home

Movies to Walk Out On

I don't usually walk out on movies but Sin City proved the exception. If there was a redeeming value or even a point to the film, I didn't get it. My distaste for the film is not based on gender or moral issues - or on the amount of violence - it was more the cartoonish nature and total lack of credibility of the violence, coupled with the unappealingness of the main characters. It just seemed stupid. It would have helped if even one of the characters had some depth. Plus, the repetition got old and boring quickly. I can't begin to understand why so many people have described the movie as "visually stunning."

I liked Mickey Rourke in his portrayal of the sadistic Wall Street deal broker in 9 1/2 weeks. He was watchable in Year of the Dragon. But both he and Bruce Willis in Sin City were a total waste of time. I wish I could get my ten nine bucks back.

Update: I probably should add that I didn't know it was based on a comic book and have never heard of Frank Miller or his comic book. Also, I only lasted 25 minutes -- I left at the end of the scene where the parole officer and Marv are in the cannibal's room which had the heads on the wall of the people he had eaten. I had closed my eyes about five minutes before that, I really hate it when people gouge peoples' eyes out, so I didn't get to see any eaten body parts, if there were any.

< Rice Ordered Release of Detainee Flown on Ghost Air | Elian Gonzales, Now 11, is Thankful to be Back in Cuba >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    Re: Movies to Walk Out On (none / 0) (#1)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Apr 23, 2005 at 10:43:33 PM EST
    $10 bucks?

    Re: Movies to Walk Out On (none / 0) (#2)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Apr 23, 2005 at 11:12:10 PM EST
    Just curious, did you ever read the comic books? If you didn't like those, then there was almost zero reason for you to see the movie. $10?

    Re: Movies to Walk Out On (none / 0) (#3)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Apr 23, 2005 at 11:31:22 PM EST
    Hear, hear! I only went 'cause I got talked into it by friends. And yeah, $10 too. (winces) That's two hours or so of my life I'll never get back...

    Re: Movies to Walk Out On (none / 0) (#4)
    by Andreas on Sat Apr 23, 2005 at 11:33:25 PM EST
    That puritanism and porno-sadism are deeply linked in America could hardly be better illustrated than by the timing of Sin City’s release on April 1. Its appearance one day after the death of the unfortunate Terri Schiavo—the preservation of whose vegetative condition had set off the reactionary attack dogs of the Christian Right and the Republican Party—and one day before the demise of Pope John Paul II—whose passing occasioned an outburst of religiosity such as this country has perhaps never before witnessed—was of course coincidental. But its appearance in the midst of these attempts to eliminate the separation of church and state and turn America into a quasi-theocracy is far from accidental. At first glance, it may seem unlikely, but the makers of Sin City and theocrats in Washington and elsewhere share certain core beliefs: in the advanced moral decay and anarchy of modern society, the worthlessness of the existing democratic political forms to stem this decay and anarchy and, underlying everything, the essential rottenness of human nature (after all, this is Sin City). Of course, the former apparently wallow happily in these facts of life while the latter deplore them.
    A culture at the end of its rope, continued By David Walsh, 13 April 2005

    Re: Movies to Walk Out On (none / 0) (#6)
    by desertswine on Sat Apr 23, 2005 at 11:53:42 PM EST
    I liked it OK. It's a comic book (or graphic novel).

    Re: Movies to Walk Out On (none / 0) (#5)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Apr 23, 2005 at 11:56:07 PM EST
    No, I never even heard of the comic books. Maybe that was part of the problem, I had nothing to relate it to. Captain Jean, I just clicked on the link by your name and see that you have something to do with digital artistry. I'm not trying to insult your trade. After leaving the movie tonight and reading some reviews, I see that the film is considered a masterful adaptation of a comic book to screen - one of the most literal translations ever. So, it probably is quite an artistic accomplishment. Not knowing any of this before going to see the movie, however, it was lost on me. Actually, it was $9 - I remember getting a dollar change.

