Definitely! The man's whored his name out to too many projects..
.he's oversaturated the market with his brand . I think he's on the border, so he has to be careful about over-marketing his name in the future.
Not at all. GRINDHOUSE was a niche movie and that's that. His name is still as powerful as ever in Hollywood.
Tarantino's movies have never been MAJOR box-office hits, so I don't see what all the fuss is about. I believe that GRINDHOUSE is an exception in his case. Even Spielberg had 1941 .
His next film will kick more ass at the box-office! on Apr 15 2007, 5:32:22 PM writes: "Grindhouse" is an intelligent (that's right, intelligent) movie paying homage to all those guilty pleasures of yesteryear that most people under forty were too young to remember.
The whole thing is a gimmick made for fans of Rodriguez and Tarantino, and horror-exploitation junkies all over.
In short, it's by nature a cult event.
I have always considered Tarantino, in particular, a cult director, despite the fact that his movies often made money. I think Uma Thurman was a big a draw to the "Kill Bill" movies as the esteemed Mr.
Tarantino, and it was his first movie in five years.
"Sin City," like "300" now, was something different. Although some people just can't stand black-and-white movies, and that's sad.
It lacked the sort of grand, epic narrative that "300" has, that has made this later movie such a phenomenal hit, going instead for a homage to 1940s noir with a perverse sensibility.
The much-advertised gimmick of the missing reel alone may have turned people off the the theatrical version. Why miss out when you can see the whole thing, uncut, on DVD?
Which brings us to that little problem of people no longer going to the theater for the movies. Not to mention, a lot of times what happens is the new movies are what get seen, not the left-overs from the weekend before.
One more thing that might be an issue is that both directors, for the most part, cast character actors a lot of folks couldn't identify what their last movie was.
People remembered "Kung Fu" so when David Carradine arrived as Bill, there was a big hoopla. Ditto Mickey Rourke in "Sin City." Bruce Willis, Kurt Russell, and Rosario Dawson are the only ones with instant name-recognition from today's crowd.
Maybe Naveen Andrews for fans of "Lost," and Michael Biehn for fans of James Cameron's movies. There are a lot of folks who have no idea who Jeff Fahey is. I remember "Lawn-Mower Man," but that's it.
Josh Brolin, who shows up in at least one movie every year, is still rather unknown, and MAry Elizabeth Winstead is perhaps best-known for being in the third "Final Destination" (although we'll all know her pretty soon from the upcoming Die Hard movie). Everyone else are kind of bit-players and up-and-coming actors.
There are so many factors to be taken into account for the lack of support for this movie.
Maybe people are tired of zombie movies. Maybe they don't wanna watch a slasher movie where a bunch of girls just sit around and talk. Maybe they have no friggin' idea what "Vanishing Point" is.
Maybe they preferred it when these two guys modernized the exploitation flick, instead of sticking people in a time machine and sending them back to the 1970s, scratched-up film and all.
I would've thought April was a perfect time to release something like this. In past these sleazy exploitation-themed films have done well in this month.
Instead, I feel like it's "Running Scared," from February last year. Made 9th place it's opening week, then went running scared from the cineplex. And that was a pity, too.
Oh well, hell, maybe I'll just go watch this extravaganza again for good measure, just so I feel I've not only experienced the grind house experience, but I'll know that I'm also supporting a worthy cause in the movie industry.
News RSS