Lubbock also has a drive-in, the Stars & Stripes. Apparently, they’re putting in a third screen. I guess it’s still possible to run a drive-in in places where land is cheap.
We have a Drive in in the south Seattle area, Kent/Auburn to be exact. its only open summers though.
I think that’s a safe bet. As my earlier post foreshadowed, I went looking for more of his reviews; here’s an excerpt from his take on The Return of the King (or as he refers to it, Hobbit-Man: The King Returns )–
Yup. Back in the day, 9th line started at the lake. The 5 Drive-in was on it just south of the Highway 5 intersection, and in those days it only had one screen. Lots of good memories of that place (I grew up on 9th Line near the lake in the 60s).
The Mustang Drive-in south of London, Ontario, is usually packed. A hot summer night, a vehicle with a removable cover, and the Mustang Drive-in, made for a fine combination.
Sudbury’s 69 Drive-in closed in 1992 (named after the major road that is was near, not the activities in which some of the audience members participated). Every time I went there I was eaten alive by either black flies or mosquitos or deer flies or horse flies or a young lady named Silvia, depending on the time of year. Years earlier an owner of the place had once made a film to be shown there called “Corpse Eaters.” (Ha! You thought I’d never get back on topic!)
– continued from above
From a review of “Corpse Eaters”: http://www.severed-cinema.com/reviews/abcd/corpse_eaters.php (not safe for work – titties, well, more like boobies, but you be the judge)
I have a vague recollection of a drive-in in the Hamilton/Stoney Creek area off in a field near Mud St. – for some reason Mud St. stuck in my mind all these years. (I wonder if that is where they bury the zombies?)
I simply cannot believe ANY movie could be that good. Directors ALWAYS find a way to screw it up, with too much exposition between explosions or irrelevant romantic subplots with not nearly enough nudity and real sex. If I WANTED a movie with that crap I’d’ve gone to “PILLOW FIGHT AND SCENTED CANDLES AND BOREDOM, or whatever Sandra Bullock movie’s coming out.” :mad:
That’s… Rose McGowan??? :eek:
Holy mother of purl
I have just seen this movie and I must respectfully submit that this movie review is COMPLETELY CORRECT. This movie is so exploding-whale-nutsack-awesome that entirely new dictionaries must be invented to describe the awesomeness. Get a mental image in your head, if you will, of a stripper. This stripper has a rocket-launcher on her back and minitiature strippers instead of hands. And THOSE miniature strippers are wielding chainsaws and it’s raining ZOMBIES. That’s how awesome this movie is. No, wait. It’s more awesome than that. Fuck, I need a drink.
(bolding mine)
Dude, I am sooooo stealing that!
Oh yeah, since I’m supposed to see the movie tomorrow, I guess that answers the question if I need to buy some booze tonight.
You are absolutely correct. Tarantino’s Deathproof starts off a little slow. By slow, I mean watching a group of super hot chicks drinking, smoking weed and talking about fucking anf blowing dudes. And then Kurt Russel drives a Chevy Nova through their freakin face. booya
Saw it tonight, thanks to the generosity of a friend and while I didn’t hate it, I was disappointed with the flicks. IMHO, the first hour of both films could have been chopped out with no loss in quality.
[spoiler]It was at the hour mark in Planet Terror before chickie gets the machine gun/grenade launching leg. It should have been in the first 15 minutes that she got it. Most of the story about the doctors and their marriage should have just been fucking cut out. It added nothing to the movie, but time. Also, this film needed Samuel L. “Bad Muthafucka” Jackson something fierce. Oh, and the baby? The baby needed at least a Red Ryder BB gun for a leg! 
Kurt Plissken’s character was just inexplicable. I had been hoping for something like an amphetamine fueled race/duel between him and the Challenger, but that wasn’t the direction they went.
Some things that they did in Death Proof that I just totally don’t get. First of all, I live not too far from the town in TN where part of the film was supposed to be set. They totally did not film on location there for some reason, and only one part of the area they used resembled the area (BTW, there used to be a Tucker dealer there.) Also, freakin’ 1970 Dodge Challenger’s are pushing close to $100K, and one like that would have been snapped up in seconds. I don’t get why they showed the roll cage in the Challenger, either. Also, in one of the shots, when you see Kurt Plisskin hit the brakes, it’s the wide pedal of an auto, in another shot, it’s the narrow pedal of a stick, and both cars seemed to be autos.
