Filmstalker: Updated: Is the Grindhouse release schedule right?

Well Grindhouse is released everywhere just now, everywhere as long as it's in the US only, and it's doing not so well. Considering the stock of the team behind it, the actors in it, the hype and the comments everywhere about the build up, it's a huge surprise it's not doing better.

Perhaps this, along with recent Europe first releases, might make the studios rethink their distribution deals on films in the future, after all Grindhouse has the craziest I've seen. So far we're hearing that it will have to wait a full month before being show in Australia and the UK. On that day only the first half of the film will be viewable in Finland, Norway and Sweden.

It's already bizarre isn't it? Well it goes on as a week later it's off in Belgium, France and the Netherlands with only Death Proof again, with Germany following a week after that, again only Death Proof.

Over a month after Death Proof is seen, Planet Terror gets shown in Netherlands and Germany, with two months elapsing before Belgium can see the second half, and three months for Norway and Finland, with almost four whole months before Sweden sees the second part.

If you're confused now, join the club. I have no idea what they are doing with this release schedule as it seems nuts to me and, as someone mentioned to me, it's just going to promote the pirating of the films. I just don't get it. Considering the poor takings it's receiving in the US, are they perhaps right to split the film, or is that just the American audience?

Update
Interestingly today the story arrives that the Weinstein company is looking to the possibility of a re-release of the film in the US, and this would involve splitting the film into two and showing them individually.

IGN carry the story from DeadlineHollywoodDaily.com who got the comment straight from Weinstein himself.

The film received a great build up and a cult following, but hasn't done well in the box office, and as someone said (I'm sorry I can't remember where I read it) because it's so long cinemas can't play it as often as other films, so is it any wonder that it actually took less at the box office?

Everyone is wondering what's been happening with the takings, and some are suggesting that films such as The Reaping kept the audience away. I'm not so sure. Was it the running time? The number of showings would definitely directly reduce the box office takings.

Add a comment

Track comments made to this post with co.mments

Your Name:

Your Email:

Your URL:

Remember my details?

Comments: (you may use HTML tags for style)

Site Navigation

Promotion

Comments

There's lots of stuff going on with Grindhouse here. The major blunder was releasing it on Easter weekend. On Friday night, The Reaping was packed in a small theater while Grindhouse was almost empty in a large one. Given the subject matter of both, I think the correlation is pretty obvious. The other problem is that nobody "gets it" around here. If you don't know what they're attempting going in, you might think it's just flat out idiotic and walk out of the theater. A local newspaper reviewer said it was so bad it was good meaning he missed the point. Add the 3+ hour runtime limiting showings, and it's a recipe for disaster.

Anyway, the full 3+ hour show is an amazing experience. It's sad that they'll be splitting it up across the pond. The 11:50 am matinee Friday that I saw had a reasonably sized audience for that time of day, and we all laughed, groaned, and applauded the whole way through. Hopefully word of mouth and distance from Easter will help it recover.

Posted by: hap | April 9, 2007 11:01 PM

Word of mouth will absolutely MURDER "Death Proof."

Vic

Posted by: Screen Rant Movie News | April 9, 2007 11:17 PM

Death Proof seems to be love it or hate it. I loved it, but I can understand why some hated it.

Posted by: hap | April 9, 2007 11:35 PM

I feel like a lot of people tend to like either one or the other of the two flicks, not both. Personally, both of them had their flaws, and both were very engaging. "Death Proof" is hurt by being the second film in the duo and its relatively slow pace when compared to Planet Terror's nonstop action.

Posted by: ryan | April 10, 2007 3:29 AM

Put me squarely in the "Love it" camp for Death Proof. It's a deceptivly savvy piece of craftmanship. Planet Terror is charming if only for the 'everything and the kitchen sink approach'. It's a bit tedious because of this too.

Proof is the better half, but the combined package is the selling point. I feel sorry for those not getting the 3 hour 15 minute creators intended package and having to live with the watch 'em separately distribution. The movies are 180 degrees separate, and that is kinda the point here...

Oh Well. It was a great time at the cinema, a pretty unique experience at the multiplex. And the box office will ensure that there are fewer of these things, because the just do not have mainstream appeal.

Posted by: Triflic | April 10, 2007 3:59 AM

I must say I was really surprised to find the theater pretty empty for the showing that I attended. My little group thought this would be insanely busy and we gave ourselves over an hour of waiting time - just in case - and were privy to the exiting of the group before us and I must say, it was pathetic, add in the fact that our screening was pretty sparse. I was more than a little surprised.

And I'm in Triflic's camp with "Death Proof". I liked both parts but "Death Proof" was definitely my favorite of the two.

Posted by: Marina | April 10, 2007 8:11 AM

This is the dumbest release schedule I can think of... or not think of. two months between releases of the two movies and in reverse order? How will they work the fake trailers into these? This is stupid.

And for the record, I loved both films. I liked Planet Terror better, but upon a second viewing, I like Death Proof better (only slightly).

It's so obvious why this isn't doing well: NO MARKETING. Sure, it's all over the internet, but if I learned one thing from Snake on a Plane, it's that apparently no one reads anything on the internet. If there aren't commercials for it on TV and newspaper ads explaining what it is, no one will see it.... especially on Easter weekend. Most of the people I talked to had never heard of it and when I explained it to them they thought it sounded stupid (morons). hell, even the 5 people I went with didn't really know what they were going to see (but ended up loving it).

Posted by: Drewbacca | April 10, 2007 3:41 PM

You guys that actually thought "Death Proof" was better (shudder!): PLEASE explain to me how you actually ENJOYED the interminable, vacuous conversations of the female characters! For me, it was almost literally agony to sit through.

Posted by: Screen Rant Movie News | April 10, 2007 5:54 PM

I don't think the point was to enjoy the conversations. I'd hate to go into too many details since a lot of the readers here won't get a chance to see either movie for a while, but the agony of listening to the conversations made the movie much better for me than it would have been without them.

Posted by: hap | April 10, 2007 10:07 PM

Gotta tell ya, if I hadn't intended to review the movie, I would have walked out of "Death Proof" along with the other half dozen or so folks who did so at the showing I attended.

THAT should have been the missing reel instead of the lap dance.

Posted by: Screen Rant Movie News | April 10, 2007 11:45 PM

Deathproof had great action, Kurt Russell was fun, but the dialog was too damn much after getting out of something like Planet Terror... Grindhouse was hitting the breaks when Deathproof came on.

Posted by: Matthew | April 11, 2007 12:32 AM