About 10 minutes into the gore-filled massacre film, ‘Grindhouse,’ the middle-aged couple directly to my left walked out in disgust. They would not be the last to go.

If you go to see ‘Grindhouse,’ don’t bring food to this movie, as there’s a good chance you’ll vomit. Don’t bring a date to this movie, as there’s a good chance you’ll be slapped and single by the end of the night. This is a movie for only those that can handle it, and like a good exploitation film, the average viewer cannot.

It’s hard to describe the amount of utterly disturbing carnage this film contained without going into a Palahniukian rant. I will say, though, I feel I’m pretty strong-stomached, yet I’m still extremely nauseous as I write this review.

According to the film’s Web site, ‘a Grind House is a theater playing back-to-back films exploiting sex, violence and other extreme subject matter.’ The key word here is extreme, because once the movie starts, it never stops. Even as the words ‘The End’ flash for the second movie, characters are still being severely beaten.

‘Grindhouse’ is broken down into two feature-length films: Robert Rodriguez’s ‘Planet Terror’ and Quentin Tarantino’s ‘Death Proof.’ They play back-to-back, creating more than three hours of sensationalist cinema. The two films form a disgustingly wonderful recreation of second-run grindhouse cinema, backed by an aged-look effect that’s applied to each film.

Everything is over-the-top, from characters to lines, to music. The violence is excessive, the sex is everywhere and you see everything. The directors go out of their way to never pan their cameras and make sure that their scenes are rarely ‘blocked.’ People are brutally ripped apart by zombies and high-speed car collisions, characters are shot point-blank in the face or sliced apart by an arsenal of swords, bones are sagely broken, blood pores from every orifice and onto the camera, all of which is shoved into the audience’s face.

‘Planet Terror’ is a classic zombie film pushed to new lows. A virus is released in Texas, and people start going crazy and killing. The only people that can stop them are a small group made up of a sheriff, his deputies, an ex-solider and strippers. The film is a brilliant piece of grindhouse cinema.

The plot is purposely weak, focusing more on the random acts of death than character development. The effects are tackily well-done and the acting is the same. The only complaint I have is that it’s a bit too long. There’s so much intensity the audience almost becomes desensitized to it by the end … almost.

You may not think you can get through another film at this point. But once ‘Death Proof’ begins, and Tarantino’s pointless banter and feet shots begin, it’s hard not to be hooked. It’s a story of an insane stuntman and his terrorization of two groups of women. This film is not as strong as ‘Terror,’ nor is it Tarantino’s best work. It seems he tried to simultaneously create a grindhouse picture and stay true to his distinct style, but doesn’t do either particularly well. Still, there are some lines and scenes that are hilarious or hilariously horrifying, and fans of the director’s work will appreciate the film.

What’s better than either alone is the package of the two together, as they do create an extremely well-made sensationalism film that achieves what it sets out to do: entertain in the most graphic way possible. There’s also some small crossover between the two films that does help to connect the movies into a full production.

And if two films weren’t enough, there are also fake trailers for other grindhouse movies in-between the films. Ranging from an intense Mexican hit man to Nazi women-turned-werewolves, they are amusing, awful and grotesque, as any grindhouse trailer should be. The worst though is Eli Roth’s slasher flick, ‘Thanksgiving.’ You will never look at turkey the same way.

So be warned. You may be drawn in by the high-action commercials or noteworthy directors, but unless you have the stomach to handle it, you’ll just end up wasting money … or slapped and single.

SIDEBAR

There’s no better way to escape from the drudgery of everyday life than through cinema. With a good movie, a person can experience anything: action, adventure, sex and violence.

But sometimes, on those truly awful days, the average film is not enough. And when the people getting-it-on under the covers, or the tame stab and blood splatter doesn’t get the job done, there are other places to turn. Places with no ratings and no limits. These are exploitation films, and America loves them.

An exploitation film is defined as a genre of film that appeals to our basic instincts, usually with the easy thrills of sex, violence and gore, according to Mark Juddery, a freelance movie critic and pop-culture analyst. These types of films go all the way back to the ’30s exposes of sex and drug scandals.

‘They have always had a strong and dedicated following, even when they were hidden in back-alley grind house cinemas so that nobody had to admit that they were going,’ Juddery said. ‘Relaxed censorship and a more liberal society have meant that there is no longer shame in seeing and enjoying these films, so they have entered the mainstream and people talk about them in polite conversation.’

Most exploitation films are grouped into three categories: sex, black culture and violence, all which Tarantino and Rodriguez pay homage to in ‘Grindhouse.’

Recently there has been a shift in modern-day exploitation films. The genres of race and sex have changed from being a ‘novelty,’ as it was in the ’60s and ’70s, to mainstream culture, according to Juddery. It’s why things like modern black films are either parodies (Beyonce in ‘Austin Powers in Goldmember’) or just fail completely (the awful ‘Shaft’ remake).

Technology also has to do with the lack of exploitation films today. As cinema progressed in the 1980s, films once played in second-run theaters found a new home: direct-to-video. This created two categories of exploitation film, those on video and those catered to mainstream cinema, said Robert Thompson, director of the Center for the Study of Popular Television and a professor at the S.I. Newhouse School of Public Communications.

It’s the latter in which some modern directors have found their niche, especially with shock films. Directors such as Rob Zombie, Eli Roth and Edgar Wright have made careers out of excessive horror films for mainstream Hollywood. It’s also the reason they made the fake trailers that interlude ‘Grindhouse’s’ feature films, creating a self-aware tongue-in-cheek of their own work.

‘In the ’60s and ’70s you had these movies … that were a great guilty secret,’ said Ty Burr, a film critic for The Boston Globe. ‘Not only did they attract people searching for pure sensation, but also people who thought it was hip. Those are the people who are making these movies now.’

Truthfully, back-alley exploitation film doesn’t exist anymore. In fact, it’s now often hard to tell where mainstream cinema starts and exploitation ends.

‘If you don’t like violence and gore, you should avoid (something like) ‘Saving Private Ryan,” Juddery said. ‘If you don’t like watching sex, you should avoid, well, nearly everything. The more notorious aspects of exploitation film can be seen in more critically acclaimed films, if only for a few minutes, rather than the bulk of the film.’

It’s also why ‘Grindhouse’ may be going against its own nature.

‘I hope, if this film is true to the grindhouse spirit as they say it is, that it’s a massive flop,’ Burr said. ‘Grindhouse movies rub sex and violence into moviegoers faces. (These) movies are socially reprehensible … they spit in the face of mainstream. So in a perverse way, if ‘Grindhouse’ is a hit, then it’s not really grindhouse.’

Published on April 4, 2007 at 12:00 pm