Friday, December 29, 2006

Movie Review: Superman Returns - Low Expectations, Not Low Enough

Tania Says:
Superman Returns in a little further down our list but we jumped ahead because it was a movie we were sad to have missed in the theater last summer. I had heard mostly negative reviews on the movie but I was still excited to see it.

I thought the movie started off pretty cool and was very engrossing and interesting. I like the idea of Superman leaving for personal reasons. I would have liked to see more of what it was like when he was away and more of how his return affected the people of Metropolis. So, I liked the idea and I thought that I was going to be one of the few who wouldn’t provide a negative review. However, pretty soon the movie completely fell apart. The promising storyline disappeared and pretty much NOTHING happened or developed. It started to go downhill for me (minor spoiler ahead) when Lois Lane and HER SON end up at the bad guy’s liar. What? Lois I know you didn’t know you were going to end up with the enemy when you took your kid along on an assignment but why would you ever take your child in the first place? From here on out, I completely checked out of what I think was suppose to be the most exciting part. In fact, I have to admit that I fell asleep – that is how much I gave up and how bored I truly was. I woke up right as the battle seemed to have ended and although the ending was probably suppose to move me in some way it didn’t. I think the story was never fully realized and if it was, then the story was very poorly executed.

I thought Brandon Routh actually made a good Superman and Clark Kent and he was the one bright spot in the movie for me. I thought he did a great job. Kate Bosworth was woefully miscast and it appeared to me that a 16 year old cheerleader in a brown wig was playing Lois Lane. And then there is Kevin Spacey. I love Spacey, I do but he was just really bad. His Lex Luthor made no sense at all to me and he never fully developed a villain that I could figure out and that shouldn’t be too hard. Parker Posey was wasted in another role that made no sense and really didn’t need to be there. I guess they wanted her to be there for comic relief or something but she wasn’t funny and she and Spacey have no chemistry at all.

Since I know many of you saw this in the theater I am really curious now to hear what others thought and if I am in the minority on this one.

Josh Says:

I didn't hear much good about this movie so my expectations were pretty much as low as they could get. Somehow, this movie still managed to disappoint.

For starters, I didn't like Brandon Routh as Superman, his voice while in a way very similar to Christopher Reeves' never seemed to change from geeky uncomfortable Clark Kent which I think was a pretty big blunder. It's a subtle change that Reeves' made and it's lacking made a huge difference. He also just lacks the screen presence to pull off such a huge character.

I didn't like Kate Bosworth as Lois Lane. She wasn't strong enough for this character and worse yet, she was.........bland.

I didn't like Spacey as Lex Luthor. I actually thought he made some really bad choices with this character and overall seemed confused at times as to whom it was he was trying to portray. He had a terrible story to work with, however so perhaps his bad decisions were just a form of protest.

Being a big fan of Parker Posey, I was disappointed that even she couldn't impress me here......two words for the casting director with regards to Parker though...........LOIS LANE

I liked Brando though, that was pretty neat and Jack Larsen as Bo the Bartender was top notch!!

Next we have the "story". Yes, that's right quotations cause there really isn't one here. Superman returns, that's a story, I guess. Of course it'd be less of a story had Superman told one person of his plans before leaving which apparently he didn't?

Then there's the Superman/Lois Lane love thing, which is a story I guess, though it manifests itself more in the Superman the Stalker vein than in the traditional love story way. I mean, when he flies over and hovers outside her window to spy on her it's downright creepy and in my mind degrades the whole idea of Superman.

Luthor's 'evil master plan' isn't even a story save for the fact that it's so completely ludicrous and worse yet totally senseless. I guess the sheer ridculousness of it is a story in itself. I'd expect so much more from Lex. In Spacey's defense, even Gene Hackman would have had trouble pulling this one off.

The CGI was pretty good I guess, right down to Routh's eyes, which I later found out were CGI'd(?) in as opposed to simply using contacts............on overly complicated solution to a very simple problem which might be symbolic of every decision made in this film.

