Stop taunting me, American people on my friends list! =P
And it's not out in Australia until... August 11.
August! Why in these days of widespread broadband telecommunications does it take so long to fling a bloody movie over a little puddle? Now we have to put up with four whole months of rave reviews, spoilers and furry toothed geeks quoting all the good lines before we even get the chance to sit in a multiplex cinema chock full of teenagers yakking on mobile phones and sticky seats that smell of Coca Cola. And people *wonder* why movie piracy is so widespread...
Damn you Americans and your smug already-seen-it-ness :P
I mean I'm glad you liked it :)
August? your serious?
heck i am in New Zealand and i only have to wait till may the 12thi really would have thought that you guys in aussie would get it before us.
It's because they want you to download bootlegs of TV shows and movies over the internet.
Not everyone thinks so. [usatoday.com]
that might be the worst article i've ever read.
I don't think the article says anything negative about the movie. Just about what it does that usually isn't done.
I second that.
Sin City broke the formulaic fucktardation of the monotonous Hollywood shitfestery. This is somehow a bad thing?
do you have an official human->weev thesaurus, you have a great way of wording things.
It's a lousy article (it's USA Today - what else?) but do they like it or dislike it? The issues they raise are quite objective and probably what made jwz like it, as much as some airhead fail to understand it.
"Lord of the Rings star Elijah Wood plays a silent, Zen-like serial killer named Kevin."Although that one is going to be hard to believe (especially in Britain, where the name "Kevin" is itself a joke)
why is the name 'Kevin' a joke in the UK? forgive my ignorance.
"Kevin" has become comedian's shorthand for ineffectual dweebs - geeks, without the tech. "Kevin Turvey" was an archetypal Angry Young Man, all the funnier because you can't take an aspirational Kenneth Tynan / Che Guevera seriously when they're called "Kevin". "Kevin the Gerbil" was the sidekick of Roland Rat (Brit ethnic muppet). Kevins are always portrayed as sidekicks, even to rats.
One day fortune will grant me the chance to meet Elijah Wood, with a cold wet haddock in my hand. Then we'll see what's behind that permanently startled expression, like a freshly-buggered hobbit.
Sounds like a perfect name for an emotionally undeveloped serial killer, then.(Note that I haven't seen the movie)
I can almost imagine the people behind "Shaun of the Dead" making "Kevin - Diary of a Serial Killer"
But he'd be crap at it. The Mr Bean of serial killers. He'd have this incredible _anger_ at the world, but he'd just turn into some deeply pathetic whining LJer who really wants to kill people, but it never works out.
...until one day, the Medellin cartel recruit him as a hitman, on the basis of believing his LJ.
Hmmm. If I could write, there'd be a plot in there.
I saw a news report once (a very long time ago) regarding an association of British Kevins who were, I guess, attempting to rehabilitate their name. When asked what people thought of when they heard the name 'Kevin', their spokesman said, without irony, "A wally."
Always a pleasure to see you gush.
I had Sin City inspired dreams two nights running after seeing it. It's the best movie I have seen in years, and so not PG-13 that it made me do a little dance in the theater.
I thought the film was great: almost too faithful an adaptation of book to screen. One negative I noticed from audience reaction were some people snickering at some of the lines because they're not familiar with the noir genre Miller was writing in. Me, I'm going to see it again.
my boyfriend complained about this exact same thing. Now I will admit to snickering a few times at the same time or at least smiling and I know the genre and love it.Both time I saw it the snickers where at the same points.Line that could fall under a very stereo typical film noir style. Personally my snickering was more of a joyous "oh that is so perfect" kinda of way. Especially at some of the delivery for Brittney Murphy and Mickey Rourke.
I can't speak for the rest of the audience but I know for myself it wasn't a laughing at it more laughing with.
Sure, and I am completely with you on the "know the genre, love it, and laughing with rather than at" bit. Given the timing and tone and expressions of the other laughter in the audience when I saw it, I inferred that several people were reacting more like "That's so hokey" rather than "That's perfect". (I don't want to mention the other complaint someone in my opening night audience exclaimed because people in the rest of these comments above have mentioned they can't see the film yet, and I hate spoilering things for other people.) I loved the film. So did my wife, and she's not exactly a heavy reader of the hard-boiled detective genre or of noir in general.
Oh good, I'm not the only one who thinks so.
I actually walked out of it with my girlfriend, as she was crying from disgust and nausea. As for me, I felt about the movie the same way I felt about the comic: yeah it was pretty and stylish and groundbreaking, but I didn't feel there was any substance to it. There was no plot, the violence was the plot. Don't get me wrong, I like a violent movie once in a while, I'm a big fan of the Godfather, John Woo, etc. But I didn't feel that the stylishness of Sin City was enough to carry it.
So, maybe I lose my geek cred, but I just don't really like Sin City. Much like I lost interest in the comic and never finished it, now I will probably not ever finish the movie. I just got bored.
Gorgeous visuals and adaptation. . . but of a plot that is far too forgiving of its own mistakes. Tidy, clever, but frustrating.
Spoiler:('spoiler': eg, why couldn't a man who runs the entire Sin City keep track of an 11 year old girl? One whose parents his cops had roughed up? Did they _really_ think 'Cordelia' was just some random girl? One of several rather glaring and annoying plot holes.)
