BTW, was Michael Parks' police chief/sheriff character supposed to be be the same character he played in Kill Bill Vol. 1?

Certainly seems like it, son number 1.

Turn in your Man Card ASAP. Real Men have huge cast-iron bladders that only need to be emptied every 2 six-packs or so.

The character is Texas Ranger Earl McGraw and he originated in From Dusk Till Dawn. His son (played by Parks' real life son) first appeared in From Dusk Till Dawn 2. Both of them returned together in Kill Bill Vol. 1 and now both sections of Grindhouse. He's gotten a lot of mileage considering his fate in his first appearance.

Jim Norton on the o&A show just said something this morning that I thought leaving the theater. Reverse the two films, and you'd have a much stronger experience. DP feels slow and boring following the adrenaline burst of PT, but if you turn them around, the film has a great sense of momentum.

Exactly, PT was so fast and crazy,that compared, DP really hit the breaks. Pun

And then the old couple, that left during PT could maybe have stayed longer!

I disagree with switching the films, if just for the fact that Death Proof has a much better payoff. Nothing in Planet Terror topped that for me, and when "The End" came up, it really felt like the time to leave.

I thought that too. DP was far too slow coming after PT. After all that carnage and mayhem, I wasn't in the mood for DP and all the chatting at all. Maybe if it came first, it wouldn't have felt like someone in a speeding vehicle put on the brakes HARD. Nearly gave me whiplash.

It's a tough call, on one hand yeah the pacing would make more sense. On the other hand, the ending to Death Proof is just such a satisfying way to end the evening.

After reading reviews of the film and comments on web forums (i.e., dvdtalk et al), here are some of my own thoughts on Grindhouse:

My reaction to both films (Planet Terror and Death Proof) is thumbs up with a big smile. However, I must come out and say it: Death Proof is a masterpiece. I was doubly critical of Tarantino's work since people seem to be giving it a hard time. It played quite well the first time, and even better the second time. This is so because one can really break down the aural conversations and such more thoroughly the second time around. In doing so, one finds that Tarantino's dialogue is as crisp as ever. Perhaps this particular film in his canon will be unfairly maligned like Jackie Brown. Unfairly maligned and then, a few years after its initial release, finally loved. I don't know. All I can say is that the acting is quite lovely (Kurt Russell, Zoe Bell, et al), the pacing (i.e., editing) is excellent, the build-ups work, Tarantino's directing/cinematography is terrific, and his writing is on the money. The ending is as sweet as a drop of honey on the tongue. What's not to like? I have read comments from both camps: The literate grindhouse connoisseur ("I have seen thousands of grindhouse films! Thus, validity is mine within the realm of public opinion!") who balks at the so-called lackluster attempt of two "fanboys" trying to recreate something of a specific era to ignorant would-be cineastes who herald this double feature as the greatest thing since sliced bread and think the name grindhouse refers to a meat packing company located in New Jersey ("Do they make quality ground beef?"). Both these camps leave me out in the cold, fending for myself in the center of this debacle of cinematic criticism. In the final analysis, "The truth of a thing is the feel of it, not the think of it" (<-- Kubrick). Thus, the first time I walked out of the theatre feeling great about Grindhouse and cinema as a whole; the second time I walked out of the theatre thinking Grindhouse is great and so is cinema as a whole. Satisfied on both these fronts (emotional and intellectual), I cannot help but exclaim: Vivre le cinéma!

I hasten to wonder what criteria is being utilized in people's analysis of this double feature (particularly people who didn't enjoy the Grindhouse experience). Example: "Death Proof does not really work as a 'grindhouse' feature. As a result, it is a bad film." Assuming it fails at being a grindhouse film (and I stress the word "assuming"), does that mean it is a terrible film? Maybe it is a great film in its own right, regardless of whether or not it meets the requirements of grindhouse cinema. Just throwing this quibble out there as an example. Many people on the Internet seem to be demolishing the film without detailing the criteria utilized to judge the film's merit. Anyone who walks in thinking this double bill will be strictly grindhouse features is right in one sense, but wrong in another. These films, particularly Taratino's feature, constitute meta-commentaries. Thus, they revel in all that is grindhouse while concurrently commenting on the films of the grindhouse era as a whole. Another case in point: Godard's A Women is a Women is both a musical in its own right and self-reflexive in the sense that it is a meta-commentary on American musicals from the 40s and 50s. "Original grindhouse audience members would not have put up with the pacing of Death Proof." Well, the original audience members of An American in Paris would have most likely not put up with the deconstructive elements in A Woman is a Woman either. The logic utilized to arrive at the opinion expressed in the above quote lacks cohesion. Regardless, if one is expecting either Planet Terror or Death Proof to be a pure grindhouse picture and nothing more, then one will be sorely disappointed. One cannot make pure grindhosue pictures unless one has a time machine. That era is gone. All a film can do now is recreate and comment on such works (much like film noir some argue -- "This is not film noir, it's neo-noir dammit!"). In this sense, Grindhouse shines.