I know this review isn't very well done, but I'm so disappointed that I'm having a hard time gathering my senses here. If you're going to bring back something like the Superman saga, YOU.NEED.TO.DO.IT.BETTER!!!! See Christopher Nolan's Batman Begins for an example.............

I guess if you give Parker Posey the Lois Lane role, give the Superman role to anyone better, give Spacey a good story or at least a good 'evil master plan' so that he CAN be evil and we might have a winner...

Thursday, December 28, 2006

Movie Reveiw: M*A*S*H

Tania Says:

I remember my Dad watching this television show all the time and me hating it. I thought it was dark, dirty and not funny. Probably all good things for a 5 year old to think. I don’t think I was the target audience on this show. But, because of that – I have carried a life long hatred of all things MASH with me to this day. So – it showed up on the list and I was determined to keep an open mind. I haven’t see a ton of Robert Altman films but what I have seen (Gossford Park, Prairie Home Companion) I really liked. I put my hatred of MASH aside and was actually a little excited to watch this after all the subtitled movies we have been watching and my ill-fated On Demand rental of the movie American Dreamz (brutal). After watching MASH, I thought it was okay.

I think most people know the plot or really lack of plot (it is more like a series of scenes then an actual storyline). A Medical unit in Korea deals with the war. Elliot Gould and Donald Sutherland are the main characters in the movie (it is an ensemble piece but they are certainly the featured actors). They play Hawkeye and Trapper John and are the leaders of all the hijinks and mayhem that ensues. I realize this makes me sound like a 12 year old girl but I didn’t really find all their pranks and antics funny, instead I found them kind of mean and unlikable. Before I say anymore, I do get the point of it all. These people are trying to find a diversion from all the horrors (and absurdity) of war going on around them so they are just trying to have a good time. I totally get the point of that. I still thought they were just bullies. I did find some parts of the movie funny and I thought everyone did a good job in their respective roles – I just thought they were mean.

So, war takes a horrible toll on everyone and how they choose to deal with it all kind of determines how well they will fare while they are over there. That is what I got out of the movie but it doesn’t mean I have to find the characters likeable. But like I said, I thought the movie was still ok. I just don’t think the movie was meant for me. Maybe I was right when I was 5 and I never will be MASH’s target audience.

Josh Says:

I was never a fan of the TV show and for good reason. I wasn’t the target audience or even the target generation. I have grown to love Alan Alda since but that’s another story completely. I’ve always loved the idea of Robert Altman however, and occasionally, I’ve even loved his movies (I’m looking at you Short Cuts) so I went into this expecting the best but completely prepared for the worst. I got something in between I guess rather than either one of those extremes.

The movie has a pretty neat cast with Donald Sutherland as Dr. Jack Bauer and Elliot Gould playing his wacky sidekick probably giving the most memorable performances. I quite liked Odo as Father what’s his name and it’s always neat to see these guys years before you realized they ever got work.

I think the big story in this movie is Tom Skerrit. He starts out with a bang almost seeming like a leading man, then much like his career, he’s quickly overshadowed by Gould, Sutherland and even Duvall such that it seems he went off to make a USA feature movie or guest star on the latest West Wing or Law and Order or whatever after the first 20 minutes. Much like in real life, I wanted more Skerritt and was saddened by his being obscured by the bigger names in the film.

The movie itself is ok I guess. It seems to almost aimlessly wander around between something resembling the sitcom, something resembling Apocolypse Now and something that’s not quite but almost Fear & Loathing in Las Vegas. Sometimes that’s confusing, sometimes it’s entertaining and sometimes, you just don’t care.

