The thing about "Grindhouse"

"Grindhouse" was supposed to be huge. What bad could come from the partnering of Quentin Tarantino and Robert Rodriguez for an in-your-face exercise in exploitation filmmaking? Well, apparently tons of bad -- to the tune of a sorry $11.6 mil debut.

Words like "underperformed" and even "flop" are being used to describe the film's 4th place premiere. "Blades of Glory," "Meet the Robinsons" and the Ice Cube family flick "Are We Done Yet?" comprised the top 3 spots.

So what happened? Here's what I think went wrong:

1. People didn't understand the concept. "Grindhouse" is a double-feature that pays homage to the shitty -- and I mean shitty in terms of plot and production value -- horror movies and car chase films of the 1970s. These films were bad in mostly every technical way but audiences still flocked to dirty, rundown theaters with almost-broken projectors to watch. "Grindhouse" tries to recreate the entire experience for contemporary movie audiences. Three sentences into a description of the film, I've already proven my point that maybe "Grindhouse" asks too much of mainstream movie-goers. Movie geeks and fanboys were already a lock for this movie, but they are not a big enough population to secure a strong opening weekend.

2. The previews and commercials turned people off. If you haven't seen the movie but have caught commercials for it on TV, then you've seen Rose McGowan sporting a machine gun for a leg. It's a ridiculous and, I think, polarizing image. You either saw that and said to yourself, "I am seeing this movie," or "What the f#@k -- No." Other than that machine-gun-for-a-leg image, I'm not so sure the commercials did a good job of explaining the plots of both movies. I can't imagine many female viewers sat in their living rooms saying, "Strippers, zombies, car chases and explosions? I'm there!"

Also, for some reason Robert Rodriguez's "Planet Terror" got the most airtime in commercials for "Grindhouse," which is a shame because it is the less crowd-pleasing of the two movies.* People were bombarded with images of zombies and Rose McGowan's machine gun leg, and saw very little of Tarantino's "Death Proof." Had the previews focused more on "Death Proof" -- which is surprisingly very much a celebration of strong, badass women -- more people might have checked out the film.

3. Easter weekend. I can't pinpoint a "right" time to release a film like "Grindhouse," but I'm pretty sure Easter weekend isn't it. I don't think America or the world at large was in the mood for a 3-hour-long, R-rated exploitation movie.

Personally, I liked "Grindhouse," but I can't say I would ever again sit through "Planet Terror" or the fake previews and advertisements that frame it.

Tarantino's "Death Proof," however, is chock-full of hypnotic dialogue spoken by fleshed out characters. Before anything significant even happens, you're already high on the movie's atmosphere. Every scene of the movie oozes coolness. And you don't have a pulse if you are not shouting and laughing at the final scene.

The Weinstein Co. is already considering releasing "Planet Terror" and "Death Proof" separately in response to the film's disappointing opening weekend. I say do it and make sure to market Tarantino's "Death Proof" as more of a slasher flick with an emphasis on the film's heroines. Seriously, I think women would love this movie.

* I acknowledge that "Planet Terror" is technically the more faithful to concept of grindhouse films. I mean, it's really very bad. It's bad on purpose, though. "Death Proof," on the other hand manages to be just plain good while still honoring the bad films of the grindhouse era.