Since people on the Internet seem to be qualifying their comments on this double feature by stating their cinematic credentials, I must admit that, while I have seen about forty horror films specifically from the grindhouse period (which actually brings up more bad memories than good), I have not seen many road films from this period (only seven come to mind). Still, when people lay claim to special knowledge of a particular movie because of their filmic background, I usually find myself at a loss for words. This is so because to me the question is not, "What have you seen?," but -- more importantly -- "What do you enjoy?". I enjoy Sátántangó (an art film par excellence); I also enjoy Roman (a low budget American horror film that most would not give the time of day). In other words -- speaking for myself -- good cinema equals good cinema, regardless of genre or level of elitist respectability within the realm of film criticism. If Grindhouse is somehow supposed to be a failure because this or that moment is "stolen" from an original grindhouse feature or this or that sentiment rings false within the realm of the grindhouse tradition, then I must plead ignorance ("One cannot argue about taste," as the old adage goes). After the double feature had ended, I walked out of the theatre happy, excited, and ready to watch more celluloid pass before my eyes, rattle my brain, and enthrall my mind. And, for a cineaste such as myself, that's a compliment of the highest order. In short, I had a great time at the movies. In the end, that's all that matters.

Sincerely,
Hulka


Grindhouse experience: ****

Planet Terror: *** (A raucous good time. Rodriguez = fun)

Death Proof: **** (A masterpiece. Pulp Fiction, Jackie Brown, and Kill Bill now have a new little sibling with whom to play.)

After the last 30 minutes of Death Proof I would have rolled my eyes through most of Planet Terror. Death Proof delivers real thrills while Planet Terror relies on a lot of cheap gags. I think its perfect the way they have it.

as far as I can tell, this wasn't released in DLP, there were DLP trailers but the movie was aptly released in 35mm - the conversion of the HD shot 'Planet Terror' was really mangled for the true grindhouse look. Loved the shot of the 'Soldier Blue' poster in 'Death Proof' . Question what was the title card right before the 'Death Proof' credit - it flew by so fast I couldn't read it?

Planet Terror = Masterpiece of GH shlock and one of if not the best zombie/viral outbreak flicks I have ever seen!

Death Proof was sort of talky but when the action kicked in, it ws balls to the wall!

The best experience I have had in the theater EVER.

saw this on the huge Uptown theatre screen here in DC - now that was an experience!!

Well.....hmm. What are my initial reactions to "Grindhouse" after watching it tonight? First off, the fake trailers were pretty entertaining, even hackmeister Eli Roth made something enjoyable.

As for the films themselves, I have to say I enjoyed Robert Rodriguez's "Planet Terror" more than Quentin Tarantino's "Death Proof."

Rodriguez really embraced the "grindhouse" aspect to his film (what with the beat up film quality, "missing reels" and the like) all the while throwing heaps of zombie gore, laughs and surprises on the screen. I didn't buy Freddy Rodriguez as the badass (he's what? 5'4"????) but it was an enjoyable thrill ride. The score was very atmospheric and added to the overall mood of the piece. "Planet Terror" was not the cinematic milestone that he achieved with "Sin City" but his winning streak continues. Rodriguez knew what he had to deliver for this story and he did that in spades.

