Search This Blog

Saturday, April 09, 2005

He's Eating Again

So, I haven't posted or commented on anything lately, because I have been preoccupied with this weird and nagging notion called life. Screw that, though! Actually, I feel a rant coming on, but not yet. So here is just a burst of my opinion. Enjoy. Or don't. I like pretending like I don't care :-}

So, I saw Sin City last night. I have to go against the opinion of most of my friends, and say, I think this is a terrible movie. In fact, had I not been holding a wonderful conversation with someone, I would have left. My main problem with the film =s it has the substance of absolutely nothing. Sure, it is pretty to look at. So are porn films. At least during a porn film...nevermind. Anyway, this movie is gratuity, for gratuities sake. If you enjoy seeing people tear off other's genitals with their bare hands, people being eaten alive and forced to watch, numerous and various-angled beheadings (I am really starting to thing that Robert Rodriguez has circumcision anxiety), child molestation played to comic book effect, Carla Gugino walking around topless in a thong, various thonged whores with machine guns and samurai swords that chop people to pieces, and people thinking out loud in first person, all to the effect and purpose of nothing, then you will love this movie. I read a comment by a Christian that basically said Sin City is good because it shows us what would happened in a world without God. What a dumb thing to say. Do you really need to witness all of this empty insanity to land on this conclusion? Who, after living any amount of years as a human being, is going to go watch Sin City and think, "WOW!!! I finally get it. The world needs JESUS CHRIST!!! Hooray! Nothing else could have ever given me this revelation!" I've also seen Christians say Sin City shows that even in a world of violence, love can exist. A. Show me love, real love, mind you, in this movie. B. Isn't this one of those things you learn at the age of two, or by watching pretty much anything else?
Now, I note, this is only my opinion. I would like people who liked the movie to tell me why. I don't want to be personally attacked. I don't want to be told to open my mind. My mind is a door, with a handle and everything, and I use it at least once a day, and am waiting to be enlightened. Just tell me, without insulting me, why you liked the movie, outside of "it was really pretty", cuz', once again, porn star analogy. If you aren't a blogger member, you can still comment.
Anyway.
Eat yogurt.

8 comments:

John T. Meche III said...

Nick, I have a 15 page paper to write on the difference between the soul and the mind, but for you, I have time.

Sin City is excellent for many reasons. I will attempt to sum them up.

1)Visuals. When the Matrix and T2 came out, people were raving and coming out of their skin because of the visual effects used in the movies. I can honestly say that Sin City is the most visually stunning movie that I have ever seen. The selective color element of the movie is simply captivating. I could not help being in wonder at Marv's everglowing bandages. Also, the snow...my gosh the snow was amazing. This reason is not simply "it was pretty". I'm saying Sin City did something new visually, something that has never been done before.

2) Comic book adaption accuracy. This is with out a doubt or contestation THE most accurate comic book adaptation to date. The director did not paraphrase what was in the comics. He quoted it. Anyone who was upset to see spiderman with web-shooting powers and the complete lack of accuracy in X-Men,The Hulk, Daredevil will agree that Sin City brought a refreshing level of accuracy to this film genre. I'm not saying that other comic book movies are lacking, but Sin City has something which none of the others can claim.

3) It has Bruce Willis. 'Nuff said.

4) Rourke factor. Mickey Rourke needs an Oscar immediately. His portrayal of Marv was out of this world. Rourkes transformation is an acting feat that parallels in my mind to Jim Carey's transformation into Andy Coughman or Val Kilmer's transformation into Jim Morrison. He embodied Marv through his entire performance.

5)Republican PO factor. Let's face it. Hyperconservatives are going to be mad about this movie and bash it without ever seeing it. That alone gives it some merit.

John T. Meche III said...

6)Film Noir tribute. Nobody does film noir any more. This movie is a great tribute to a classic genre.

PS. Yeah...Nick...I think our movie tastes are very different. Tell me why Vanilla Sky sucks. And...if you don't like those 2 movies, what *do* you like?

Jordan. said...

Nic, I like your review for the movie. I have not seen it so I can't judge anything about it. I simply have not seen it because of all that is good involving the movies production and cast there are a thousand things, which you have listed, wrong to me personally in the content. I don't think I'll feel what so ever comfortable watching such a thing. Plus I had plans made to go see it and really didn't want to but didn't want to upset the people that were coming, yet I prayed simply, "Lord, I don't want to see this, and I don't think you would want me either, so make it not happen." and the other people actually backed out without knowing anything whatsoever and therefore never got upset.

