Grindhouse, again. 04.15.2007
With Friday estimates included, the film’s total cume is $16.7 million; that gives it a second-weekend drop of 74%, which is just terrible any way you slice it. The per-screen average for the film is $494, which as Deadline Hollywood points out, means its “playing in near-empty theaters.
I’m not surprised at all. The kind of movie that Grindhouse is will never, ever appeal to any sort of mainstream audience.
Later on in the Cinematical article:
Will they chalk this whole thing up to the bad taste of the American public and continue to support their signature star, much the way Warner Bros. supported Stanley Kubrick all those years?
It’s funny that whenever a film does poorly that critics enjoyed, it’s attributed to the horrible taste of the viewing public.
And, yeah, that’s true sometimes. But this time? Let’s consider for a moment.
Grindhouse is a movie that pays homage to the exploitation-horror-B-movie genre. It celebrates a specific era of film making. An era that wasn’t particularly liked by people then, nor by people now.
So why, why, did all the critics expect this movie to do well?
It’s cool and fashionabe to be retro now, and reminiscence on the good old days of [blah]. But sometimes, the good old days were really bad old days were really horribe soul-sucking old days without much redeeming value.