Here we go, PopWatchers! This week’s box office discussion topic: Grindhouse. The three-hour, R-rated Quentin Tarantino-Robert Rodriguez exploitation-flick homage way way way underperformed on its opening weekend, grossing just $11.6 mil. That weekend total was less than half of what most pundits were prognosticating. It was even smaller than the paltry $13.8 mil that that other big buzz ready made cult hit disappointment, Snakes on a Plane, earned in its debut last year, and it is probably the highest-profile flop of the wascally Weinstein brothers’ celebrated career. Boy, as Mercedes McCambridge famously once said, "It burns! It burns!"
What the hell went wrong? Well, the blame game has credited the film’s excessive length in limiting the number of shows per day and deterring some viewers, while some observers have speculated that maybe Easter weekend wasn’t the best time to release an ultraviolent R-rated splatterfest. And Harvey Weinstein has gone on record saying that he regrets not having split up the movie’s two halves into separate releases all along. EW.com alumna Justine Elias has suggested that the Grindhouse marketing campaign made a mistake when it created largely male-appeal ads — a major lapse considering the badass heroines played by the likes of Rosario Dawson (pictured) and Rose McGowan that female viewers might have appreciated. And others have looked at the success of 300 and argued that studios certainly may deliberately make movies that are hardly highbrow as long as the films are shiny and cool-looking. Grindhouse, of course, is made in the style of cheap ’70s crapola, and it looks it.
Sure, that’s intentional, but I don’t think the icky feeling now sweeping through the Weinstein Company was. After all, the movie got strong reviewsand all sorts of press going into its premiere. The fledgling companyadmits to having spent upwards of $75 million to produce and market Grindhouse(and, of course, that’s just the expenditures they’re admitting to).But even if the film is split in two and given a special re-release ofsome sort down the line, as Harvey has said he’s considering, it’s gota long road to profitability. Consider: its level of violence means itcan’t be shown on regular TV, its fan base appears to be much morelimited than those of Tarantino’s or Rodriguez’s previous films like Pulp Fiction and Sin City, and the summer movie season (with giant franchise pictures set to dominate every weekend) is almost here. In other words, Grindhouse‘s window of opportunity has all but closed.
Anyway, what’s your take on all this? How could the Weinsteins haveprevented such a debacle? Does this damage the former Miramaxers’ reputation as a pairof execs who have the magic touch when it comes to churning outmoneymakers? Do you think they can still salvage this film and steer itto profitability? Is Grindhouse‘s inevitable eventual status as a cult flick good enough?
While I would enjoy seeing the Tarentino portion, I just could not get excited about the Rodriguez “zombie” segment. I liked Rodriguez’s Sin City interpretation, but otherwise am not one of his biggest fans. Perhaps when he has someone else’s script to work with, he can do a better job. But again, zombies? Feh…
I saw this film on Saturday with a friend (both of us females) and we really liked Quentin’s more female-centric “Death Proof” better R-Rod’s Planet Terror. I had no idea that the girls were going to be the bad chicks that they turned out to be – that would have been an excellent marketing direction to take!
I’m not a particularly big fan of either director, but I went on opening night and had a blast! Everyone I know who saw the film had lots of fun, so I can only think that the tough part was in selling the concept — it’s an anthology film, it’s an homage to a forgotten kind of cheesy moviemaking — to these darn kids today.
Honestly, i think if they released it earlier to compete with 300, Grindhouse might have outdone it.
It would have certainly done better than it did this past weekend.
“Its level of violence means it can’t be shown on regular TV”.
Correct me if I’m wrong, Joshua, but wasn’t “Saving Private Ryan” and “Schindler’s List” shown uncut on network television? I’m sure what you mean is that the hypocritical Parentstv.org would protest its broadcast (which was somehow lacking in the previous two mentioned).
Historical violence is O.K., but fictional violence isn’t.
What a crock of excrement.
I’m a huge Tarantino fan and don’t mind Rodriguez either. I originally planned to see it and loved the concept, but honestly I was scared away by all the talk of it as an ultra-bloody genre flick. My take is: market it as a genre flick, get genre flick numbers. I also agree that it could have been marketed in a more female-friendly way. The ew photo shoot alone, with all the females 3/4 naked, was enough to put me off.
“some observers have speculated that maybe Easter weekend wasn’t the best time to release an ultraviolent R-rated splatterfest.”
Unless it’s about Jesus…
I saw it last Friday and I’ve liked about 50% of both Tarantino and Rodriguez’s films so I wasn’t super excited (I’m a female btw), but my friend (a male) was so ecstatic. Anyway, I found myself smiling through the whole 3hrs of cheesy goodness. The original trailers, the “missing reels”, the writing, it was a complete movie going experience that did not disappoint. So I hope it picks up if only so that other people can enjoy the experience too. But also I’m not sure it needs to, I think cult status is what the film was geared to–its not an oscar contender and it wasn’t made to be.
Whose idea was it to release Grindhouse on Easter weekend?
I’m not a big fan of Rodriguez. Sin City didn’t need that many decapitations. I will rent Grindhouse because of Tarentino. Kill Bill and Pulp Fiction give him a pass for life.
this is a shame b/c it really is a great movie
I agree, EASTER
I agree, EASTER weekend was not the best time to release. I’m woman and I enjoyed it very much, but my friend had to be with his mother, like most men at the time of the yeat
easter + 3hrs = bomb
that said, i saw it friday and had an absolute blast…we liked the 8 show so much that we turned right around and went back for the midnite show…even better the 2nd time, not to mention can’t wait for the DVD’s
2 reasons 1) bad ad campaign, from the trailers you could not really tell what the 2 films were about, or even that it was composed of 2 different movies. Much of the ad campaign was to advertise Tarentino and Rodriguez’s names, which clearly were not enough to bring people in and 2) for people who read the reviews and interviews and knew what the movie was about, it was too experimental a concept. The idea of over 3 hours, scratches in the film, missing reels was almost enought to scare me away from seeing it. I think to a lot of people that sounded stupid (whereas in fact, the technical aspects were not distracting). Interesting that the reviews and posts so far have been positive. I’m a big fan of both directors, but actually thought the movie (with the exception of the last 1/2 hr of Death Proof) was just not very good.
Grindhouse, as awesome as it was, didn’t earn money this weekend because a lot of its elements that attracted viewers were the same elements that caused many to stay away.
The 70s/grindhouse thing appealed to nostalgists but didn’t mean much to people who weren’t alive then (aka kids, 17 and over of course).
The double feature was cool for people who can’t get enough movies in one day but was a drag for those who can barely put up with a 2 hour running time much less a 3.5 hour one.
The Rodriguez/Tarantino combo was sweet for devoted fans but, let’s face it, most of this duo’s movies have not been commercial giants.
It’s a bad idea to split them up. The movies, well, Tarantino’s movie, don’t stand up on their own. They complement each other and the fake trailers in between complement the whole movie experience.
They should just call Grindhouse what it is: a clever idea that got lost in the shuffle just like a lot of other clever ideas, most recently The Prestige