Saturday, April 7, 2007

Only at the Grindhouse!!!


I've sat here for the last hour trying to put into words the amazing spectacle that was Grindhouse. It was an experience I don't know if I ever had nor will I ever have again. The aura that surrounded the theater was just right. The audience knew what they were getting in to. We were loud and boorish and vulgar. It was everything I could hope for. I really am struggling with my thoughts and emotions. Perhaps it would be best to let them settle. Get a good night sleep. Digest the buffet that Rodriguez and Tarantino just served you. Yet, in the spirit of Grindhouse, I won't be articulate. I won't be eloquent. I won't shower. Well perhaps tomorrow I will, but for now lets get dirty and talk Grindhouse.

Before I discuss the movies, let me just say that the faux trailers alone are worth the price of admission. Rob Zombie's is the weakest, but it still has its merits. In particular, a terrific cameo appearance from a superstar. Give you a hint, they have a baby named Kal El. Edgar Wright's was a brilliant parody of foreign movies marketed to American audiences. "Machete" could and should be a movie on its own. But my favorite was the one I saw on the net a week in advance. Eli Roth's "Thanksgiving" has it all. Boobs, blood, comedy, more boobs. "White meat. Dark meat. All will be carved." Since they are fake, they get to go all out and show you all the best bits. Normally I wouldn't want a trailer to spoil anything, but these are fake after all.

After Machete ends, Planet Terror begins. Let me get this out of the way, I've never cared for Rose McGowan. But after her first scene in this flick, she jumped into my celeb-to-do list. Rodriguez has done a brilliant job at recreating the grindhouse experience. The dialogue is so bad, its great. The gore is so over the top, its laughable. The music so bombastic, its appropriate. The plot is...oh who cares. Lots of stuff blows up. Lots of people die. Lots more stuff blows up. I had a terrific time with the movie, but to be honest all it really comes down to is a great parody. Perhaps parody isn't right, but when Rodriguez uses all the conventions of a grindhouse cinema including all the bad and turns it on its head for the sake of a joke, I would call that parody. However, don't mistake it, you can clearly tell he loves these types of movies, but at the end of it all it really was a terrific B-movie.

The best part of this flick though for me was Rose. Not just because she is beautiful, but she really is great in the movie. She sells it, and you do care about her character, Cherry Darling (great name). Not only can she emote, but she has a great sense of comic timing. She has some great quips that she gets to dole out. Freddy Rodriguez (no relation to the director) also gets his big break. The two of them make this much better than a B-movie should be. The supporting cast is also terrific including Michael Biehn (hope he gets more work after this), Michael Parks (he can chew any line apart and make it his), Tom Savini (legendary makeup artist for George Romero's "Dead" series), Josh Brolin, and Marley Shelton (Wendy Peppercorn!!!). I think this is Rodriguez' best movie. Sin City I credit more to Frank Miller than Rodriguez. Here he gets to unleash everything to create a visual thrillride with some killer lines. But it doesn't really stand apart from other zombie movies other than its over-the-topness, though that gun leg is brilliant.

Tarantino's "Death Proof" was the one I had the highest expectations for. I can remember vividly the first time I had seen any of his films. He is my favorite writer, and has really developed himself as a filmmaker. He outdoes himself here, at least on a technical level. His steady cam shots atop the car were so thrilling. I loved the little touch with the hood ornament. The car crash is one of the best edited and shot scenes I have ever seen. You get a sense of everyone involved and it gave Tararntino the one opportunity to let is inner gore fan out. The final car chase is immense. Not to sound cliche, but it really was a white knuckle ride..

Tarantino is known for resurrecting an actor's career. Here he brings back the Kurt Russell I know and love. Kurt's initial scenes develop a great sense of dread. It reminded me of the recent Zodiac, and just how palpable the tension was. Here Tarantino develops the same foreboding nature of the film much like Zodiac did, by refusing to show us what we wanted. Coming off the action packed Planet Terror, the audience probably wanted more of the same. But instead, Tarantino deliberately slows the film down in order to talk. Yes Tarantino's dialogue is back and I was glad to hear it. Because of the heavy dialogue, you get a real sense of depth to the characters without going into exposition as to how and why they are who they are. You grow to care for the characters, which makes the film all the more intimate and exciting to see the resolution. Speaking of resolution, everyone was cheering at the end. The movie ended right at the climax. No denouement. No epilogue. That's it. And it was brilliant.

