Man and for a second I got excited and thought this post said "Sim City". Dang.. it's been a while since I played that. (goes in search of his Sim City 2000 install cd)
I really want to see this movie. It looks a little cheesy with the B&W chiarosciaro look, but I still want to see it. Comic book movies seem to be the thing right now. I can only assume it's because people want to be distracted from all of the conflicts going on in the real world.
well, this, along with frank miller's dark knight retelling of batman were really what put him on the map. in fact, sin city got mr. miller in a lot of hot water as people found it disturbing for a "comic book" to have the dirty, seedy, ultra-violent quality and content that sin city does.
basically, don't go into the movie expecting oscar performances all around. look at the trailer. it gives you exactly an idea of what to expect.
re: mickey rourke, are those prosthetics on his face, or has it been so long since i've seen him that i've forgotten what an odd lookin' guy he really is?
re: mickey rourke, are those prosthetics on his face, or has it been so long since i've seen him that i've forgotten what an odd lookin' guy he really is?
those are prosthetics, but underneath that a series of ill advised procedures have left him much odder looking than he needed to.....
The story is dense, well, it is not just one story. The multiple stories are densely packed. The colors are amazoing.
I thought it was very very entertaining. It is something that everyone needs to go out and take a look at, because it is so different and so good than what else there is out now.
They wouldn't let Tarantino direct an episode of X-Files because he wasn't a member for example (they gave him a special waiver for his ER episode), although I guess he got another waiver for the season finale of CSI.
I still can't belive Rodriguez lost his DGA card over this flick.
He didn't loose it. He resigned his affiliation before making the movie rather than have it revoked for breaking the no co-direction rules. Altogether the honorable thing to do and still makes it possible for him to re-join later when he doesn't want to co-direct a film.
okay, you know what, this movie really disturbed me. and i'm not sure why, because i have seen vastly more violent movies in the past, but this rattled me to the core. i think the thing that made it especially troublesome was that a guy brought his 10 year old son to see this movie, and sat two rows back from me. and every time a limb got cut off, appendages forcibly removed, heads caved in, etc., i heard a youthful and exuberant "cool!" or "yeah!" or "awesome!" and silence during mentions or rape and molestation. maybe he didn't understand, and just ignored all of that until the next firefight.
i dunno guys. maybe i would have appreciated this movie more had i not been so concerned that the kid behind me was absorbing all of this, with absolutely no follow-up by the father. i tried to think positive and imagine that maybe they had a deep and thoughtful discussion before the movie, or afterwards, but, well,...
i think the thing that made it especially troublesome was that a guy brought his 10 year old son to see this movie, and sat two rows back from me.
That is pretty messed up - it is too bad the dad didn't know better.
When I was 25 I married a woman with a 6 year old daughter. Not knowing any better, I took her to Jurassic Park. Man, did I pay for my stupidity - she had nightmares for a year, and now with my younger children I am very careful about what they watch.
Even the posted ratings (13 for PG-13 movies, etc) seem a little too agressive for me, and there are some 'G' rated movies that can scare the heck out of a 4 year old.
I liked the movie a lot - there were a few corny lines that made me wonder if they were over-acting on purpose in order to play homage to campy film, but on the whole, it was an engrossing experience.
I may go out and buy the graphic novel (or download it to my PSP if I can figure out how).
Yeah, all the the dialog is taken straight from the comics. The lines are intended to be like what you might want to say rather than what you actually say.
He didn't loose it. He resigned his affiliation before making the movie rather than have it revoked for breaking the no co-direction rules. Altogether the honorable thing to do and still makes it possible for him to re-join later when he doesn't want to co-direct a film.
Okay, thanks for the correction.
He can rejoin the DGA, that is, if they let him.
On a different subject, I think the segment Tarentino directed was the one with all the zooms in it. I was taught "keep zooms to a minimum, it's the mark of amateurs," but some people like that style.
[B]I liked the movie a lot - there were a few corny lines that made me wonder if they were over-acting on purpose in order to play homage to campy film, but on the whole, it was an engrossing experience.