Tuesday, December 19, 2006

Pyaasa - 1957

Tania says:

Oh my God. I don’t even know where to begin with this one. The Netflix blurb says it is about a poet and a prostitute and the rare friendship that they have. It is so not about that! It is really about this poet and how he wants to be all holier then thou and annoying. Ok, maybe it isn’t about that but that is what I got out of this movie. This 2 ½ hour long movie. In hindi. In black and white with a horrible transfer. With subtitles that rarely made sense. AND – the kicker – this movie is all about this poet and how his poems are so amazing and can change the world, and blah, blah, blah – well his poems are sung (bollywood!) and they ARE NOT SUBTITLED. These songs seem to be some very climactic moments but I would never know because I do not speak hindi so much.

Seriously, this movie was brutal. I understand if this movie started the Bollywood revolution but I have never seen another Bollywood movie so why do I have to watch this one? Nothing against Bollywood, you know me, I am all about people breaking into song but I do like to understand what they are singing about. The main guy, the poet, Vijay is just an annoying, idealistic punk. Again, nothing wrong with being idealistic but this guy takes it to a new level. I am totally going to spoil this movie now because I don’t think you should watch it. So the main guy is believed to be dead so the prostitute who is in love with him has his poems published. The poet isn’t really dead but in a crazy house because he keeps saying he is this poet and people keep saying “No. The poet is dead.” So – once he finally gets out and gets identified and could be super rich he says, “No, I’m really not that poet.” Apparently he prefers to be poor and suffer for his art. Then he and the prostitute with whom he is suppose to have a rare friendship with walk into the sunset. I think he takes her along because he wants her money since he doesn’t have any.

Seriously, I wanted to be all hip and pretentious and love this movie. Well, I really just wanted to enjoy it. I didn’t. I didn’t at all. The one part I liked was when they showed the poet in the crazy house and the crazy people around him were doing handstands and things. Apparently crazy = doing handstands. That made me laugh. Josh told me I could turn it off (he fell asleep, had a cigarette, went to the store and made dinner while I suffered.) but I was determined. Towards the end I decided I could fast forward through the songs since I couldn’t understand them. But I triumphed! I finished the damn thing! I watched it so the readers don’t have to. I saved you.

Josh Says:
I wish I could say more about this movie, but I can't. Because I didn't really see it. I fell asleep after the fourth song, apparently critical to the story arc, was sung in some non-subtitled, non-English language that I'm not familiar with. I only slept for about half an hour, but woke up to what I imagine was about the 15th song, apparently critical to the story arc, being sung in some non-subtitled, non-English language that I'm not familiar with. Then I did the dishes, made dinner and went to the grocery store while Tania perservered.

When I signed up for this project, I figured I'd get to watch a bunch of movies that I'd otherwise not watch. I didn't sign up to completely ruin my Sunday evening by watching a movie, that I can barely see (see B&W w/bad transfer above) and can only understand enough to know it's not very good. I get it, it was a huge breakthrough fo Indian film-making, but I just couldn't force myself to sit through the entire thing and hopefully I can save you from even trying.

Saturday, December 16, 2006

Movie Review: Les Diaboliques (1955)

Tania Says:
We ran into a pack of foreign films and it was hard to get motivated to watch them. It isn't that I hate subtitled films - they just take a little more concentration. So we decided on Les Diaboliques first since it was the shortest film. Although it took awhile to get into it (for me at least) I ended up really liking this movie.

It is about the wife and the mistress of a really horrible school headmaster teaming up to kill him off. So they get him out of town and off him and then weird things start happening to them and around the school and the two women freak out and wonder if he is still alive, if someone knows what they did or if they are just paranoid and a little crazy. There are some twists and turns (that I will not spoil for you but were spoiled for me mid-movie when Josh admitted to seeing the Sharon Stone remake of this movie and told me what was going to happen.) The twists aren't all that crazy or surprising though as they probably were back in 1955. We seem a bit more jaded now as to what is actually a twist. But those twists are entertaining and make for a very interesting story.

The end of the reveals the biggest twist and then at the very end it actually says on the screen - "If your friends want to see this movie DON'T tell them what happens." I thought that was hilarious - maybe the first spoiler warning?