Mainly what I like about your post is what you said about the christian guys' review. REALLY! How moronic! Exactly what you said, do we really need to see this movie to know we need love and and some kind of God in this world? No we don't. I'd say to those reviewers "Stop. Stop making excuses for Sin." I also didn't like a negative review I read in Entertainment Weekly, hey, that's not suprising since I hate their writing and style, but hey again, it's a free magazine if you buy stuff @ best buy, and has a little worthwhile news I wouldn't get outherwise. The review was saying the movie screamed "Fan-Boy!" all the way, that it was pretentious and unneeded with such a closely knit adaptation. That the story should speak for itself and that also the whole comic book take, talking out loud in first person, "The City is hot as hell." aliteration, and many other facts make it cheesy and are unneeded. They go on to say that Rourke was the saving grace of the film. That he was born to play the part. This particularly pissed me off because it was the exact words I've read from a different review. As if the writer was told that "EW needs to have a fresh different take on this Sin City movie, write up a bad review for it, go see it, or if you don't have time go read some other jackass' love affair to it and switch it all around. It'll be a fresh spin on the whole lot."

yeah, so they went on to say it was gratitous and if you were just looking for Sin plastered on celluloid, that's what you'd get and all. This pissed me off too, Because that statement is about the equivalent of a muddy monster calling a muddy monster "a horrible crap pile of monstrous mud." For one the statement which was longer and in different words than what I said, came off preachy and just saying Sin City was nothing but Sin and sin is bad and if that's all you care about in a movie go see it. Also in the same issue they have a report of U2's last tour, pretty much bashing the band's christian songwriting and calling them cheesy and lame and saying they were playing older songs with new ones to make up for the new songs being crappy. Just plain calling them old geezers and out of their element really. So here the magazine is saying "oohhh, movies should have more to them then just dirt and filth and sin. That's all really bad." and then going and dragging Bono through some mud for misquoting something or another and calling their song "40" a King David Sing-a-long or something to that extent. It's all just very lukewarm to me, in the middle, contradicting, stupid, badly written in the first place, which is a sin in itself to me. As if EW has their own higher ordered thinking, calling themselves better than christianity along with the authoirty on a movie's morals.

Sorry this is so long. A little mini-rant. I should get my own blog and waste my space there not yours Nic.

Anyways, my brother and Ron just went and saw it so I'll go ask them for you what was so good about it.

Anonymous said...

Is Sin City that movie that Mel Gibson made about the last day in the life of Jesus? It sounds about like that one from what I read in your review. I have no plans to see this movie. I did eat yogurt, but it was before you told me to.

Oh yeah, I saw a pretty funny German romantic comedy the other day that wasn't about gay people. It was called "Barefoot" and I highly recommend it. I laughed anyway. [Was (not) Was tribute for those of you keeping tabs].
-robker

-E said...

HAHA Vanilla Sky sucked because it is only one of the worst movies ever made!

I enjoyed Sin City. Bruce Willis is the sexeh. It was also filmed where I live and several of my friends worked on it. And it is pretty damn accurate on the three stories it is based on- one being almost verbatim. But if you go in without realizing how violent it was going to be, then yeah, that movie wouldn't be very good. But I like gore. It is also an extremely cool movie if you think of how it was made. It was dine with a gren screen so the scenes were basically the frames of the graphic novels, not some ok, this city looks close enough attempt.

But hey, if you like more fluff films, Sahara was pretty stupid. Entertaining, but stupid. Steve Zahn is good in it.

And yes, the world will end with us both being 23.

Nicholas said...

Here it comes. I will try to direct these comments in order. First, thank all of you for responding! I think you rock, even though I disagree with a lot of you, thanks for responding and not taking potshots at me. Here I go now, and I will try to be as little a jerk as possible:

Meche: 1) I can't really argue about nothing like that being done before. Does this make a film worthwhile, though? When I was 14, I saw Jenna Jameson do some things with her tongue I had never EVER seen before, but I don't think it made that particular film excellent.

2) Never read the comics, but once again, does a perfect translation of source material make a film good?

3. In the 10th grade, my screenname for AOL was John McClane. But, have you seen Hudson Hawk? The Whole Ten Yards? Look Who's Talking, Too?

4. Once again, never read the comics, but Rourke's transformation was pretty spectacular. Oscar, though?

5. As un-hyperconservative as I am, I don't think being so bad that your very name is reviled is deserving of merit.

6. Nobody does film-noir, because nobody can. The direct definition of film-noir can only apply to films of this nature made in the 1940s. Anything afterward can be influenced by, or a tribute to, but not TRUE (in film theory sense) film-noir. As far as Sin City as a tribute, they got the atmosphere and the music, but they failed in the category of actually relating to anything else, say social issues, which most film-noirs, in some respects, touch on, unless you consider cannibalism a social issue (I guess in the South Pacific, it is, maybe). I would say, Blade Runner, another film credited with being visually revolutionary, is a tribute to noir that actually has something (actually a lot) to say on social issues, and the nature of man (a panel of scientists have also voted it the greatest science-fiction film ever made).