I'd agree, the film does have to be taken as a whole. I thought some of the over-adolescent-john wayne-macho-BS-dialogue was kind of campy and distracting. The "always and never" repeating theme in the prostitute town vignette kept reminding me of that purposely <i>way</i> overacted FedEx commercial- "Doomed!"
That said, I loved it and probably will pay to see it again. Just visually and aurally stunning.
Comments
basically, don't go into the movie expecting oscar performances all around. look at the trailer. it gives you exactly an idea of what to expect.
re: mickey rourke, are those prosthetics on his face, or has it been so long since i've seen him that i've forgotten what an odd lookin' guy he really is?
Originally posted by rok
re: mickey rourke, are those prosthetics on his face, or has it been so long since i've seen him that i've forgotten what an odd lookin' guy he really is?
Take a look here.
Would have preferred Bruce Willis to be made up a little more. Just can't get past seeing his face and thinking of Die Hard or the Jackal.
A pretty dark film and heavy handed on the old detective movie narrative but enjoyable.
The story is dense, well, it is not just one story. The multiple stories are densely packed. The colors are amazoing.
I thought it was very very entertaining. It is something that everyone needs to go out and take a look at, because it is so different and so good than what else there is out now.
Originally posted by addabox
Take a look here.
aha, it's the "chin implant" that looks goofy to me most. not sure what people think a big chin does for them, but to each their own.
even my wife wants to see it based off the previews. i was surprised to see elijah wood in the credits...
Originally posted by rok
i was surprised to see elijah wood in the credits...
...that was one of my favorite characters in the movie. He was wicked awesome!!!
Good stuff if you like this kind of stuff...
I'm waiting for the Hernandez Bros. to put some of their stuff to film...
They wouldn't let Tarantino direct an episode of X-Files because he wasn't a member for example (they gave him a special waiver for his ER episode), although I guess he got another waiver for the season finale of CSI.
Originally posted by Sam Damon
I still can't belive Rodriguez lost his DGA card over this flick.
He didn't loose it. He resigned his affiliation before making the movie rather than have it revoked for breaking the no co-direction rules. Altogether the honorable thing to do and still makes it possible for him to re-join later when he doesn't want to co-direct a film.
i dunno guys. maybe i would have appreciated this movie more had i not been so concerned that the kid behind me was absorbing all of this, with absolutely no follow-up by the father. i tried to think positive and imagine that maybe they had a deep and thoughtful discussion before the movie, or afterwards, but, well,...
i think the thing that made it especially troublesome was that a guy brought his 10 year old son to see this movie, and sat two rows back from me.
That is pretty messed up - it is too bad the dad didn't know better.
When I was 25 I married a woman with a 6 year old daughter. Not knowing any better, I took her to Jurassic Park. Man, did I pay for my stupidity - she had nightmares for a year, and now with my younger children I am very careful about what they watch.
Even the posted ratings (13 for PG-13 movies, etc) seem a little too agressive for me, and there are some 'G' rated movies that can scare the heck out of a 4 year old.
I may go out and buy the graphic novel (or download it to my PSP if I can figure out how).
Which section did Tarentino direct?
Originally posted by Hiro
He didn't loose it. He resigned his affiliation before making the movie rather than have it revoked for breaking the no co-direction rules. Altogether the honorable thing to do and still makes it possible for him to re-join later when he doesn't want to co-direct a film.
Okay, thanks for the correction.
He can rejoin the DGA, that is, if they let him.
On a different subject, I think the segment Tarentino directed was the one with all the zooms in it. I was taught "keep zooms to a minimum, it's the mark of amateurs," but some people like that style.
[B]I liked the movie a lot - there were a few corny lines that made me wonder if they were over-acting on purpose in order to play homage to campy film, but on the whole, it was an engrossing experience.
I'd agree, the film does have to be taken as a whole. I thought some of the over-adolescent-john wayne-macho-BS-dialogue was kind of campy and distracting. The "always and never" repeating theme in the prostitute town vignette kept reminding me of that purposely <i>way</i> overacted FedEx commercial- "Doomed!"
That said, I loved it and probably will pay to see it again. Just visually and aurally stunning.