Now Tarantino I have issues with because (and this is my fault) I always have very high expectations for him. "Death Proof" really let me down. First, I am a HUGE Kurt Russell fan but there were long stretches of the film where he was nowhere to be seen. Second, in interviews Tarantino said to Russell that "Stuntman Mike" would be another cool character Kurt could add to his rogues gallery of Snake Plisskin, McCready from "The Thing" and so on. Well without ruining the ending for you, I will just say Stuntman Mike was promised a whole hell of a lot at the beginning of the film but it bottomed out in a big way, completely destroying the mystique and coolness of the character. Third, the dialogue, previously snappy and sharp in QT's work came off as dull and boring throughout. It wasn't remotely interesting and THAT is a huge shock. Granted there were a few cool sequences in the film with a few brutal and inventive kills but that's about it. "Death Proof?" I wish it would've been boredom proof. So much potential all thrown away for what boiled down to being a "chick revenge" flick.

So out of a total *****, "Planet Terror" gets ***and a half and "Death Proof" lands with a dud at **. Overall, "Grindhouse" (with fake trailers) gets ****.

Saw it last night. Loved the whole thing. I am a huge R.R. fanboy, and was expecting DP to kinda suck after the initial reviews I read here. Loved it as much as PT. The whole thing was a great movie experience!

Don't ... Miss this movie.

I thought DP encapsulated grindhouse films even better than TP. TP is what those films might have turned out with if they were loaded with money. DP is exactly how those films were, just better. Dialog dialog dialog up to the entire point of the movie.

Nope.
Have you ever seen a real Grindhouse movie?
Good or bad, Death Proof is ten times closer to those then Planet Terror.

Did anyone else think that Tarantino was referencing Hitchcock's Psycho in the structure of Death Proof? By that I mean...

you forgot the [/spoiler]

And yeah,

Thunderbolt

Hmm I remember now.

Nope. Definitely the same girl driving in each replay.

Just to clear things up on why you don't see as much Stuntman Mike in the later half (From Quentin's words via FANGORIA)
"But now, you know what Stuntman Mike does and how he does it. So we don't even hang out with him anymore, we're hanging with the girls and he's just doing his thing in the background, but we know what he's up to. That was the idea."

I also picked up the soundtrack on Saturday and noticed a few songs that didn't make the cut. I'm guessing "Down in Mexico" was used during the lapdance?

I posted this in another thread, but since there are 20 Grindhouse threads, I figured i'd post it here as well:

=============
Harvey Weinstein told me this morning that he's "incredibly disappointed" with the half-than-expected $12 mil box office for Grindhouse. So much so, that he's considering abandoning the double feature as a single feature concept and re-releasing the movie around the U.S. "in a couple of weeks" as two separate feature-length movies with additional footage put in. That's what Harvey says The Weinstein Co. is already intending to do with the film's release in Europe: split it into two separate pics, Quentin Tarantino's Death Proof and Robert Rodriguez's Planet Terror.

"Quentin's movie goes out first in competition at Cannes. He'll do an extensive 4 to 5 month tour. And the trailer will be all Quentin's," Weinstein told me about his European plans. "Then we'll release Robert's a couple of months later. By splitting it up, we're going to do a hell of a lot better internationally than we did here." Weinstein noted that, even in Grindhouse's TV deal with Starz Entertainment Group, it's been sold as two separate movies.

"Our deal with Encore is that they can play it any way they want." So this is why The Weinstein Co. is now deciding to suck it up and do in this country what it probably should have done all along. "First of all, I'm incredibly disappointed. We tried to do something new and obviously we didn't do it that well," Harvey told me today. "It's just a question of how is it going to hang in there. But we could split the movies in a couple of weeks. Make Tarantino's a full-length film, and Rodrqiguez's too.

"We'll be adding those 'two missing reels' that's talked about in the movie." (At one point in Grindhouse, a sex scene is interrupted because of "two missing reels".)

Weinstein pointed to several reasons why Grindhouse did so poorly in theaters over Easter weekend. "Our research showed the length kept people away. It was 3 hours and 12 minutes long. We originally intended to get it all in in 2 hours, 30 minutes. That would have been a better time. But the movies ran longer, the [fake] trailers ran longer, everything ran longer," Harvey told me. Weinstein also criticized his own marketing plan. "We didn't educate the South or Midwest. In the West and the East, the movie played well. It played well in strong urban settings. But we missed the boat on the Midwest and the South."