The acting is even better here than it was in Planet Terror. Zoe Bell, a stunt woman in Kill Bill, gives a star making performance. To take someone who isn't an actor, and create a role so well suited for them, really is a testament to Tarantino's writing and directing. He casts whom he knows is best, not marquee names to fill the seats. All the girls are terrific in the movie. They all have depth and aren't simply a pretty face. Perhaps the reason why I loved this movie that much more than Planet Terror though was that Tarantino takes and uses what he loves about Grindhouse and leaves the bad behind. The dialogue isn't purposely bad. The visuals aren't hokey. There are hardly any film scratches or distortions. Tarantino seems to be playing on another field than Rodriguez. I can just imagine them screening their movies for each other and Rodriguez says "I though we were supposed to make a bad picture." Tarantino knows how to embrace what he loves, yet use it to his advantage and create art. Rodriguez made a film that was a whole hell of a lot of fun. Tarantino actually set out to make a great film. I can't wait for the extended cut of Death Proof.

There were some great in-jokes for fans of these guys past pictures too including Red Apple cigs, Big Kahuna and Son #1. Tarantino in particular seems to be creating a universe much like Kevin Smith did. Hopefully these films will be a success and expand upon that universe. The thought of another Grindhouse gets me giddy all over again. Now lets hear your guys thoughts. I know at least three of you guys saw it and I'm sure you can better illustrate your thoughts than I can. I'm thrilled from head to toe with what I witnessed today. Hopefully everyone will too.

12 comments:

Brian Mulligan said...

Alright, I'm back from vacation and heading to see Grindhouse tomorrow when I get back to Virginia. Starting tomorrow I'll be back to posting topics (and I'll read what I'm sure was a terrific recap by Tyler on the film - but for now I'm leaving it unread to leave my palette clean).

Still, gotta reiterate... I'm dying to see this film. Dying.

thedexter said...

Tarantino is responsible for my most memorable movie moments. I snuck into Pulp Fiction when I was little. I tricked someone into buying me tickets for Jackie Brown. And Kill Bill was the first perfect audience experience. So of course, I expected something with Grindhouse.

It wasn't the perfect audience going experience. My reasons are personal and might insult the people they involve.

It wasn't significant in the sense that I aquired admittance in a new or profound way. I'm still waiting to repel from the ceiling in Inglorious Bastards.

So what did I get? I got to look myself in the mirror when I got home and say, "I will be a film-maker one day. I will have what they have." They had so much fun and I could tell. This was the perfect example of film-makers realizing what they can do. We have two film-makers who never had to "Mature". This was their chance to be immature. They dated their films, they took risks, avoided certain "Key" elements to developing characters. Threw away plot elements. They abused the story and the soul to take advantage of the image.

Sure Death Proof had "the dialogue" that Tarantino is famous for but seriously, a conversation with a bunch of girls tallking about cocksucking is no Mr. Pink's Philosophy on Tipping. "Why a girl should carry a gun" is no Jules's Foot Message Etiquette 101. He wrote what he wanted. He didn't have to please anyone, we were pleased anyhow.

Planet Terror was a parody, Death Proof was an homage.

I LOVED that damn movie.

chachiincharge said...

Once again American audiences prove they just don't know a thing. Fourth Place finish behind Are We Done Yet? for 11.6 million. Granted it has alot going against it.

-Definately not an Easter film
-Over three hours long
-Very hard R rating
-grindhouse experience is sure as hell not mainstream movie going

Oh well. It saddens me, but it comes with the territory. Eternal Sunshine didn't do well. Kevin Smith films never top 25 mil. Of the two filmmakers involved in Death Proof, only Pulp Fiction topped over 100 mil and that was something of a phenomenon. So I really shouldn't be all that surprised.

It hit me that it wasn't going to be the hit I wanted it to be when I was harping on its release to everyone at work or school. No one seemed to be interested. I thought it was a joke. I know Tarantino doesn't appeal to everyone, but the concept alone should have sold everyone I thought. I guess I'm too naive and put too much faith that audiences will get it right one day.

Cele vie...one more cult film for me to love. Like we've mentioned...being apart of the select few that got this movie and can attest to seeing it in theatres, makes me happy enough that i belong to it.

pengin said...