    Re: Movies to Walk Out On (none / 0) (#7)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sun Apr 24, 2005 at 12:42:45 AM EST
    You don't like what you don't like, and not every movie can please everyone (my best friend in the world, whom I share movie tastes with nearly 100%, thought the Lord of the Rings Trilogy was boring and ridiculous!), but I am a little suprised you couldn't see Sin City's visual artistry. It was certainly a technical achievement -- and although it was filmed just like last year's Sky Captain and the World of Tomorrow, Sin City had a certain spark, or vitality, that the other one was missing. Yes, Sin City was incredibly violent... in fact, if it had been filmed in a "normal" style, like most other movies (color, real sets, "realistic" action) it would have been way too grim. But the comic-book tone and over-the-top characters placed it firmly in a fantasy world, which helps distance us from the violence as being a real thing; instead these are anti-heroes and flawed protagonists doing epic battle with villains who are simply corrupt and selfish, not demonic. And besides, the blood is deemphasized by removing its color. Because the violence isn't about the blood, but about the act of domination and violation. But the movie isn't devoid of morality, as some might claim: all the main (male) characters are essentially sacrificing themselves for the betterment of others. In Bruce Willis' case, it was the young girl he almost gets killed saving from rape and death. In Mickey Rourke's case, it was to avenge the murder of the one woman who ever showed him kindness in spite of his hard appearance. In the other character's case (forget the actor... the british guy from Closer) he was defending the rights of women, who were prostitutes, to maintain control over their own chosen profession (you didn't see that part of the movie, but a crooked cop threatens to shatter a tenuous pact between cops & hookers that keeps them free from having to have pimps). Anyway, again not everyone likes every movie, so perhaps this one just didn't offer you what you go to the movies to see. I'd suggest trying it again in a few months when it comes out on DVD, and try to see beyond the cartoony visuals and seeming moral ambiguity. Or not. But you really did miss out on Elijah Wood's freaky performance as one of the movie's more ruthless villains! -Bri p.s. It will be interesting to see if you like Kung-Fu Hustle, if the basis of your dislike of Sin City was cartoon violence. I just saw KFH this evening and thought it was a wonderful night at the movies (same with Sin City); but be warned, it is a *comedy* with a capital C. House of Flying Daggers this ain't!

    Re: Movies to Walk Out On (none / 0) (#8)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sun Apr 24, 2005 at 01:12:00 AM EST
    I did to, the movie is bad, bad,bad. well maybe if you like eating human body parts its ok.

    Re: Movies to Walk Out On (none / 0) (#9)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sun Apr 24, 2005 at 01:13:33 AM EST
    Thanks, Hawaiaan Brian. Listening to your description makes me think I should go back and give it another chance. Benicio del Toro is the actor whose name escaped you, and I thought he was terrific in "Traffic." I'm getting the feeling that my inability to appreciate the movie is my fault - and I must be missing an artistic gene somewhere along the line - but I think Captain Jean also hit the nail on its head - if you're not a fan of the comic book, you're not going to be able to appreciate the movie. On the one hand, I hate the idea of reading reviews of movies before I go to see them. Since I do research for work, I view movie-going as a light-hearted adventure, escapist if you will, and to read reviews would eliminate the suprise and spontaneity involved. But it's probably something I need to do,since as a kid I was burned twice by movies I wasn't prepared for - Whatever Happened to Baby Jane - I couldn't sleep without a light on for over a year (I was only 10) and then some b grade movie The Sword and the Cross, about the Inquisition and a prison guard who took a flame-heated, searing steel sword and blinded the eyes of a beautiful young blond women. I had nightmares for months. Thanks for your polite comment and for not being critical of my inability to appreciate the film.

    Re: Movies to Walk Out On (none / 0) (#10)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sun Apr 24, 2005 at 02:55:01 AM EST
    I thought it was visually stunning. Beautiful. Visually. But so what? Revolting. Solved an age-old question for me, finally. Whether to judge a work of art on how well it succeeds at what it's attempting to do, vs. how it strikes me, overall. I know most critics tend toward the former, but I've always found that . . . odd. I'm supposed to judge not whether I like it, but whether I think someone who likes this sort of thing would? Always found that approach puzzling. But now, finally settled the other half of it. It's not enough. To set out to do something gross or revolting--that in my opinion, obiviously--and do it well . . . So what? No, I think what you choose as your destination is just as relevant for critical judgement as how well you achieved it. Man. They achieved it amazingly. (At least in the first 20 minutes. I left w/ J.) But God. Made my skin crawl. Plus, I have to agree with J on the shallowness. As stunning as it was visually, that's all it had to offer. The characters, and especially the dialogue. I'm through granting fillums the right to cheesy, preposterous eye-rolling dialogue just because they're shooting for that. It's still cheesy, eye-rolling and preposterous. It's like a beatiful man across the dancefloor. Wow. Stunning. Alluring. Can't wait to get near him. Then I do. Empty. Vapid. What a dissapointment. Like this movie. I think critics are retarded when they let go of their own reaction to it and praise it just for beautiful qualities. If on balance, it moved them, fine. But if not, be honest. If it turned their stomach, then don't give a thumbs up for aristry that was trumped by other qualities.