If you closely, you can see that the cars have California plates, none of the cars are sporting “Titans” plates/decals, and that the damaged panels on the cars have rust spots. Also, the doors on the Challenger don’t have any rubber weather stripping on them like the should. Finally, the engines just didn’t have the right bassy, grab you by the colon, rumble I was hoping for.
I also wish both films had been more self-referential. I did like the faux-trailers, and I hope that “Werewolves of the SS” and “Thanksgiving” both end up getting made.
[/spoiler]
Over all, I give 'em a 5 out of 10. Some hot babes, but no exposed titties. 
Okay…[spoiler]Tarantino’s movie is a love letter to (a) the grindhouse genre: movies shot on extremely low budgets, such that they get to do maybe 15-20 minutes of cool stuff and pad out the rest of the time with static chitchat, which structurally the film emulates almost perfectly; (b) the craftspeople who work on these films: note that the second group of women is mostly movie people, and notice the prominently featured movie posters in the bar scene, among other elements; and (c) stuntwoman Zoe Bell, who plays herself in the movie, and who kicks unholy amounts of ass. And on the last point, the definition of an exploitation movie is a movie whose budget is so low that it can’t afford to do what a Hollywood movie does, which is hire lots of cast or build large sets or go to exotic locations or produce elaborate visual effects, so they stretch their dollar by “exploiting” the elements they can afford, which is to say, naked girls, cheap gore, midgets, and the like; and what is more in the spirit of an exploitation movie than hiring a lead actress who you can ACTUALLY STICK ON THE HOOD OF THE CAR DURING THE HAIR-RAISING CHASE SCENE.
Oh, and the very ending? Absolutely perfect.
Death Proof is extremely self-referential, but it’s in a deep, highly formal way, not obvious and superficial, not “wink-wink.” In fact, I think it might be one of Tarantino’s best movies, on a par with Jackie Brown. I’ll need to see it again to be certain.
Planet Terror, on the other hand, was just okay. Fun, but not a lot of real content; and what’s more I think it misses the point of what a grindhouse movie is supposed to be. There is no way an independent exploitation filmmaker could afford that kind of wall-to-wall mayhem, with dozens of extras in full makeup, several military vehicles, multiple huge explosions, digital visual effects, and everything else. Okay, maybe Rodriguez made this as sort of an idealized version of one of these movies, making it so it is the way you remember it in retrospect. When one of these movies kicks your ass, in your memory you gloss over the subpar bits, overlooking the padding of the driving scenes and the long pointless dialogue and the crappy effects, and you remember the entire movie as the best half hour. Perhaps Rodriguez was attempting to make the movie of our memories instead of an actual grindhouse feature. Regardless, it works fine, but it’s hardly special.
Certainly not next to Death Proof, which I can’t freakin’ wait to see again. I’m just not sure about sitting through Planet Terror again.[/spoiler]
Yet the film didn’t have any nekkid chicks. I kept hoping we’d get to see Zoe’s boobies flop out while she was on the hood, but that didn’t happen. And really, with “careful” editing, a high speed chase can seem like it goes on for ages, lot’s of films, including non-exploitation films use recycled footage during car chases. Oh, and their tain’t nuttin’ exotic about Lebanon, TN, trust me. If they could go to Texas and California for the flick, why couldn’t they go to TN? Oh, and IIRC, Deathrace 2000 had lots of driving sequences, and not a helluvalot of exposition, and Coreman sure as shit didn’t spend a bundle on the flick.
I dunno, I would have liked to have seen the look on "Bubba"s face when they showed back up with what was left with his car. :eek:
Yeah, I got those, but I think that it needed some wink, wink moments.
See, I wasn’t analyzing the film like that at all. I was just hoping for an hour and a half of stupid, over the top gore laden violence, sort of like how I remember Gremlins. (I haven’t seen it since it was in the theater.) Yeah, yeah, I know, I know, they wouldn’t have had the budget for all that in a real exploitation film, but this wasn’t, of course. Oh yeah, in checking the cast list on IMDB, I see that the deputy who got his finger bitten off was make up expert extrodanaire Tom Savini.
See, if you were really a fan of the genre, you would have recognized him on sight, like I did, and not had to look him up later. 
Yourself, one of the reasons I went to IMDB was because a bunch of the folks in the film (including him) looked familiar, but I couldn’t put a name to the face. Have you read his book on make up? I have (he spends a bit too much time talking about how he couldn’t get the blood to look right in this or that film, IMHO).