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.