    Re: Movies to Walk Out On (none / 0) (#12)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sun Apr 24, 2005 at 04:43:20 AM EST
    I normally don't watch gory movies at all, and Sin City certainly pushed my limits. But I knew the graphic novel fairly well. I don't know how I would have reacted if I'd never read it, much less heard of it; I probably would have walked out, too. A huge part of what I liked was how faithful the movie was, and how well the characters translated to the screen. My recommendation would be to pick up the graphic novel before sitting down to watch the movie again. If you don't like the graphic novel, I doubt you'll like the movie. And if the graphic novel strikes a chord, you may find that you see something in the movie that you weren't able to before.

    Re: Movies to Walk Out On (none / 0) (#13)
    by eric on Sun Apr 24, 2005 at 05:40:18 AM EST
    Why should it be necessary to read a comic book before understanding a movie? You didn't need a movie (or series of lectures or training manual) to understand the comic book. So the movie failed precisely where the comic book succeeded. After tens of millions of dollars spent making a movie, shouldn't it succeed on its own as something besides an "in" joke? And if it doesn't, shouldn't we simply label it a failure and move on?

    Re: Movies to Walk Out On (none / 0) (#14)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sun Apr 24, 2005 at 07:09:10 AM EST
    Dave C writes - " I think what you choose as your destination is just as relevant for critical judgement as how well you achieved it." Extremely well said. Without that success has no benchmark and becomes meaningless.

    Re: Movies to Walk Out On (none / 0) (#15)
    by Andreas on Sun Apr 24, 2005 at 07:10:43 AM EST
    @HawaiianBrian: The rating at Rottentomatoes currently is "7.9/10". That alone demonstrates that their "percentage rating" is useless fo find out about the quality of a film. Sin City is one of the worst films which has been released recently. It is time to distrust the so-called "professional reviewers". As David Walsh wrote in his review of the movie:
    Disorientation, panic and a sense of being overwhelmed by events grip a good many people, not only in fundamentalist circles, but in the pseudo-artistic world as well. American society and culture, in grave crisis, are vomiting up everything retrograde, diseased and long-since discredited. And the critics? Oh, the critics can always be counted upon! “Brilliant,” writes one prominent figure. “Savage, sexy and ferociously funny,” says another. A third: “I loved it, I loved it, I loved it.” In the future, looking back at the cultural landscape of our time, people will simply shake their heads.


    Re: Movies to Walk Out On (none / 0) (#16)
    by Aaron on Sun Apr 24, 2005 at 07:12:06 AM EST
    Did somebody suggest that you had to read the comic book in order to understand the movie? I thought the suggestion was that reading the comic book might give you an indication of whether or not you would like the movie (and, as is often the case, the work which inspired the movie may contain elements or nuance that is lost in the big screen version). If you don't understand Sin City (as opposed to not understanding why some people like it)... well, let's just say, there's nothing complicated about its plotlines.

    Re: Movies to Walk Out On (none / 0) (#17)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sun Apr 24, 2005 at 07:14:45 AM EST
    Why should it be necessary to read a comic book before understanding a movie? You didn't need a movie (or series of lectures or training manual) to understand the comic book. So the movie failed precisely where the comic book succeeded.
    That isn't what I said at all. I said that for me, as a fan of the graphic novel, I appreciated things that got me past my general dislike of gore in movies. I said nothing about understanding the movie, only appreciating the movie. I was empathizing with TalkLeft's dislike of so much violence, and I suggested that reading the graphic novel and liking it might make sitting through the violence worthwhile. I never said or implied that reading the graphic novel was necessary in order to understand the movie. In fact, I think the movie did a better job of producing an emotional response (and I don't mean revulsion) than the graphic novel was able to. But, as most of us have said, Sin City isn't for everyone, nor should it be.

