Reply to Topic
Damn. So what's my punishment going to be?
Look, if you're going to get all "high horse" with me, you at least better know what you're spouting. You say you don't know if you'll like The Spirit, but if you're such a huge fanatic of the Robert Rodriguez Sin City visual style, I imagine you'll be thoroughly satisfied. Because from the currently released trailers and TV spots, it seems that's all Frank Miller learned from his time spent co-directing a major motion picture. And it appears I'm not the only one who is disenchanted.
You can love Frank Miller all you want (I'm sure All-Star Batman and Robin just butters your biscuits), but I'm still entitled to an opinion here that I feel isn't completely unfounded. Sin City is a fantastic adaptation of Frank Miller's source material, both in visual style and accuracy of plot. I just don't think it's a fantastic film. You forget, I'm a fan of the books too. But in my view, it doesn't make for such a timeless, perfect cult masterpiece everyone seems to suggest that it is. I know it's a parodical homage to noir serials seen through Miller's gruesome lens; and as such, I don't expect brilliant acting, pacing, or anything else for that matter. I think the visuals are pretty when they're adapting Miller's original artwork, and a bit of a stretch the rest of the time. The acting is straight comic book schlock, which for me is a chore to sit through for more than an hour.
I get why people like the film. I really do. Robert Rodriguez - the Guild of Directors be damned - dared to wrangle the creator of an awesome indie comic sensation nobody wanted to touch, and make a straight adaptation to film. He proved that an avante-garde style could be done to great success, and that fans should really matter over all other concerns. I like the film. I own it. It's sitting on my DVD shelf. Here's a picture. But Jesus Christ, why is it so god-forsaken wrong of me to think that a wacky looking satire of pulp serials doesn't translate into an untouchable masterpiece, but rather a pretty good film with imperfections like any other, and a slightly unforgiving runtime? The visuals are cool, but they get old because what works in comic form doesn't work quite so well on film. That's my opinion. Now shut up.
Look, if you're going to get all "high horse" with me, you at least better know what you're spouting. You say you don't know if you'll like The Spirit, but if you're such a huge fanatic of the Robert Rodriguez Sin City visual style, I imagine you'll be thoroughly satisfied. Because from the currently released trailers and TV spots, it seems that's all Frank Miller learned from his time spent co-directing a major motion picture. And it appears I'm not the only one who is disenchanted.
You can love Frank Miller all you want (I'm sure All-Star Batman and Robin just butters your biscuits), but I'm still entitled to an opinion here that I feel isn't completely unfounded. Sin City is a fantastic adaptation of Frank Miller's source material, both in visual style and accuracy of plot. I just don't think it's a fantastic film. You forget, I'm a fan of the books too. But in my view, it doesn't make for such a timeless, perfect cult masterpiece everyone seems to suggest that it is. I know it's a parodical homage to noir serials seen through Miller's gruesome lens; and as such, I don't expect brilliant acting, pacing, or anything else for that matter. I think the visuals are pretty when they're adapting Miller's original artwork, and a bit of a stretch the rest of the time. The acting is straight comic book schlock, which for me is a chore to sit through for more than an hour.
I get why people like the film. I really do. Robert Rodriguez - the Guild of Directors be damned - dared to wrangle the creator of an awesome indie comic sensation nobody wanted to touch, and make a straight adaptation to film. He proved that an avante-garde style could be done to great success, and that fans should really matter over all other concerns. I like the film. I own it. It's sitting on my DVD shelf. Here's a picture. But Jesus Christ, why is it so god-forsaken wrong of me to think that a wacky looking satire of pulp serials doesn't translate into an untouchable masterpiece, but rather a pretty good film with imperfections like any other, and a slightly unforgiving runtime? The visuals are cool, but they get old because what works in comic form doesn't work quite so well on film. That's my opinion. Now shut up.
......is that Pirates of the Caribbean 3 on your DVD shelf??? Shaaaaame.
__________________
[punches him in the face, grabs him and points his gun right at his throat] I never said anything about the FBI. She's my partner, ese. And if anything happens to her, I will find you and I will kill you. I won't think twice. Come here, look in my eyes. [pushes barrel of the gun into his mouth and cocks it] Look at my face. If anything happens to her, I will kill you. This is between you and me, and nobody sees, nobody knows.
[punches him in the face, grabs him and points his gun right at his throat] I never said anything about the FBI. She's my partner, ese. And if anything happens to her, I will find you and I will kill you. I won't think twice. Come here, look in my eyes. [pushes barrel of the gun into his mouth and cocks it] Look at my face. If anything happens to her, I will kill you. This is between you and me, and nobody sees, nobody knows.
* but everything after that was my own ****ing opinion. You said you're entitled to an opinion... so what, I'm not? I didn't accuse you of not liking the movie, either, and my "except for Sleezy" line I thought was clearly a joke. I apologize if it didn't come across that way, but for Christ's sake you didn't need to tear my head off for it.