The performances by the wife and mistress are both very good. I really liked Véra Clouzot as the wife. She was suppose to be a sickly, frail women and the actress really captured that. She was skittish and weak and easily manipulated by the mistress. The mistress, played by Simone Signoret, was strong and confident and knew exactly how to manipulate the wimpy wife. The husband though wasn't so great. Paul Meurisse didn't play the husband nearly as mean and evil as I would have liked. I mean he is horrible and I certainly wouldn't want him around but I would have liked to see more evil.

Overall though I would recommend this movie even to people who are scared of or intimidated by subtitled movies (which I am to a certain extent). This story is engaging enough to make you forget you don't understand the language.

Josh Says:
I remember, after seeing the remake of this movie, hearing a tremendous amount of buzz for this, the original version. As is generally the case, the buzz consisted mostly of purists, or braggarts trumpeting the genius of the original and decrying the poor choices that degraded the idea of the film in the remake .

I'd say that there was a bit of hyperbole involved in the romantic descriptions that people had to offer for this movie after the horrendous Sharon Stone remake. While I don't think it was a bad movie, it wasn't quite a masterpiece, I don't think. I enjoyed most of the performances, but Simone Signoret, for example, I felt gave a little bit too much away in her portrayal of the mistress. Her choices for this character seem to fortell what is to come at nearly every turn. While I agree that Meurisee could have come off a little bit more bastardly, I think his performance within the confines of the 50's and what was acceptable was pretty darn good.

Of the three though, Vera Clouzot does the finest job in portraying an ailing woman who has seemingly decided that she's had enough and will not remain in this abusive relationship for the rest of her short life (she has a heart condition).

The supporting cast is somewhat unnoticeable, save for the commisiare, played by Charles Vanel (one of two actors whose career lasted over 80 years). I'm fairly certain that Peter Faulk stole the character Columbo directly from this film.

The story is pretty sound, and somewhat 'Hitchcockesque', however for me, something was just not quite there, and perhaps it's exactly Hitchcock that was missing. Bring him in to direct this one and it's probably a 10 out of 10 instead of say, a 6 or 7.

Friday, December 15, 2006

Movie Review: In A Lonely Place (1950)

Tania Says:

This movie is the reason I wanted to do this project. I haven’t seen nearly enough old movies and I really did want to see more. This is the perfect example of an old movie that I never would have seen without this list and I am glad that we got to watch it.

In A Lonely Place is about a washed up Hollywood screen writer played by Humphrey Bogart who is accused of a murder. In the process he meets his new neighbor and they fall in love in like 2 weeks and she stands by him and believes in him and what not. Then she sees some behavior that concerns her and she starts to question whether he is guilty or innocent.

Humphrey Bogart is good as the screenwriter (and it is fine to do imitations of him while watching the movie!) He reminded me of Dr. House but more like Dr. House with paranoid schizophrenia. He is a seriously messed up dude with anger management issues so it is hard to sympathize with him when his life gets messed up. Gloria Grahame plays Laurel, his love interest. She starts off as this sassy woman who seems totally ahead of the time in which this was made. However, then she gets all wifey and old school and just starts taking care of Bogey. It’s a weird transition but I guess a common one – where a woman gives it all up for her man.

Like I said, he is messed up but I think that works for the film because you spend it questioning his guilt or innocence along with everyone else in the film. The ending is a little contrived but as a whole I enjoyed the movie and I was glad I watched it. Ah – a much simpler time!

Josh says:

The acting in this movie, from the two leads, Humphrey Bogart and Gloria Grahame is fantastic.

The problem that I had with the movie was that the story was extremely choppy and difficult to navigate.

The last half hour, in particular becomes very convoluted as they (I guess the writer and the director are both guilty here) somewhat frantically attempt to contrive the ending that they're looking for.