    Re: Movies to Walk Out On (none / 0) (#18)
    by roy on Sun Apr 24, 2005 at 07:33:25 AM EST
    I liked it, and I've never read the comics. (spoiler alert) The violence was a little over the top. Not because it upset me, but because it was silly. Marv's super strength, and Hardigan's (Bruce Willis's) ability to tolerate bullet holes, hurt the immersiveness of it. The visuals were good. If you stayed long enough to see the whore with the blue eyes, those eyes stay with you. Perfect teamwork between actress, director, and coloration person (whoever) to make those eyes stand out. The character motivations were unusual for movies. Marv is driven by an act of kindness which isn't really an act of kindness: a whore sleeping with him . Dwight (the ER doctor) is a thug trying to do the right thing (cliche) who gets caught up in his old ways and loves it (not so cliche). Then there's Hardigan. The ultimate cliche good guy, except without any reward for his good deeds. Most movie heroes get something for their trouble, but Hardigan suffers throughout the whole show. I loved Hardigan's story, I would have paid $9 just for that part. If senseless violence and buckets of gore are the mechanism to bring some new archetypes into movies, fine. Hollywood can borrow my bucket.

    Re: Movies to Walk Out On (none / 0) (#19)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sun Apr 24, 2005 at 07:39:32 AM EST
    As someone who thought the movie was okay, let me make a few points: 1) The opening 15 minutes were lame and unbelievable in terms of story, dialogue, acting, and visualization even if you considered the rest of the movie to be excellent. 2) The 'point' of the movie became clearer with time. One theme was essentially the inverse of a common movie theme, that even the worst person has a good side that makes them compassionate, generous, etc. The theme in Sin City was that even the best person has a dark side that makes them enjoy torture, turn on their friends, and give up in the face of the odds. 3) Anyone who tries to tie the morality of Sin City with modern social conservativsm is just looking for something to criticize about the movie other than the gore. In Sin City, one of the bad guys is the worthless son of a politician with political aspirations himself and another is a high ranking member of the Catholic Church; the power both of them hold over society comes through the nexus of a destroyed wall between church and state. Indeed, the film strongly suggests the collapse of that wall is the primary force driving Sin City's troubles. Indeed, it's even implied in the title. 4) It had a LOT of gore and, though I'm being stereotypical, I don't see how more than 10% of women could like it at all. I don't even see how more than 30% of men would like it.

    Re: Movies to Walk Out On (none / 0) (#20)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sun Apr 24, 2005 at 08:08:02 AM EST
    The rating at Rottentomatoes currently is "7.9/10". That alone demonstrates that their "percentage rating" is useless to find out about the quality of a film.
    The very definition of arrogance. Of course, all the critics might be wrong, but to denounce them on no better grounds than they disagree with little old me.... amazing. And very, very provincial.

    Re: Movies to Walk Out On (none / 0) (#21)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sun Apr 24, 2005 at 08:46:55 AM EST
    The movie was an experiment, to use a graphic novel as storyboard (and script) for a motion picture. They succeeded. Have an issue with the gore/misogyny/dialogue? Complain about Frank Miller. It's like blaming a crime scene photographer for the brutality of a murder. Get over yourselves, people. At least Jeralyn is willing to accept that there might be some merit to the movie outside of her personal beliefs.

    Re: Movies to Walk Out On (none / 0) (#22)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sun Apr 24, 2005 at 09:26:50 AM EST
    Hawaiian Brian, unfortunately I did see Once Upon a Time..., and you're right, the eyes scene completely ruined it for me. And Dave C. was a great sport for agreeing to leave with me.

