Big Al Posted April 5, 2005 Report Share Posted April 5, 2005 (edited) Frank Miller a couple of years ago. . . . Dude looks sorta like Art Pepper. Or maybe DeNiro! Miller is actually IN the movie. He plays a priest... Still waiting for the punchline! B-) (mentioned only because I went looking for his name on celebatheist.com and didn't find it. Once again, the joke's on me.) Edited April 5, 2005 by Big Al Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alexander Posted April 5, 2005 Report Share Posted April 5, 2005 Frank Miller a couple of years ago. . . . Dude looks sorta like Art Pepper. Or maybe DeNiro! Miller is actually IN the movie. He plays a priest... Still waiting for the punchline! B-) (mentioned only because I went looking for his name on celebatheist.com and didn't find it. Once again, the joke's on me.) Well, if it's any consolation, Miller plays a corrupt priest who gets popped in a confessional by Mickey Rourke... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BruceH Posted April 5, 2005 Report Share Posted April 5, 2005 I never cared for Frank Miller's work. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Man with the Golden Arm Posted April 5, 2005 Report Share Posted April 5, 2005 "Elektra: Assasin" Some of the best Sienkiewicz art of all time. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BruceW Posted April 7, 2005 Report Share Posted April 7, 2005 Guess I better go see this movie today!!! B-) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WD45 Posted April 11, 2005 Report Share Posted April 11, 2005 This movie was fucking awful. The wife and I went to see it with my sister, who is somewhat of a film buff. I have never considered walking out of a movie before--I would have if we weren't watching it with someone else. Granted, I have no point of reference with this, having not read any of the novels nor anything in that genre. It was the cinematic equivalent of John Zorn blowing altissimo for two hours and four minutes. The girls were fetching, but I can see that in other movies. Worst movie ever. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jazzbo Posted April 11, 2005 Author Report Share Posted April 11, 2005 Wow! I couldn't have had a more different reaction. . . well yes, I could. I didn't LOVE the movie, I just thought it was fascinating; the technical reproduction of the comic book world was amazing. I saw it again this weekend with another friend who talked me into going. I reveled in the scenes with Rosario Dawson (Gail). She's a stunning woman! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Man with the Golden Arm Posted April 11, 2005 Report Share Posted April 11, 2005 (edited) Worst movie ever. No, this was. edit: forgot to add - "what a piece of shitte". Edited April 11, 2005 by Man with the Golden Arm Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WD45 Posted April 11, 2005 Report Share Posted April 11, 2005 Worst movie ever. No, this was. edit: forgot to add - "what a piece of shitte". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Alfredson Posted April 11, 2005 Report Share Posted April 11, 2005 I don't know, guys. This was really, really bad. Of course, I have not seen "Sin City" nor "Closer". But man... I can't imagine a worse idea for a movie than to have multiple Michael Keatons on screen at the same time. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RDK Posted April 11, 2005 Report Share Posted April 11, 2005 I didn't LOVE the movie, I just thought it was fascinating; the technical reproduction of the comic book world was amazing. Finally saw this yesterday and this comment pretty much echoes my own feelings. I was very impressed at how faithful the film was to the comic book, but it also emphasized that, despite some similaritties, there are significant differences between the comic book and motion picture mediums and that it's not so simple for one to work as the other. I found that the style and presentation overshadowed all other aspects of the production, making the whole piece seem rather gimmicky. That said, I was also greatly enamored of the style, which was fresh and orginal and really captured the feel of Frank's work - which, ironically enough, was meant to be purely cinematic. I'm glad they did it this way and pulled it off as well as they did, but I'm also glad that not all movies are done in this fashion... I haven't read much about this yet, but does anyone know what section Tarantino directed? I have my suspicions... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jazzbo Posted April 11, 2005 Author Report Share Posted April 11, 2005 I don't know what section Tarantino guest directed either. .. . If I could guess I would guess the sequence with Dwight and a dead Jack Rafferty on the way to the Tar Pits and maybe into the Tar Pits? Just a guess! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AllenLowe Posted April 11, 2005 Report Share Posted April 11, 2005 now wait a minute - this is a movie that has Chuck Nessa making out with a 19 year old super model? Now that's something I'd pay to see - Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest akanalog Posted April 11, 2005 Report Share Posted April 11, 2005 i left in the middle. this movie sucked. why didn't they let miller just do "the dark knight returns" if they wanted to do some miller comic stuff. instead we have the exact opposite with "batman begins" or whatever. either way "sin city" sucked. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BERIGAN Posted April 11, 2005 Report Share Posted April 11, 2005 This movie was fucking awful. The wife and I went to see it with my sister, who is somewhat of a film buff. I have never considered walking out of a movie before--I would have if we weren't watching it with someone else. Granted, I have no point of reference with this, having not read any of the novels nor anything in that genre. It was the cinematic equivalent of John Zorn blowing altissimo for two hours and four minutes. The girls were fetching, but I can see that in other movies. Worst movie ever. Dude, I feel you are holding back, let us know how you really feel! A friend who was really looking forward to it, thought it was ok, but clearly Miller hates religion, and the police...plus, Jessica Alba didn't get naked Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Al Posted April 12, 2005 Report Share Posted April 12, 2005 now wait a minute - this is a movie that has Chuck Nessa making out with a 19 year old super model? Now that's something I'd pay to see - So would Chuck! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alexander Posted May 20, 2005 Report Share Posted May 20, 2005 I saw this a second time over the weekend with a friend who's not into comics. He seemed to enjoy it, although the non-chronological structure threw him off at a couple of points. I actually liked it better, if that's possible, than the first time I saw it. The first time I was a little disappointed by the "tongue-in-cheek" approach Rodriguez took. The graphic novels aren't "tongue-in-cheek" at all. They display tremendous wit, but they're not meant to be "ha ha" funny, and I felt that there was a little too much that was being played for laughs. But watching it a second time through I was just dazzled by the sheer spectacle of it all. Another filmmaker might have played it straight and just made film versions of the stories in Miller's comics, but Rodriguez and company made movies of the comics themselves. It is a (not entirely successful) projection of the "Sin City" comics onto the big screen, and however else you may feel about the film, it looks amazing. There are so many images that just leap out at the viewer: Kevin's eyes (or lack thereof); Marv's bandages; Goldie's hair; Jackie-Boy in Dwight's car; little Miho... I think if you accept it as 1) a pure asthetic experience, and 2) a comic book literally brought to life it works better than if you go in expecting to see something containing subtlety and nuance. Miller is a master of many things, but subtlety ain't one of them... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jazzbo Posted May 20, 2005 Author Report Share Posted May 20, 2005 I've seen it twice as well. Rosario was twice as beautiful the second time around! And I remain impressed by the filmmaking represented here. . . . This is going to be a dvd to buy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BruceH Posted May 20, 2005 Report Share Posted May 20, 2005 This movie was fucking awful. ← No big surprise there. That pretty much describes Frank Miller to a T. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RDK Posted May 20, 2005 Report Share Posted May 20, 2005 This movie was fucking awful. ← No big surprise there. That pretty much describes Frank Miller to a T. ← Frank Miller? Awful? I don't think I've ever heard anyone ever say that before... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Use3D Posted May 20, 2005 Report Share Posted May 20, 2005 Most I talked to about this film either love it or hate it. I think it's a work of art. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guy Berger Posted May 20, 2005 Report Share Posted May 20, 2005 I haven't read much about this yet, but does anyone know what section Tarantino directed? I have my suspicions... ← I think I read somewhere that Tarantino directed the section w/Benicio del Toro. I more or less agree with Ray and Lon about this. (Though I haven't read the comic book.) They really brought the universe to life. Not a GREAT movie, but worth seeing. Not sure if I'd go so far as calling it a work of art. Guy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Use3D Posted May 20, 2005 Report Share Posted May 20, 2005 I haven't read much about this yet, but does anyone know what section Tarantino directed? I have my suspicions... ← I think I read somewhere that Tarantino directed the section w/Benicio del Toro. ← You're right, and that scene wasn't one of my favorites. And compared to the crap that's been on screen lately, Sin City is art. -_- Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RDK Posted May 20, 2005 Report Share Posted May 20, 2005 I think QT only directed the short section *in the car* Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Soulstation1 Posted May 21, 2005 Report Share Posted May 21, 2005 (edited) they didn't utilize rosario's ass the right way in this flick... the camera view should be behind her on every shot..imo.... i saw this flick this afternoon and i just don't know about this flick i left confused, but enjoyed the way it was filmed and presented Edited May 21, 2005 by Soulstation1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
_forumlogo.png.a607ef20a6e0c299ab2aa6443aa1f32e.png)
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.