Splitting up Grindhouse on DVD, The Wicker Man, and More

• Jul 11, 2007 05:50 PM ET
• by Maitland McDonagh

Send your movie questions to FlickChick.

See Maitland McDonagh and Ken Fox review this week's new flicks in Movie Talk!

Hear Maitland on the weekly TVGuide Talk podcast.

Question: What do you think of Weinstein Company releasing Death Proof and Planet Terror on separate discs a month apart? I'm disappointed: It was great seeing the films back-to-back with trailers and advertisements. Do you think there will be a bigger edition coming out a few months later, as studios often like to do? Do you think it's a good move? - Jason

FlickChick: I love Grindhouse (witness my review) and frankly, I think it's really going to find its audience on DVD; I truly believe that a big part of the reason it did so poorly in theaters is that people weren't willing to commit to spending three hours in a movie seat. That problem goes away when you're at home and can pause to get a drink, stretch your legs, use the bathroom or whatever. In real grindhouses you could at least take a break during the trailers; if you were a regular you'd seen half of them before anyway. But with Grindhouse, the trailers were as much fun as the movies.

My feeling is that the Weinstein Company is figuring that since they made the investment in full-length versions of Death Proof and Planet Terror, which have been playing theaters in Europe, they might as well put them on separate DVDs. At best, people will buy both; at worst, Quentin Tarantino fans will buy Death Proof (which is scheduled for a Sept. 18 release) and Robert Rodriguez buffs will spring for Planet Terror, which is supposedly coming out in October, just in time for Halloween.

I absolutely believe that there will be a consolidated edition later, at which point consumers who boycotted the individual releases will pony up, and a lot of people who bought one or both of the full-length individual features will pony up again to have the full theatrical Grindhouse experience. Count me in on that category. That said, I'm still waiting for the integrated Kill Bill and there's no sign of it.

Update: I just got official word on the US DVD release dates of Death Proof and Planet Terror --September 18th and October 16th, respectively. Each is described as a " two-disc unrated and extended DVD" set. I'm hoping the Grindhouse trailers will be among the extras on the second disc.


Question: As a horror aficionado, can you tell me what the deal is with The Wicker Man? I caught the Nicolas Cage remake on cable recently (what happened to his career, anyway?) and while I can generally find something redeemable in most films, I thought this one was a waste of my time. I like most of Neil LaBute's movies and plays, but I can't figure out why a studio gave the go-ahead to put him in charge. I know the original film has a large cult following; is the story/script the same? Is it worth going back to check out the first one? - Jenny

FlickChick: I'm a huge fan of the original Wicker Man (1973), which has a very similar story but is to my mind a much better movie than the Neil LaBute remake. Not that it could be worse, of course - you're absolutely right that the new Wicker Man is execrable.

I think part of the reason horror buffs like me, who saw The Wicker Man when it was new (or at least newish), love it so much is that it was so unlike anything else being made at the time. Its cynicism about the manipulation of belief for commerce, its vicious undermining of the then-daring counterculture cult of happy paganism, its stunningly downbeat ending were all real shockers. That's less true now, so maybe its impact on younger movie buffs wouldn't be so great - especially if you've seen the remake and basically know where it's going. But it's still a smart, haunting genre piece that's horrifying rather than scary in a "boo, gotcha!" way.

As to Nicolas Cage's career, beats me. But if he'd stop wearing horrible hairpieces, talking funny and generally acting like a freak maybe he'd be able to make a decent movie again.

Question: Maitland, I love your column! I'm just curious about the process for making movies these days. It seems like there is more and more emphasis on profit rather than producing great films (at least in my opinion). The target demographic seems to be teenagers. Don't get me wrong, I'm glad to see family films being made, but am I right to think that today's focus is more commercial than artistic? - Jan

FlickChick: As the cynics always say, there's a reason they call it show business. The American movie industry has always been profit-based, which means that commercial considerations have always trumped art. That's why countries with national film boards that help finance filmmaking (and other arts) consistently turn out a less monolithic mix of movies than the U.S. industry does mdash; remember, I'm talking about the moviemaking mainstream.

But having said all that, I think the Hollywood system is more stacked against interesting filmmaking than it's ever been. The great thing about old Hollywood is that it was, as Thomas Schatz memorably wrote in The Genius of the System, a factory for moviemaking. Studios owned the business top to bottom: They owned backlots, theater chains, stars and behind-the-scenes talent. (No one signs seven-year-contracts anymore; they negotiate one project at a time.) The studios made money by keeping the product coming, and that meant that aside from a few high-profile, big-budget projects, there wasn't a lot of micromanaging.

One movie couldn't bankrupt a studio, the way Heaven's Gate (1980) bankrupted United Artists. It's a paradox, but the industrial model of filmmaking gave a lot of filmmakers a lot of freedom, as long as they stayed within budget.

But several things changed the business dramatically. There was the antitrust suit that forced the studios to divest themselves of their theaters. A-list actors, directors and screenwriters (or more to the point, their agents) realized that they could do better negotiating fees on a film-by-film basis than signing long-term contracts. And movies like Jaws (1975) and Star Wars (1977) convinced executives that if one megahit movie could float a studio for a whole year, then it was better to pour money into a blockbuster than divide the money between 30 modestly budgeted pictures.

That concentration of cash in a handful of projects made market research more important than it had ever been in the past, and fueled enthusiasm for sequels, tie-ins and movies based on "pre-sold" ideas. It encouraged meddling at every level - after all, with so much money at stake you can't trust some crazy filmmaker to run around following his (or her) vision.

Put it all together, and you start to see how we wound up where we are now.

Question: When I was younger, in the 1980s, I saw a movie several times. It was a horror farce: People were killed in strange ways, like with a rubber chicken. It took place in a high school and the killer wore rubber boots that would squeak when he walked. If you could tell me the name of this movie I would really appreciate it. - Mandi

FlickChick: I'm going with Student Bodies (1981), a spoof of slasher movies. I don't remember the psycho killing anyone with a rubber chicken, but he made threatening phone calls and disguised his voice by talking through a rubber chicken. He killed someone with a paper clip, though. And someone else with an eggplant. Silly stuff.

Send your movie questions to FlickChick.