    Re: Movies to Walk Out On (none / 0) (#11)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sun Apr 24, 2005 at 09:29:30 AM EST
    I wouldn't say it's your fault. People respond to things differently, to some the artistry matters little when balanced against substance. The former is a little easier to evaluate objectively; the latter is all taste and interpretation. (Although I can't help but wonder how those who don't like anti-heroes took to Quentin Tarantino's stuff, or some of the grimmer Westerns or Noir films.) Check out how professional reviewers felt about it at Rotten Tomatoes , and look at some discussion at here if you'd like to get more sides on the issue. Rottentomates has a great ratings system that helps you get a good sense of how the movie is being received critically. Nowadays I largely base my movie choices on their ratings scale, which gathers reviews from all over for an overall pecentage rating. Also try here and here for reviews from my most trusted critics. I agree with you, Dave, that one should judge a movie on how well it *succeeds* at what it is trying to do, and not give movies a passing grade just for trying. That's why, even though I still enjoyed Sky Captain, I don't think it was overall successful at what it set out to do. Sin City, on the other hand, I think did. I also don't agree that the dialogue and characters were bad... But here's a question: if someone intentionally sets out to create camp, or joyously celebrate cliches, or in this case to adapt a comic book to the screen (which I had never heard of either, by the way, until this movie came out) does that mean their effort is doomed from the start, by your reckoning? Also, twenty minutes doesn't give one that much time to understand characters, start to see patterns emerging, and watch them undergo change. Granted, the first ten minutes of the movie is said to make it or break it, but often times good movies can start slow or take some work to digest, and that might be hard to do if they only are given 20 minutes to prove themselves. (I walked out of Kung Pow, by the way, for the very reasons you walked out of Sin City, yet I know some people who loved that movie... so go figure.) -Bri p.s. So it seems you have a unique phobia or weakness about eyes... Interesting. Don't see "Once Upon a Time in Mexico!" *snap* Clive Owen! That was his name!

    Re: Movies to Walk Out On (none / 0) (#23)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sun Apr 24, 2005 at 10:00:39 AM EST
    Actually, most theaters will give you a refund, if you talk to a manager, and are cheerfully patient.

    Re: Movies to Walk Out On (none / 0) (#24)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sun Apr 24, 2005 at 10:05:21 AM EST
    Congratulations, more people need to be walking out of movies filled with gratuitous violence. I've heard that if it was made in color it might have been above an R rating...

    Re: Movies to Walk Out On (none / 0) (#25)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sun Apr 24, 2005 at 10:12:52 AM EST
    HawaiianBrian said: the movie isn't devoid of morality, as some might claim: all the main (male) characters are essentially sacrificing themselves for the betterment of others. I have to disagree. Ostensibly the protagonists of Sin City are engaging in their sadistic quests on behalf of women, but that notion is belied by the characters' admitted pleasure at murdering the 'bad' guys. Basically what we're seeing in Sin City is sadistic sociopaths killing other sadistic sociopaths. The motives of the protagonists seem to be nothing but window dressing, a convenient excuse to be brutal. Sin City is misogynistic, characterless, simplistic, and often dull...but still worth seeing simply for the visuals.

    Re: Movies to Walk Out On (none / 0) (#26)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sun Apr 24, 2005 at 11:04:39 AM EST
    I'm not a professional movie reviewer, but I probably should be. I quit watching movies for sheer enjoyment value long ago; I watch critically, and usually find things that reviewers may tend to miss. Unlike most people, I read reviews before I go see a movie, because nine times out of ten, the reviewers are dead on. I like to know beforehand whether or not my $6.50 is worth spending. (I try to go movie-watching on the weekdays, when the prices are lower and the audience is much less voluminous.)

    Re: Movies to Walk Out On (none / 0) (#27)
    by kdog on Sun Apr 24, 2005 at 11:14:19 AM EST
    The clips I've seen are visually stunning. I plan on checking it out eventually, though I'd like to get some 'shrooms for the occasion first.

    Re: Movies to Walk Out On (none / 0) (#28)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sun Apr 24, 2005 at 11:54:09 AM EST
    Rodriguez and crew have a habit of pushing the limits of taste and violence, under the mask of comic entertainment. The net result is to permit more defilment into the general culture- images don't die when the movie real ends. There is a reason soldiers have problems with dealing with the raw violence of warfare. Wrapping the nasties in computer rendered, or hand animated packaging, is like putting sugar in dog poop. Sure with enough high fructose corn syrup, it can be a doggy loaf can more pleasurable on the tongue than a bowl of frosted flakes, but that doesn't change the fact you're eating feces, and all the consequences the come from that. I support the right of people to make such films, and pay to see them. I am outraged at the journalistic/punditry/marketing machine that willfully pushes a "Mikey likes it" campaign to test the limits. The pushers of Sin City are just as guilty as the Time magazine keyboard monkey's are of "re-packaging" up Anne Coulter. It is not a coincidence these two events occurred so close together. There's nothing wrong with the people at Talk Left who vomitted up this meal as they were trying to choke it down. Kudos for not pretending otherwise.

