<sarcasm>im just glad everyone skipped grindhouse and went to see disturbia instead.</sarcasm>

At least Disturbia wasnt forced down our throats. Because of the excessive promotion for GH, I felt I had seen the entire movie by the time it was released

i really liked grindhouse..but to bad there releasing it in two different disc's when it hits DVD

This is really to bad because Grindhouse was totally awesome. I loved every single second from the opening trailer to the closing credits. I was really hoping that this would become an annual thing like what Saw has become.

Disturbia was the worst movie "horror" movie i had ever seen. I was more like a love story. It pretty much blew. The opening sequence kicked ass though it had me hooked for half the movie. Then i walked out.

HURMOTH. You said it perfectly. I also really enjoyed GRINDHOUSE.It was alot of fun to watch. I'm actually surprised that it has bombed. Maybe it was just a little too extreme and crazy for most people. I could agree it was a little too long and had some slow spots (Death Proof). I was also thinking this could be a franchise every couple years. It's too bad.

I haven't seen Grindhouse yet (the theater in my crappy tiny town isn't getting it until the end of this week), but from all the promos it looks like the sort of thing that would have done very well as a summer flick. At the very least it would have looked awesome on a giant drive-in screen. Maybe if the studio had just waited a couple months this film would have done better.

I'm still surprised about the failure of Grindhouse and movie goers still believing Will Ferrel and Ice Cube are relevant in the mainstream media. Since these pussies labled Grindhouse as a horror flick, it's just another slap in the face to the genre. I guess there ain't gonna be a sequel and those fake trailers will never become real movies. Seems the way commercialism wants to work will never change huh?

It's pretty sad that one of the best things to come out of the mainstream in a long time bombed so bad. I just think that most people don't get the angle where this movie is coming from.

This is bad for horror that it flopped because now studios will think twice or even thrice before investing in another high budget horror film. It was a fun campy experience and people who miss out are missing something great.

I haven't seen the film, so I can't comment on it other than 3+ hours drove me away. Sorry, but I've got better things to do than sit in a darkened theater with a bunch of people I don't know who act immature and can't chew popcorn with their mouths close. That being said, a low budget grade z exploitation flick, ala Pink Flamingos, is worth checking out. I admire those kinds of flicks because they don't pretend to be anything more than what they really are. A big budget flick trumpeting itself as a low-budget, grade z exploitation flick is doomed to failure, because point blank, it's a dumbass idea. It's like buying a $10,000 Kia and ricing the damn thing out to the tune of an additional $30,000 when you could have spent your money on a Porsche. You may end up with a super-tuned car, but at the end of the day, it's still a friggin' Kia for crying out loud. Part DEUX of how they got this wrong: know thy audience. It's the same thing I posted a few months back after watching The Texas Chainsaw Masacre, The Beginning, and laughing my ass off at the producer's commentary. If they had any balls and knew who their audience was, they would have released the movie unrated. The original and the sequel were unrated. The TITLE alone is the selling point, so why even try to compare your "re-vamped" movie to the original with an R rating? It's senseless. I would venture a guess that most exploitation flicks released back it the early 70's, such as the films by John Waters, never received a rating because they were MEANT TO BE VIEWED AT MIDNIGHT SHOWINGS. Again, Grindhouse appears not to have understood that these films from a generation plus ago played at MIDNIGHT THEATERS and DRIVE-INS--two venues that a) really don't generate much business, and b) hardly exist any longer. Without seeing the film, I can't say whether or not it reached this territory or not, but my guess is it fell short of being way over the top.

I've Never Been To A RRRRRadio Station! , that's a long opinionated post for someone who hasn't seen the movie.

Bob, there's something wrong with the logic of having the need to screw the $2 whore one is with in order to figure out if, gulp, she's a whore. That kind of 20/20 hindsight-logic fails me. If it smells and feels like shit, does one really need to taste it to confirm?

RRRRadio Station:I don't mean to be an ass here,but "midnight movies" and "grindhouse movies" are two different things.

Hey RRRRRadio station..If you haven't seen Grindhouse then you have really missed out. What kind of fan are you if you won't watch a great film because it's 30 minutes longer than another. Have you never watched two films back to back? People like you are the reason that great films struggle, and we'll see less horror in the theaters because of pussies like you.

LGS--you know absolutely nothing about me, but nonetheless, I got a laugh out of your comments-thanks! I don't think I put Grindhouse down at all, and I do intend to see it, just not at a theater. I do question the decision to spend over $100+ million on an exploitation flick (by the way, grindhouse, midnight flicks, etc., are all subgenres of exploitation films, no matter how one wants to slice and dice them), and that is the point that I'm driving home about the movie being a failure--a failure at the box office. As for horror movies in general--I've probably seen my fair share of them through the years. I used to have my subscriptions to Fangoria and Gorezone, and went on to college and earned a couple of degrees, one in film. The majority of films, not just horror, fail in their premise alone, dooming the films from the get-go. The bottom line is, for the Weinsteins to look back in hind-sight and ask "what the hell went wrong" is mind-boggling considering the type of movie they put out, accompanied by its running time, would result in a small following. It's an EXPLOITATION FLICK FOR CRYING OUT LOUD. Can anybody on God's little green earth name me one that has ever been a box-office success? QT tried to do something similar with his third movie, Jackie Brown starring Pam Grier, and that, as I recall, didn't go over all too well either at 2 1/2 hours. The saving grace there was the film only cost $12 million to make. Resevior Dogs didn't light up the box office either. Pulp Fiction did, and I'll attest to seeing it 5 times in the theater when it came out. So, in summary, putting out an expensive piece of celluloid with a run time over 3 hours, that targets a subgenre of a genre that doesn't have any universal appeal whatsoever, is a HUGE risk.

Listen RRRRradio..Your the one who said in your post that the 3 hours drove you away and that's what I am talking about. I not interested in your commentary on why Grindhouse tanked. Your a strange bird..you seem to be one those people who just doesn't get what Grindhouse is all about and why it would require 3 hours while at the same time you claim to have your finger on the pulse the american audience and film promotion. Finally, if you don't have time to see the film, then why do have the time to right these long essays on a horror forum. Get away from your computer, find a date and go see the movie. You'll feel better.

I'm glad it flopped. It looked stupid, there is no way I would waste my time and money on this crap.

LGS - Your should be "you are". "I not interested" -- Gosh, you have me pegged alright. I must have just hit rock bottom with nothing better to do that correct your grammar. I like how you say "Finally" without firstly, or secondly, making a point at all. I have time to write stuff here because I can type fast and it doesn't take me 50 minutes to drool up a sentence. How's that grab you? The bottom line is, AGAIN, because you can't get it through your head, I haven't said the movie sucks--the entire strategy to make money off of it WASN'T what one would call a model business plan. Distributors worry about movies in general with long running times because it means they can't show them as much, which means they can't sell as many tickets, which means the box office grosses won't be as much... yadda yadda yadda. That, coupled with a movie targeted at a small, niche market that cost $100 million to make and market, is just doomed to failure at the box office.

1.4 million this weekend. Gross total 22 million. Not close fellas. The film tanked, regardless of whether it was good or bad. If the movie would have cost $20 million to make and market, and grossed only $7 million, the calculated risk wouldn't be anywhere near as bad as it is with 1/3 of $100 million. That's why there was a business model for these type of films in the late 60's and early 70's--they're called cheapies which could be distributed independently and wouldn't take nearly as much of the general movie going audience to recouperate costs. So, to beat the dead horse, what the fuck were the Weinstien's actually thinking?