Not going to reply now....I'm full of ham...which is to say that I am in no condition for such a writing responsibility....so I will simply point out the most glaring wrong in Chachi's original post....Marley shelton played Wendy PEFFERCORN...not PEPPERCORN....you ass. Be back tomorrow with the tasty goodness that was Grindhouse

chachiincharge said...

I could easily fix that or I could just as easily delete your comment cuz nobody fuck wit da jesus. But you win this one. What kind a last name is Peffercorn? I think Peppercorn is better, but who am I to fuck wit da Sandlot.

Brian Mulligan said...

Hmmmmm.... looks like I'm gonna kind of be the buzzkill for this one.

Don't get me wrong, I really enjoyed the film. Really did. But if I were grading it on a scale, I'd give it a B+, and for a Tarantino picture that would put it solidly... as his worst picture (I haven't seen Four Rooms).

Listen, the faux trailers were good and at their best when they were campy fun (Machete, Nic Cage as Fu Manchu), Rodriguez showed a filmmaker's eye again and Tarantino was excellent as usual.

So where's the drawback?

Well, Grindhouse also kind of lived up to my worst fears... being kind of a waste of time for Tarantino (and to an extent Rodriguez as well, because I think Sin City 2 will be better than Planet Terror was).

I really don't want to rip this film, because I admire it a great deal. I loved the visuals of Rodriguez's film and I loved everything about Tarantino's Death Proof - except maybe Tarantino's acting.

But I think the problem lies mainly with Rodriguez's contribution. I'll agree with Tyler when he said that Rodriguez probably showed up thinking "hey, weren't we supposed to make a bad movie?" and kind of got blindsided by Tarantino. Though the main problem I had with Planet Terror is the same problem I had with 300 (yes, I finally saw it)... it has no ambition other than pure ocular entertainment. It's there to wow your visual sense and nothing more.

Like David Poland of "The Hot Blog" said of 300, "The film undeniably delivers on its intentions… it’s just that its intentions were so low that for many of us, it is a waste of movie space."

Any time you put a purely visual experience up against a film that has that and a brain, like Tarantino's, it's going to reflect poorly on the first.

And I'll admit, parody is my absolute least favorite of films. It takes a LOT of work to make a Young Frankenstein and it takes absolutely none to make a Date Movie. So I'll give Rodriguez that his movie is cool. It has cool visuals. It has cool characters.

But I'll take clever over cool any day of the week.

And I'll leave you with another quote from Poland (whom I rarely agree with actually)...

"The first, Robert Rodriguez's Planet Terror is, to a great extent, shit. The second, Quentin Tarantino's Death Proof is, to a great extent, The Shit."

chachiincharge said...

I pretty much agree with your assessment Brian. I do agree that the inclusion of Rodriguez's flick does take away from Death Proof, which is supposed to have an extended cut premiere at Cannes. I will wait till than to determine whether it is Tarantino's worst. I would say Jackie Brown still is his worst only because it is slow and you can feel it, but I love that movie to death. A bad Tarantino flick is still in the top 5 of the year. (Four Rooms is his worst thing he has doew, but it is only 15 minutes long, and still is better than the first two segments by a mile)

Having seen it a couple times, I have grown to appreciate Death Proof that much more, but dislike Planet Terror that much more too. Terror becomes redundant once you've seen it. With everything exploding for the sake of explosions, it loses a lot that I loved the first time. Your right. It had low expectations, which is what he was shooting for, and thus he succeeds in spades, but with nothing else to admire, you lose the replay value.

Death Proof has only gotten better. The emasculation of Stuntman Mike makes all the more sense to me. When he is in the bar talking about the films he has done and the fact nobody knows what they are, you can tell that he is hurt by it. Also what seemed to be a throwaway "sneeze" seems all the more a use of foreshadowing.

But the villain is all a plot device for what is really the meat and potatoes of the story and that is the girls. They way they rattle off Tarantino's dialogue is so seemless. I could almost imagine Pam Grier showing up as Jackie and they just battle back and forth with words for toughest chick. The development of Jungle Julia through the text messaging is quite effective too.

It seems all the more apparent to me that we are dealing with two different beasts. Planet Terror had to be released under the Grindhouse banner. Death Proof didn't. It could be released as its extended cut. The missing reels in both give way to that. Planet Terror used it as a joke and to further the story by connecting all the characters without having to explain it. Tarantino, I think did it as a blue ball moment, but mostly to trim down the running time. Once we see the full picture, it may become apparent that Tarantino's weak link was Rodriguez himself, and perhaps they should stick to what they do best as seperate filmmakers.

