Maverick directors Quentin Tarantino and Robert Rodriguez have unleashed their long awaited double-feature phenomenon in the making, "Grindhouse," onto an unsuspecting motion picture marketplace. Starring Kurt Russell, Rose McGowan, Rosario Dawson and a cadre of filmmaking friends (fake trailers for the presentation have been crafted by the likes of Rob Zombie and Eli Roth), the diabolical duo are hoping to open the eyes of tenderfoot film fans everywhere. It is their goal to bring the good old days of onscreen exploitation back to the masses.

   For his part, Rodriguez is serving up the splatter spoils, offering a zealous zombie stomp entitled "Planet Terror." Tarantino, on the other hand, is exploring the seedier side of things with his psycho stuntman on the prowl, "Death Proof." Together, they guarantee the classic concepts celebrated by drive-in film critics Joe Bob Briggs - beasts, boobs and blood.

   But is it really exploitation, or better yet, do these two inexplicable genre efforts guided by a pair of exceptionally talented men really warrant the true `grindhouse' label? Signs are sketchy at best. It remains a fact that, scattered throughout the legacy of the taboo-busting genre, there are movies that explore similar themes. Harry Novak's "The Child," for example, was a great example of the living dead dynamic, and crazed killers stalking and splattering unwitting innocents ("Booby Traps," "A Scream in the Streets"), were an industry mainstay.

   Even when you move beyond the outer fringes of the genre and into the more obscure examples of filmed filth, there are enough examples of the horror/crime/drug/sex standard to fulfill the retro raincoat crowd title. But the question remains, what about these new films in particular. Are they fact or fad, real attempts at recreation or, as one suspects, a gimmick used to serve an already attention-grabbing release?

   It is obvious that no filmmaking duo, or dozen directors, for that matter, could sum up the exploitation genre in a single set of films. There are far too many subjects and subsets, aspects and approaches involved to allow for such an easy dissection. But the main issue with any supposed grindhouse offering is the purpose behind the production.

   Money was the motivating factor for these carnival barker like showmen. The main distributors and producers of the old school product even had a self-effacing nickname for themselves, "The Forty Thieves." Running around the country playing drive-ins and gritty downtown theaters, they purposefully positioned their product like inventory in a warehouse. In his exceptional book, "A Youth in Babylon," Mighty Monarch of the Exploitation World David F. Friedman argued for what is, in essence, a post-modern Hollywood film production ideal to the creating and commercializing of controversial cinema.

   Whenever they began a project, the smart schlock filmmaker always took the temperature of the times. He (or in rare cases, she) sampled the pop culture landscape, looked to see what was making headlines (violence, sex crimes, drugs, etc.) and then made sure their movie stayed true to said subject's more sensational elements. But beyond the narrative, producers recognized that through a clear demographic decision, they could almost predict where certain types of movies would be best received. Rowdy sex farces usually did well in the South, while far more mean-spirited or sadistic fare drew better in big cities. Finally, they would work up a mock budget, and determine a maximum amount of advertising and distribution monies to be spent. If all the salesmanship stars were aligned, they would then figure out the potential profit (these movies were NEVER made without a clear indication of the possible success) and maintain a strict adherence to this limited fiscal plan.

   As a result, most exploitation films were not hits, but solid returns on precisely planned out investments. The artistic nature of a release was never considered, nor was the inevitable entertainment value to an audience ever gauged. In essence, the men making grindhouse fare were playing a masterful game of bait and switch. They would lure in curious crowds with their tantalizing, taboo subject matter, and then once the coinage was carefully concealed, roll out their less than exceptional effort. For anyone familiar with the long lineage of this kind of moviemaking, the vast majority of the interchangeable offerings are quite forgettable. Aside from their time capsule qualities, and ample depictions of nudity, they tend to be boring, unexceptional, crass and without merit.

   So where exactly do "Planet Terror" and "Death Proof" reside? Well, for one thing, it's clear that the entire premise for this double feature extravaganza comes from the drive-in dynamic which in turn, represents a late-in-life adjustment made by the exploitation gang. When theaters could no longer guarantee audiences, and mainstream movies started limiting available screens, the passion pit was instantly targeted. Not only was this done because of the guaranteed audience (remember, couples weren't necessarily coming for the movies) but also out of a firm financial desperation.

   After the initial craze in the 1950s, drive-ins started losing their luster. By tapping into the need to compete with the major chains and growing Cineplex movement, the independent owners of these exterior entertainment venues would purposely look for something weird or unusual to enhance their visibility. And it usually worked.

   Certainly, there aren't specific requirements mandated to make a movie meet the "Grindhouse" distinction, but its fairly obvious that Tarantino and Rodriguez are using the moniker to make their standard scare fests appears far more scandalous than they are.

   Sure, it could be for a love of the genre, and it can be very addictive once you recognize how important the industry was to shaping the modern movie going experience. They could also have a far more obsessive fascination with the cinematic category, resulting in an understanding that's more in touch with the basic tenets and expectations of the exploitation ideal than the casual fan may have. And indeed, they've never said their movies were all inclusive, reveling in any and all aspects of the miscreant movie model. But when you call your offering "Grindhouse," and spend countless weeks pimping your product as same, you better be able to support your shilling, and right now, all this film has going for it is a great deal of geek goodwill.

   Early buzz has been positive, if not necessarily loaded with the flagrant fan boy pontifications that one comes to expect (especially when its QT and RR at the helm). And with "300" stealing some of the movie's pre-summer publicity, including its rating as a must-see cinematic happening, we could be looking at a case of bad timing accompanied by limited appeal. Finally, we are dealing with a clear critical bias here, horror-oriented movies made with a kind of craven creativity that jaded journalists no longer respond to.

   So in the end, Grindhouse will live and die thanks to its artistic more than its artificial elements. But one thing's for sure - it really isn't a throwback to the days when ballyhoo controlled the box office. There's nary a shout out to the pioneering picture makers of the past, and many of the more important facets that formed the genre are all but absent. Until it officially opens, it will remain a crafty concept expertly rendered by a couple of extremely sharp anti-Establishment icons. It's a shrewd marketing ideal that even an old roadhouse huckster would envy.