Come to think of it, the entire story is pretty contrived, I mean, these two fall in love in like 24 hours after meeting at the police station where Bogey is being quesitoned for murder (what woman could resist an accused murderer). There's like one person in the world that thinks that Bogey could possibly be the killer, until one completely forced and unrealistic road rage scene (who knew they had road rage in the 50's?). Yet the movie essentially revolves around that accusation and they're undying love.

It still manages to say some interesting things about humanity and the fragile self and like I said, the acting is great, overall, if you're a huge Bogey fan it's worth watching for that but the more I think about it the story, while a good one to tell is very poorly executed from start to finish. I'd almost like to see a........'shudders'......remake.

Thursday, December 14, 2006

Movie Review: V. For Vendetta

Tania says:
We skipped ahead in our list to watch this movie because we bought it forever ago and never watched it. I never wanted to watch it. It was always thrown out as a – “Hey we still haven’t watched V for Vendetta!” And I always vetoed it. I wish I hadn’t been so deadest against it. It was something completely different then I thought it would be and I LOVED it! Seriously, we have a lot of comic book movies on this list thus far and this was my favorite. It may be because it was such a surprise and so totally different then I thought but whatever the reason it was really good.

The movie is set in England and takes place in the future when the US is in shambles and the government of England is pretty much in control. The government runs England with a scary right-wing religious hand and the population of the country is pretty much a slave to this government. We meet Evey who works for the only tv station in the country. In the beginning of the film she is on the street after curfew and meets V – a radical who wants to take down the oppressive British government. The story goes on from there as Evey gets more entangled with V.

I was not prepared at all for the commentary on government and the Big Brother is watching concept. I had no idea what this movie was about – maybe I should have done some research. This was less of an action film (which is what I thought it would be) and more of a thriller loaded with social commentary. The story is way more interesting then I gave it credit for.

Natalie Portman does a fine job as Evey except her accent blows. Hugo Weaving is awesome as V and all the other supporting cast does a good job. I highly recommend this movie and urge you to go into it with an open mind and maybe it will surprise you in a good way like it did for me!

Josh says:
I'm somewhat familiar with the work of Alan Moore. When I heard that the Wachowski's were going to be working on a movie version of one of his books (I hadn't read this one) I was excited and nervous. I mean, how can you know for sure whether you're going to get The Matrix or one of the lame sequels?

I have to say that I was pleasantly surprised. While it's certainly not The Matrix, it's a very good second best movie by this occasionally visionary team. They didn't direct this one but their fingerprints were all over it and in only the best ways. Sadly, that's about all that I can say about this movie without degenerating into a political diatribe that nobody wants to hear.

Wednesday, December 06, 2006

Movie Review: Se7en

Tania Says:
Another movie I had seen and remember totally loving it at the time. Josh loved it too and had seemingly watched it 100 times and told me to be on the look out for Brad Pitt stinking up the place. I didn’t remember Brad sucking so much but wow – he does indeed suck. Now, I like Brad Pitt – he has had some great performances (see 12 Monkeys or Snatch) but this is not one of them. Despite his horrible acting, this is still an excellent movie.

I don’t often notice lighting or the way a movie is shot but that is one thing I noticed first about Seven – it is so freaking dark and gloomy. Everything is lit in these yellow lights that creates the perfect mood for the piece. It constantly rains (until the end when the big stuff happens which I will not reveal) and the locations are amazing (my favorite is the library that Morgan Freeman visits) and it all fits together to create a mood. That mood ends up being a super important character in the film (and a better actor then Pitt!) So kudos Seven for making me notice things I never notice.

The story is very clever – if you don’t know it – it pairs grizzly veteran detective Morgan Freeman with hotheaded rookie Pitt on a serial murder case. The serial killer is killing based on the seven deadly sins and of course, Freeman is days from retirement. Despite the clichés in the characters the movie manages to be fresh and interesting. Some clunky dialogue and the aforementioned crappiness of the Pitt combined can’t ruin the film because of all the good things about it!