Still if they make another one. I will still be as giddy as a school girl to see what they have in store for us again.

pengin said...

I'm going to start this review of Grindhouse...or maybe to a more precise wording this review of Chachi's review of Grindhouse....with this: I fucking loved this movie. What I'm about to type may seem contradictory, but believe me...this film is excellent. Also...spoiler warning. I will be writing freely about these films, so if you haven't seen them, you may want to move on.

First, I'll start with the negativity towards Rodriguez' Planet Terror. Everyone I have seen the film with has called it a parody. Maybe I'm misunderstanding the word parody...or you all are misunderstanding what this film was. When I watched this, I didn't feel that Rodriguez "uses all the conventions of a grindhouse cinema including all the bad and turns it on its head for the sake of a joke, I would call that parody." Rather, I felt that he was making what he considered to be the ultimate amalgamation of his Grindhouse experiences. He took zombie movies, action movies, sci-fi movies, bad editing, worse dialogue, bad attempts at irony (Tony blowing his face off), scratched prints, missing sex scenes, lots of blood and action, and combined them all to make one over-the-top goulash of b-grade cinema.

Is it parody though? If the movies you're homaging generally have bad dialogue, so you write bad dialogue for your homage...does that make it parodic? If they are known for over-the-top blood and violence, so you feature a guys ballsack melting...is it parodic? I would argue no. Admittedly, it does have its parodic moments...particularly the pocket-bike scene...but overall...I think what Rodriguez was trying to do is this: to make an homage to a genre(s) known for all those aforementioned attributes by going bigger, bloodier, cheesier, funnier, and ballsier film than any one he got to see as a kid.

Does he achieve it? I think so. I think you are all calling it parody because we laughed through most of it. We laughed because it seems so awful, so over-the-top that it would have to be parody. But I bet that if we took a time machine back to 1974 and went to the worst Grindhouse double-feature we could find...we would watch something equally laughable. TK argued that the film-makers of those films were different because they were serious. They weren't intending to make us laugh. And I would say the same goes for Rodriguez...aside from the obvious jokes and quips. I think he knew we would laugh...but he didn't set out to make us laugh in a parodic manner. this may be an argument that should take place face to face, as I think hearing your responses would certainly help.

Moving on to Death Proof. (Not gonna comment on the trailers other than to say that they are great). Alright dude...I love this film. It is the better of the two. And I can't wait for the Cannes cut. But I think you are taking this shit a bit too seriously. You wrote "Because of the heavy dialogue, you get a real sense of depth to the characters without going into exposition as to how and why they are who they are."

Honestly...I think Tarantino wrote most of what he wrote, because, if he didn't write in some "Tarantino talk" then it wouldn't be a Tarantino movie. Consider the 1st 5 girls to get killed. What the hell do we know about them? McGowan is flirty and has a grudge against Jungle Julia. Jungle Julia is cool, smokes pot, and has a hopeless crush on some director. Butterfly is kinda bitchy, from New York, and doesn't give it up easily. Whoever Jordan Ladd played (can't even remember her name...that's how attached I got)...is...umm...I don't know. Don't learn anything about her really. She drinks Long Island Ice Teas? And Lanna Frank got them pot, can drive a car, and dies. My point is that the first 30-40 minutes of the film are all talking about people who die...and all that talking...which sheds as much light on their personalities as 10 min of dialogue could...doesn't make me care about them enough to not clap and shout when they die.

Maybe I'm a bastard. I don't know. But this was my biggest problem with the film. It takes to long for someone to die. It was supposed to be a slasher flick with a car instead of a knife. My opinion is that a slasher flick should kill someone quick...then get on to the talky bits. Perhaps Rose McGowan could have died, and then we meet the first 4 doomed hotties. Now...this is not to say that I didn't enjoy the dialogue. It's Tarantino. It's fun. It's clever. But to say that it makes me care more about them is a load of shit.

Other than that one complaint...I loved this film to death. It's amazing. It's exciting. It's makes me want to jump up and shout twice. (The first crash and the beating scene). However, it is time to play the Devil's Advocate.