Also, I didn't like Vanilla Sky for mostly abstract reasons. Garth from Dark Horizons called it a "Self-Loving Piece of (hint: he uses alliteration here)", summing up my problem with it wonderfully. But this is something hard to describe. It is more like the feeling of the film itself that I hated, plus, the film's observations on love seemed sophmoric and unearned to me, and the whole, I'll find you after we reincarnate thing just doesn't do it for me, either.
I actually do like movies, in fact, there are quite a few listed in my profile, but this is definately an area of my life where I have to admit I am a snob.
Thanks for taking so much time out your busy schedule to respond. I may disagree with you, but you made me think, which I enjoy doing, and I am grateful. I hope your paper turns out well. Right now, I'm having trouble just getting past the "My mind can be seen, but my soul cannot" bit. Good luck!

Jordan: I agree with you. I often think some of these hip Christian reviewers are going to give Bobby Socks a rave review, because the leads' orgasms only last ten seconds, proving that "We all need something other than sex, and there is only hope in God." Just crazy.
In regards to EW, I have pretty much given up on all entertainment writing other than my own. In regard to U2, as "40" is really Psalm 40 with the refrain "How long to sing this song?" I can see calling it a King David sing-along, and an awesome one at that. Everyone I know, including the live DVD I have (which is a good friend of mine) says U2 is awesome live, and I think pulling out older songs from their 25 year oeuvre is not only a tribute to fans, but also another reason I am really angry I could not get tickets. I agree with the EW "calling themselves better than Christianity" statement, and I get sick of seeing and reading this kind of attitude from publications, especially ones that call for tolerance, of all things. I had to verbally beat some hatas down the other day for this. Thanks for your comments! I think you would rock a blog. Plus, wasting space is so much fun!

Robker: I would give you a hug, if you were here, and allowed such a thing to occur. I am glad you are eating yogurt. We are both going to have "bitching BMs!" I put that in quotes, because I was embarrassed that I came up with it. I hope your travel journals are up soon.

E: Haha! It is definately one of my least favorite movies of all time.
As a heterosexual man, I must admit, I'm not very attracted to Bruce Willis.
I knew the movie was going to be violent, but I tend to want my violence to serve a point, if anything. I'm not a big fan of violence for the sake of violence.
Fluff films? WTF?! I hate fluff films! (I'm only getting defensive because I get touchy on this (see previous movie-snob comment)) Look at my favorite films on my profile. I don't think any of those films are considered fluff, and most are quite difficult too watch, not because they suck, but because they are challenging. As I said before, it's not that I can't watch violence (though I try not to enjoy it), it's that I don't like violence for the sake of violence.
I hope your dog doesn't have gas anymore. I ate too many mashed potatoes yesterday, in preparation for the apocalypse, which once again, sadly, did not happen.

Cool. If anyone has anything else to say, or argue about, rock on and write it, if you have the time. If you think I crossed the line, call me out on it. Thanks again for addressing the topic at hand, and not my current hairstyle, or living arrangements. You guys rock.
Later.

-E said...

HAHA You're just weird. But then, I would say that half the films on your list are ones I would call "fluff" even if they are highly enjoyable (Indiana Jones anyone?). And you can be straight and appreciate the sexeh that is Bruce Willis.

The dog didn't really have gas at that moment, it was just a goofy thing to say. Sorry your mashed potatoes didn't bring the end of the world.

Anyway the violence in Sin City isn't the film's fault. It would be more a problem you have with the comic, since the movie was entirely spot on to the source.

Nicholas said...

Well, Indiana Jones, Star Wars, and Lord of the Rings all have elements of fluff (and all made bucketloads of money), and they are definately the lightest things I put on there, but I don't know if I'd call them "fluffy." They sort of rise above that category. Doesn't fluff describe major studio romantic comedy output and the like? The mythological themes and qualities of SW and LOTR (as well as morality questions they ask(though admittedly not that deep)) seem to elevate them pretty far from that category.
The mix I put on the list runs from the light (Star Wars), the medium (In America) to the extremely heavy (anything by Bergman). I was trying to be varied. Anyway, I think my taste in movies (along with my cool style) are beyond reproach.
Well, since the movie and comic book are the same, then truthfully, I hate Sin City, period, but as far as production qualities, I have no qualms, it's just Sin City itself I don't like.