Paltrow does show up in a rather worthless role that is merely there as a device for the big incident at the end. Freeman is Freeman (in a rare non-narrating role!) and Spacey, who is the killer (minor spoiler) rules, which is never a surprise.

Josh Says:
I first saw this movie in the theater back in Seattle. I really disliked it.

I couldn't get past the clucky dialogue, the hack job by Brad Pitt or the weaksauce cop-out Paltrow scenes, only there as set up for something that I thought would have been a lot more powerful had there been more exposure to the relationship between she and Brad.

Fast forward a couple of years and I'm living in Vancouver. My good friend and roommate can't stop raving about this movie. He ends up buying the movie, I watch it again with an open mind intent on getting past it's obvious flaws and I loved it. I ended up watching this movie about a gazillion times and I still enjoyed it this time.

Part of me believes that Pitt's bad acting, the clucky dialogue, and other cheesy b-grade features (take Freeman's outfit) were conscious decisions somehow symbolic in the way that they so starkly contrast with the ultra-modern, tasteful and artistic way in which this is shot and the incredibly A-grade story itself.

The rest of me still just thinks that Pitt sucked and the dialogue sucks too, but the rest of the movie is/was so groundbreaking that the movie itself is still an enormous accomplishment in fim-making. I highly recommend it.

Dr. Scrubs was pretty sweet to uttering one of my all time favorite lines (cause in any emergency situation, I'm sure I'd react with equal incompetence) "Somebody call somebody!!!!"

Freemen, as always did a good job as the grizzled old actor being dragged into making one last movie or something like that.

Lastly, Kevin Spacey ruled in this so much. He used to always rule. Where has that Spacey gone? It's like he went to K-Pax and never came back.

Tuesday, December 05, 2006

Movie Review: 2001: A Space Odyssey

Tania says:

Oh no. I am dreading writing this. I am suppose to love this movie and be super smart and make it whatever I want it to be. But – I don’t love it. I am not super smart and I want this movie to TELL me what it wants to be. I mean, I love science fiction and I should love this – this movie that is somehow an influence to all science fiction after it.

Again, as with M, I totally get the groundbreaking aspect of this film. The special effects hold up today which is saying a lot with all the CGI and computers that are used nowadays. But – as for the majority of the story – boring. I’m sorry! I really am.

The beginning of the movie is okay. First monkeys find this monolith – then thousands of years later astronauts find it again on the moon. Okay. Intriguing.

The middle of the movie actually rocks. HAL is creepy and super cool which is saying a lot for the computer. Give me a whole movie of HAL owning those astronaut bitches and I am all about it. The movie managed to make a computer sinister and a genuine bad guy. I like this and I get this.

The end of the movie after Dave disconnects HAL. Huh? This is where I just got mad. First we have to see Dave fly through space like he is in some Led Zeppelin laser show at the planetarium. Then he is an old man? Then the monolith is back? Then he is born again as a star child? I don’t get it and I wanted to. So I looked online to see what I was missing and it all said the same thing – it is what you want it to be. I want it explained to me dammit!

So, although I was with the movie through most of it Kubrick ruined it at the end by pissing me off. And yes, I have seen other Kubrick films and I do like them – just not this one. I’m sorry!

Josh says:
I really really wanted to like this movie. If for no other reason, than to save face with the geeky Sci Fi crowd for despising Star Wars (oops, future blog spoiler again).

I tried soooo hard too. There were moments where I was hopeful, where I thought, "Oh yeah, I get it now, this is where it's starting to get good!'.

Then they killed off Hal.

Basically, this movie should shave 30 minutes off of the beginning, 30 minutes off of the end and it should be called Hal. Then I'm pretty sure I'd like it.

