeney. Both movies were made by filmmakers honoring beloved filmgoing experiences from their youth. In the case of Movie Movie, Larry Gelbart and Stanely Donen created nostalgic and loving memories of going to double features in the '30s and '40s. In Grindhouse, the exact same idea motivated Tarantino and Rodriguez. That idea is far more important than the actual content.

Kentucky Fried Movie was not nostalgic in the least. It was a spoof on contemporary genres.

KFM was not all homage. Catholic School Girls In Trouble (http://www.flurl.com/uploaded/Catholic_High_School_Girls_in_Trouble_70355.html) was. The Kung Fu stuff was.

Really, the most accurate analogy here - aside from fake trailers - are the Mel Brooks movies.

But Movie Movie actually did a lot of what QT & RR did here, including crossing over the ensemble cast and doing two distinct genres.

A FISTFUL OF YEN may be a parody, but it's one that absolutely gets every detail right and demonstrates a deep love of the original.

When KFM was released, TIME magazine named A FISTFUL OF YEN as one of the ten best films of the year, something I don't think they even did for ENTER THE DRAGON. There's a profound love of genre going on in KFM.

MOVIE MOVIE isn't totally dissimilar, but it's such a different era of filmmaking being represented, and the film fetishism itself is very different. With KFM, it really felt like a full night at the drive-in.

I don't think anyone's arguing that GRINDHOUSE is some lightning-bolt original notion. But thanks for being entirely dismissive, Wrecktum. Always a pleasure.

Another critic circle jerk!

3 hours wasted. On my death bed I will curse Tarantino!

I can't believe that people are feeling DEATH PROOF but not PLANET TERROR.

DEATH PROOF is a weak concept fragmented into two vignettes with absolutely brutally bad acting performances. Why wasn't Wanda Sykes cast as the sass-talking stunt driver? She could at least have made "I'm going to bust a nut in yo' ass!" mildly amusing.

I realize this is Tarantino's ode to trash, but since when does an ode to trash mean anything more than trash itself? If Quentin wants to send a greeting card to Grade B-schlock, why not make the thing fun and not a drawn out gab fest based on a script no doubt rescued from the reject bin?!

It's unfortunate, and a sad state of affairs, when Eli Roth of all people delivers the only genuinely funny two minutes of the entire evening. "THANKSGIVING!"

Ryan

Thanks Ryan...for proving idiots exsist and form sentences.

DEATH PROOF just rocked. my. world. That chase scene was absolutely THE SHIT! Screw CGI forever.

Once again Tarantino pops up to show people what we love about movies. And I'm no Tarantino apologist...I was just blown away by DEATH PROOF.

PLANET TERROR was fine...Rodgriguez obviously paid attention in class and understood the assignment. But DEATH PROOF....wow.

"But thanks for being entirely dismissive, Wrecktum. Always a pleasure."

Anytime, Hoss.

I just got back from seeing it and I would say that overall our group was mostly underwhelmed.

I agree with David that Planet Terror was extremely weak while Death Proof was really fun and definitely in the spirit of what they set out to do.

Personally I think the grindhouse type films that they were referencing are by and large worthless and many of the people in our audience couldn't have beared sitting through crap like "Return to Macon County" or "Revenge of the Cheerleaders". I also think its easy to do an homage to grindhouse flicks when your budget is 1000x what Jack Hill and his ilk had when they were making their films.

All in all I hope Tarantino is about over his exploitation kick and ready to try something new. Or maybe this is all we have to look forward to from him.

I just wanted to comment on something somebody said up there.

"Liked Dogs, loved Fiction, grew to love Jackie Brown. Everything else...not so much."

So, what? "Everything else" = Kill Bill. One (well, two I guess) movie.

Jackie Brown is his finest moment in my eyes though.

Jackie Brown is the best thing QT ever did since it wasn;t wall to wall homages and it felt like a real movie with some characters who actually have emotions other than "f*ck you!". That, and I absolutely love Pam Grier.

The non-stop referencing of Pulp Fiction and Dogs made me have less enthusiam for them, even though they weren;t bad, and I hated the Kill Bill movies, so much so I won;t go to a QT movie ever again until I hear it is orginal and has few pop culture refs & no homages to any god damn thing except his imagination. I've already seen all the films he refs from French, Hong Kong and Japanese cinema, I don;t need to see any more homages.

I think he has ability and he isn't using it. He certainly likes really great movies so he must have some Taste in recongnizing what's good.

I might be tempted to Death Proof due to the car chase scene.

I might be tempted to Are we Done yet too since the Cube is a cute putz.

I wonder if the 20-30 people who came out to see GRINDHOUSE and walked out during the Tarantino segment can form sentences too.

I can't wait until Tarantino starts to release his films to YouTube like any other indulgent amateur DIY fanboys on social assistance!

As for the chase scene... Well I think the filmmakers behind BABY'S DAY OUT created more of a feeling of peril then some face-fit-for-stunts Aussie dangling off a car going 25 MPH. Big YAWN!

I'm confused - so people who don't like Tarantino are dumb, but Tarantino himself is a poor filmmaker, is that what you're saying?

TQ isn't THAT bad Ryan K, but maybe some of his fans are of questionable IQ, since I don;t know how many times I've heard TQ geeks rave how Melville "copied" TQ. Heh heh.

I second Petaluma Films' love for Death Proof. And what makes the racing/dueling scenes eternally great isn't just fast cars going "bam-bam!" like a three year old playing with his Tonka trucks. Anybody expecting something like the freeway finale of "Matrix Reloaded" is walking into the theater completely misinformed. It's the dialogue and the characters (and even the attention to sound effects) that build a perfect foundation for the point where engines get started and the ride begins.

I don't think Tarantino is a poor filmmaker, but I didn't like the BILLS and since he whored himself out for HOSTEL, a shining beacon of filmmaking ineptitude, that was kind of the last straw. It's obviously no real big deal to anyone other than myself that he has to win me back, but I give him every opportunity to.

Hostel is actually a good, non-inept film.
Lota: Tuentin Quarantino?

I saw GRINDHOUSE last night at Hollywood Blvd. (one of those theater/restaurants that serve you food and booze at your seat). Great atmosphere and I liked both parts of the film pretty much equally since they were riffing on such different genres.

One interesting thing was that our waitress told us they had seen a record number of walkouts during the QT segment and asked that we *please* settle up our bar tab before leaving.

Thanks for signing in, . Now you can comment. (sign out)

(If you haven't left a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Thanks for waiting.)

URL:
Remember me? YesNo

Comments: