As I read over all the comments from my previous post on this film, I found myself shocked that two days after seeing the film, I couldn't even remember many of the details that people were referring to. I'm not quite sure why more of it didn't stick with me considering that for the most part, I enjoyed watching this film.
I expected to hate the dialogue, but I actually think it worked for the film. I liked the narration, film noir style. But this wasn't really noir in the classic sense of the word. It had more of a pulp feel to it. Rather than femme fatales and snappy dialogue, it had tons of hookers and gore. Recent films with classic noir elements (The Man Who Wasn't There and Mulholland Drive among others) had characters that I found myself interested in. This film did not. That is okay though. This film is based on a comic that is influenced by noir and pulp. As each layer is added, more classic elements are lost and new elements are added.
I expected to not like the story, but I did like it. A whole bizarre world is created in this film. I'd imagine that if I had read the comics, I would have been super excited about this movie. More than any other film based on a comic, this film really felt like it had literally been ripped from the page. I loved the crazy Frodo shit. The image of the limbless Frodo propped up by a tree trunk will forever be seared into my memory. Scream already! Some of the stuff was so incredibly and twisted and I dug it.
But overall the film seemed off to me. I'm not disputing that the film looked interesting overall, but everything seemed very flat to me. I did like the reds and the yellows that looked great next to the black and white. Maybe the print wasn't great, but the black and white looked dull to me. I suppose gray best emulates the look of the comics but I'm not sure since I haven't read them.
The actors never seemed to be in the same room when talking to each other. Everything seemed very stiff. The dialogue sounded like it had been recorded in a vacuum. It kind of sounded like the crappy dubbing on parts of 20 Midgets. If nothing else, I was expecting a thrill ride, but I didn't quite get that. I got a lot of fucked up murders and freaky scenes, but I didn't get a jump out of my seat, heart pumping, transcendent movie experience like Tarantino's best moments deliver. If Tarantino had directed more of it rather than Rodriguez, this film would have been much better.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
i heard this movie was all about random topless women... true?
I think your reacting to some of the problems of digital filmaking. The actors wernt in there sets, etc...its all new and some things arent completely "humanized yet". I still say the film is a smashing sucess on its own terms, which directly diverge from traditional film/movie making. Tarantino was supposedly very skeptical of his buddy Roberts radical views and use of technology, but after time on the "set" and in Rodriguez's garage editing suite he was very moved and his next movie wil be made in a similar fashion, so listmaker you will get to see if Golden Boy can make more of a film with the same tools.
I also really like and respect what RR is attempting. I think its brave and revolutionary to make movie spectaculars on a third of budget of the bloated hollywood norm. He also wasnt afraid to experiement and play again missing elements in popcorn movies, which Sin City most certainly is.
Also do you always remember a comic book or pulp fiction after consumption, not really they are in the moment mediums and are often reread many times for the immediate thrill they give, again here I think Sin City connects with that.
CL
chris,
you make many good points.
and yes, i am definitely reacting to the the technical aspect more than anything.
i'm looking forward to seeing what tarantino will do in this format. i'm not saying he's a goldenboy or anything but i think he's a better director than rodriguez by a lot.
amy,
this movie is full of all sorts of naughty stuff.
worst movie ever.
Post a Comment