Did Tarantino fail us? Hmm...I think he might have. For the very same reasons that Chachi states in his original post. Going into this film, I was promised a night at the Grindhouse. Meaning blood, boobs, action, violence, scratchy prints, more action boobs and violence, missing reels, some more action boobs and violence...and some more blood. Rodriguez brings all of that. It's fun. I'm laughing. I'm cheering. I'm clapping. The trailers bring all that. Again with the laughing and cheering and clapping. At first, Tarantino brings it all (aside from the boobs...that man loves women, yet not a boob in any of his films)...yet no action. We get a lot of talky-talky. Which is fun...but I want that first blood. That first kill. Finally we get to the action...and all of a sudden...the movie gets very pretty. No more scratches. No more Grindhouse-ness. Hmmm...so, while I agree that Death Proof is the better film...could it be that, given what they set out to do...the promise of a night at the Grindhouse...that Tarantino actually failed to deliver what was promised? Discuss mon freres.

pengin said...

Oh...and I just read Chachi's last post....and I'm gonna call you on it man....you had just read Moriarty's review on aintitcool...didn't you?

chachiincharge said...

First off I did read Moriarty's review a few days ago, so I may have subconsciously stolen a thought, but I don't know which one you noticed. I reread his and I don't see a whole lot of similarity. he is a much better writer. Besides if I wanted to steal a blurb, it would be from Neil Cumpston. Anyways...

I agree that Rodriguez wanted to achieve everything about the grindhouse experience perhaps including the campy nature of it. Yet I still think it is parody. It may be an homage too. But he still uses the negative conventions to his advantage. The missing reel kills both a sexy scene and allows him to move the plot ahead without need for explanation. Having the kid shoot himself in the head isn't irony, but a humorous take, or parody, on what may occur in these films (By the way, in case nobody knew, that was Rodriguez's own kid he blew the head off of). The pocket bike, well that's obvious. The scientist character with a great plan only gets his head blown apart. The super long intense scene with the needle before the doctor is interrupted. The chick with numb hands. The crazy babysitters. Whether any of it was intentional parody is between Rodriguez and God, but if he wasn't shooting for parody, than I think it makes him that much worse of a director for not noticing it.

Secondly, I completely disagree with your take on Tarantino's dialogue. Okay, so yes you don't learn much about some of the early victims, like Shanna-Banana or Lanna(looked like a tranny). But I think you learn enough about Butterfly and Jungle Julia to care about them significantly. And yes you are a bastard if you cheered during the crash sequence. That is a great example of how much better Tarantino is than Rodriguez. Rodriguez would play it for gore and cool factor. Tarantino played it to provoke an emotional reaction from you. I turned to Bryant after that scene with my jaw dropped. Not simply because it was a stupendously shot or edited scene, but because of just how brutal it was. That scene makes all the more impact due to us knowing just enough about the characters to care. I didn't clap to see it again, but I clapped to see vengence taken on that dick. Tarantino definately has an ego, and loves his dialogue. Some doesn't need to be there. Why explain that Eli Roths character is a dick. It goes nowhere. Perhaps the extended cut will hopefully rectify that issue for me as well as your quibbles.

pengin said...

Your post is so far down the page that I have to keep scrolling down to find points to argue...and its annoying me.

Anywho...the Moriarty thing...did not mean to accuse you of theft...you thieving thief. I had actually just finished reading it myself and found it funny that a few things wound up in your post. If your curious...it was the inclusion of Pam Grier specifically...and the mention of the text-messaging that tipped me off. But, in all honesty, its impossible to not be influenced by other reviews. Many times, reading them helps me focus my own thoughts into semi-coherent thoughts.

Onto the fun stuff....its been almost a month since this blog kicked off...and I believe we have our first major batlle...and I'm a bit proud that I'm a part of it.

Planet Terror...I'm never going to be able to convince you that I'm right. Partly because you're a stubborn bastard...and partly because I could be wrong....BUT in my head...I'm 100% right. Ok...so he occasionally uses parts of the Grindhouse experience to his advantage...but that's not parody.

He robs us of most of a sex scene...because that's what the projectionists stole. Nobody stole the boring talky parts. They stole the boobies. And I know you know this...because I have 3 frames of Carla Gugino naked from Sin City thanks to you (and thank you my friend...I look at them daily).