Sunday, December 03, 2006

Movie Review: 'M'

Tania says:
Okay – I have been completely lax in seeing old movies and totally lax in seeing really old movies. It is something that I have always wanted to do – go back and revisit old movies that made the new movies what they are today. It is really the reason I wanted to do this project. So the first really old movie on our list was M. This movie was made in 1931 and is very highly regarded. This is a German film and one of the earliest “talkies”. The film is about a pedophile that is kidnapping and killing children in a small German town. That kind of subject matter in 1931 is completely crazy to me. I was really eager to see how they would handle it and to see how times have changed since director Fritz Lang decided to tackle this subject. I have to admit though that the first ¾th of this movie are extremely difficult to watch – not because of the disturbing subject matter but because of the complete and total boredom. The majority of the movie is a bunch of talking. A lot of talking heads discussing how to catch the predator and what they should do and blah, blah, blah. It is pretty brutal.

The last 1/4th of the movie is actually really cool. When the movie starts to focus on the angry mob tracking down the predator it is very suspenseful and really quite scary. Once the mob catches him they start to put him on “trial” and that too is very interesting. That is where the movie is truly ahead of its time. The “trial” addresses therapy vs. jail and what is the best course for dealing with a pedophile. The discussion is still very relevant today. Peter Lorre plays the murderer and he is sufficiently creepy.

I wish that I really liked this movie. It isn’t that I need action, action, action – I don’t mind a movie that is all talk but this one just couldn’t grab me. I do completely understand the place it holds in cinema and once I made it through all the blabbing - I saw some really cool stuff that made me amazed it happened in 1931.

Josh says:
Um, wow, this movie was tough. They really didn't know how to make movies back then.

In one sense, it's pretty cool that there was actually a movie with this subject matter in 1931. I can imagine the water cooler discussions that must have taken place. In all of that discussion in 1931, however, I'm fairly certain nobody said "What an exciting and enjoyable movie!!!".

I very nearly fell asleep, and in fact, only stayed awake as a matter of principle. It's long, not much happens, I'd never see it again, and I hope, through this review, I can save you something that I'll never get back, namely, 111 minutes of my life.

****I should note, that the title of this blog is a direct quote taken from this movie. The one bright spot in this insanely boring movie.


*****Did I mention it was boring?

Saturday, December 02, 2006

Movie Review - Sin City

Tania Says:

Again with the comic books (excuse me – graphic novels). Same disclaimer as before.

This movie is pretty cool. I remember seeing this in the theater and thinking that it was ok but nothing extremely special but this is a rare movie where I enjoyed it more the second time. It is a collection of 3 stories that all take place in “Sin City” and they all connect in some way or another. The stories themselves are pretty interesting but the movie itself just looks really cool. Josh told me a lot of the frames were direct pictures taken from the comic and I can totally see that. It is very story-boardy in the way it is shot and it completely works. It is mostly filmed in black and white with spots of color thrown in. So if this movie set out to capture that comic book feel on film for a comic book novice it succeeded but I hardly doubt I was the target audience on this one.

The performances are pretty great overall. Clive Owens is awesome as the dark, brooding guy. Mickey Rourke rules as the creepy looking mean dude out for revenge and Bruce Willis plays Bruce Willis. The female performances are less strong and I don’t just say that because they are in skimpy clothing the entire time (side note – I have heard talk of this movie objectifying women and all that jazz and I don’t buy it. The majority of the women kick serious ass! Those hookers? Watch out.) Then there is Brittany Murphy who invented a whole other world of bad in this movie. I think she was going for this stylistic damsel in distress but she failed. However, Benicio as her thug boyfriend is super good.

This isn’t the type of movie that I think I would typically enjoy but I really did. I get turned off by a lot of violence and blood but this is done in such a cartoony way that it never bothered me and it all made sense in the context of the film. So surprisingly, I liked it!

Josh says:
I enjoyed this movie a lot. I've read slightly more than a handful of comic books and this series is one of them. The movie is very true to the book. At times, I think it hurts the film a bit but for the most part, Rodriguez made some very good choices. Speaking of good choices, here's hoping that this movie helps revive Mickey Rourke's career. He plays a bad ass as good as anyone and every movie needs a good bad ass so I say, "Why not Mickey Rourke?"