And what have you done with Jamie? The real Jamie would never love a comic book movie because every comic book movie ever made gets royally fucked up by Hollywood.
This can only mean one thing...
This movie was made outside of the Hollywood system. http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/13.04/sincity.html
Nah, that's not true. I thought both Spider-Man movies were good, and fairly faithful. I also liked both X-Men movies, though I wasn't a big fan of the comics. The first Blade was fantastic. And The Crow movie was a hundred times better than the comics were.
I was disappointed that Marv and Lucille got out of their room at the Farm differently than in the book. I really wanted that long slow zoom with the quiet sound effects getting louder, but you can't have everything.
Nonetheless, this movie kicked seventeen kinds of ass and hopefully demonstrated to the studios that your heroine doesn't have to be a Good Girl, and your hero doesn't have to be The Good Guy, and that violence can be artistic. Hopefully it also demonstrated to them that Alexis Bleidel is a hottie.
...and hopefully demonstrated to the studios that your heroine doesn't have to be a Good Girl, and your hero doesn't have to be The Good Guy, and that violence can be artistic.
Please see Raging Bull, The Godfather, and Natural Born Killers.
Also, the studios aren't concerned with what is artistic. They're concerned with what people will buy. If this (along with the Kill Bills) demonstrates that people will buy plotless violent revenge-fests, then we'll see more of them.
Raging Bull, The Godfather, those were good. Even the remade Scarface was good, being laced with violence. naturla Born Killers, however, was crap. Total utter crap.
I remember when they had the preview clip and I found the editing quite craptacular.
I was pleased to discover it had tightened up considerably - I really enjoyed the whole movie.
However, by far the standout performance was Mickey Rourke as Marv. My god, he just kept getting better and better, all the way to the end - like he was born to play that character. They could have made a whole movie just about him alone. Fantastic.
I need to go see it again.
After watching this last night, I find it hard to disagree.
I loved it. I found myself most irritated by the discussion of how it's just violent, infantile, and one-dimensional.
Okay. But that article doesn't actually proffer any rebuttal to the point that the movie is monotonously violent, infantile, and one-dimensional.
I mean, I think you have to like the movie in spite of those problems. And perhaps you could argue that the whole eye candy brain-fuck couldn't be possible if there were more depth to things.
But ultimately I found myself thinking two things during the movie. First, "You know what's going to happen next? Someone is going to get tortured, killed, or both." Second, I couldn't help wondering if the experience of reading the comic would be more interesting (or less monotonous) because you can take it in measured doses. Around about 75 minutes into the movie I started getting a bit antsy, hoping there was more to the remaining hour than just an escalation of the violence and revenge. Oh well.
I wouldn't exactly call it an article - just some random thoughts. The movie is pretty violent (and the book is violent), but I don't think that's all there is to it. There's some real discussion to be had about the morality of the film. You may not agree with the conclusions, but that doesn't mean they aren't there, or that there isn't complexity.
The characters are presented with situations, and they make choices. It's a violent setting, but it's not simplistic.
Would it have been less one-dimensional if Marv had had his lawyer issue a ladyfinger C&D to Kevin?
hey, we actually agree on a comic book movie for once. craziness.
This movie makes it easy to spot the people who love violence and misogyny, so I like it for that.
Ok, I'll bite.
This is the third or fourth time I've heard the movie called "misogynist" - care to explain?
Perhaps it is the fact that when a woman puts on a bathrobe about 18 minutes into the movie, it's arguably the most clothing any female in this movie wears.
I could go on, but I doubt it'll change any minds so what's the point?
I'm not sure if you noticed, but Old Town is basically a red light district - what did you expect the women to be wearing, business casual?
This Good Christianâ„¢ Movie Review site gave Sin City a worst-possible zero-out-of-100 score. What makes their review so great is that list of all the specific acts that they find distasteful; scroll down the page a little, read the column on the right.
I'd reprint parts of the list here, but I don't want to spoil the film for anyone who hasn't seen it. On the other hand, I don't think these give away too much plot:
I like the attention to detail, e.g., the "twice" in that last item.
I love CapAlert! I haven't checked it out for a while, but a really good one is their review of Scooby Doo.
The best part of that review is that they seem to have no idea that Shaggy is a stoner.
thats the best review ever.
stuffing head in toilet with feces to intimidate, twice
I thought the second time it was just urine.
But the craps the first time caused a wave of surprised laughter to go through the theater. It was rad.
Oh man. I am going to see that movie right now. The Xians and I have an inversely proportionate reaction to all things pop culture. 0 out of 100 means that this movie has to be the coolest thing to come down the pike in a hell of a long time.
Is a sometimes-talking severed head worse than a severed mime head?
So out of the ordinary and so good that it was just great.
I loved it also!!! I put it right up there with The Crow as far as movies based on comic books go. :)
I thought it was stylish and liked the filming in black/white/color, but I always get a creepy feeling about serial killing of women and predators of children. It seems like it is saturated in our TV shows and movies. That is disturbing to me. I never read the comic, and went to the movie with a friend who wanted to see it. This type of violence always leaves me with a bad feeling.