The kid blowing them daily is a twist on bad irony. The wife in a bad film who laments after he husband dies in a car crash on the way to a business meeting because she told him not to go. It bad irony...very bad. Probably not even technically irnoy. But that what these films where trying to achieve. And...yes we laughed...but that's because we're sick. Did you notice that the second time we watched it, we were the only ones laughing? It's just like you said after we first saw it...the original grindhouse filmmakers would have put something like that in their films because it is a rather tragic event. A mom just lost her son...basically before her eyes. The actors and the script play it seriously. We laugh because we are very sick people...and I'm proud of that.

I'm not going to argue tha rest of it on here...we can fight it out at Lost tonight...as I'm getting tired of typing and still have Death Proof to go. And for the record...as I said before...I think he knew that we would laugh...but he made the film the way he did for authenticity...not for parody.

As for Death Proof... HE SHOWED A GIRLS FACE GETTING RIPPED OFF BY A SPINNING TIRE!!!! That's not fucking drama...that's not for "an emotional reaction"...that's for "gore and cool factor". Now he did go light on the gore....but her face was ripped off by a spinning tire. Another's leg was ripped off by a window. Yousaw her body flying through the air post-crash. Was it effective in creating a "holy-shit, jaw-dropping, asshole-tightening" reaction? Certainly. I never ever said this was an ineffective film.
And for the record...I cared as much for these girls as I do for any likable film character that I know is going to die.

And pardon me for wanting some fucking car-crash action. Isn't that what Tarantino told us was going to be in there? This was is "car-chase/crash film". His "slasher-with-a-car flick". I clap because it's an awesome scene. Yeah its brutal. But that's what I want out of a movie that promised it to me. The scene makes an impact because of what it is...it's two cars crashing head on...in a very brutal manner. In all actuality...it wouldn't have mattered that much who was in the second car. I felt just as much for the pot-dealer that I knew nothing about as I felt for the other 3 girls.

As for the last 4 girls...I like them. I like them a lot. Would I have been upset if they died? Yeah...a bit. But I would have been more upset if Stuntman Mike didn't get hurt by the end of the film. That's what it came down to for me. I loved seeing that first car crash. It was spectacular. But I loved seeing Stuntman Mike getting shot, getting flustered while driving, getting crashed into, and getting the shit kicked out of him.

I love the film. I'm not saying that it's perfect though. I think Tarantino did something quite original here...and I think that the extended cut will certainly help him achieve what he set out to do.

PS: Dude...saying Tarantino has a big ego is like saying I have a big belly...an understatement of the highest degree.

PSS: On a totally unrelated note...I'm watching the Killer's video for "Can You Read My Mind?"...and it sucks something awful. I think it made my spleen explode with its crappiness.

chachiincharge said...

Pengin, I was laughing so damn hard at your post. Oh and IT IS ON MY CHUBBY FRIEND!!!

I was trying to argue in your previous post that you didn't find Tarantino's dialogue to be neccessary. I think you found it superfluous to the story and doesn't actually create depth for the characters in the first crash, at least not enough for you to care about it. That is what I was trying to say that I just disagreed with you take on his dialogue. As for the crash itself and its gore, it is done much like his past films. To evoke a visceral response from you. You can clap at the sheer audicity of it all, but you shouldn't argue that it doesn't have a dramtic effect for the story as well. Knowing just how sick Stuntman Mike is, makes for downfall all the more satisfying.

In Reservoir Dogs, once Mr. Blonde has dosed a man in gas and cuts his ear off, you certainly want to see him get his (Albeit by the end of the film because Madsen kicks ass). When you see the ordered hit on the bride in Kill Bill, you know the Bride deserves her vengence, much like Bud states. Tarantino doesn't use violence for the sake of violence like Rodriguez does. He uses it to provoke something from both you the viewer and the characters themselves. So while the crash is amazing to look at, I would be hard pressed to find that all you wanted was just more wicked crashes in the flick. You may have expected a ride (pun intended), but Tarantino does much more than that as Im sure you would agree.

Did Tarantino fail the viewer if all they were expecting was the grindhouse experience? I was say yes. But did he fail them by not giving them a rewarding experience? Hell no.

As for the Planet terror debate, lets just say that perhaps the grindhouse genre itself is a parody. And if you are to agree with that, than you would also agree that you can't parody a parody. So there it both is and isn't a parody. Lets agree to disagree.

PS you still are a bastard.

PSS Only scientologists and Anne Heche understand that Killers video.

Blog Directory - Blogged