    Re: Movies to Walk Out On (none / 0) (#29)
    by scarshapedstar on Sun Apr 24, 2005 at 01:28:05 PM EST
    From what I gather, nobody older than Matthew Yglesias liked this movie at all. Well, screw you, old-timers!

    Re: Movies to Walk Out On (none / 0) (#30)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sun Apr 24, 2005 at 01:33:46 PM EST
    i agree with talkleft's ultimate review (walking out) though for different reasons, and i didn't walk out, but both mrs. skippy and i felt like it. it wasn't the violence or lack of moral center. i also disagree with those who think it's a misogynistic work, because the men in the piece are as shallow and iconoclastic (ganster/violent psychos) as the women (whores). for the record, i loved the cartoon violence of kill bill. now that was a great flick(s). but it was a flick based on flicks, not based on comic books. (side note: you can call it a "graphic novel" all you want, but saying something is a novel doesn't make it a novel...there are depths, layers, complexities, tonalities, nuances and solidities to novels that there aren't in comic books. a comic book by definition is shallow, not that there's anything wrong with that. but you can't make something deeper by saying it's deeper. it's a frickin' comic book). no, my problem with the movie was that it was so devoid of new ideas. it kept repeating itself over and over. there was little difference between the redeemers of clive owen, mickey roarke and bruce willis beyond surface changes (one's a handsome guy, one's an ugly guy, one's an old guy). and the bad guys in two of the stories were sons of elite power brokers (who themselves were brothers) and thus protected by the infrastructure of sin city. the one interesting idea, the women/whores policing their own neighborhood, quickly dissolved into a video game of gore as opposed to the reasons why such an arrangement evolved, and what kind of people populated said arrangement. it was, like this review itself, repetitious. save your money, rent kill bill instead.

    Re: Movies to Walk Out On (none / 0) (#31)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sun Apr 24, 2005 at 01:38:09 PM EST
    I have friends that work in Hollywood and liked the movie for its visual imagery. On the other hand, both thought the movie got old after a while. As for me, there's only so much castration, general dismemberment, and gore I'm interested in seeing, and I'm a horror movie fan. The artsiness of movie wore off after the first story, and it just went downhill from there, the nudity and the violence losing its shock value altogether. I've seen plenty of revenge flicks before, and this movie seemed just like most of the rest: a movie looking for an excuse to be violent, albeit in a colorful, special effects, comic book type way. I left feeling I'd wasted my money, like I'd been duped by Hollywood once again. Maybe I just don't like comic books enough or maybe I'd seen this movie before in other ways--Kill Bill, Death Wish, etc.--but it did little except bore me after the first forty minutes. So, my opinion is you did the right thing by walking out. If you want to see it, rent it. If you're too turned off by the gore, save your money.

    Re: Movies to Walk Out On (none / 0) (#32)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sun Apr 24, 2005 at 04:36:23 PM EST
    I got no sympathy for y'all. What did you expect? Anyone who's seen a Tarantino film can figure out that a good part of his creative process involves thinking: "Hmmm. How do I make this bloodier and more gross?" Frank Miller's stuff may be the best of its kind, but that particular kind is crime/action-adventure comics and fight scenes are the bread-and-butter of the genre. And Rodriguez's movies are mostly: Guys get killed and occasionally tortured in great detail. The End. And a movie they collaborated on turned out to be really violent? Jeez. Who'd have thought? Say what you like about these guys, I'll bet they don't go to a Merchant-Ivory flick and complain that it was more genteel than they'd figured on.

    Re: Movies to Walk Out On (none / 0) (#33)
    by Ernesto Del Mundo on Sun Apr 24, 2005 at 05:12:30 PM EST
    I haven't seen this flick nor do I intend to. I might catch it by accident on cable in a couple years. But what I can say is that explicit gore and nudity is almost always a letdown, as the imagination (even I suppose of conservatives, no on second thought especially theirs) tends to paint a more shocking picture than anything the camera can convey. Hitchcock and others fully understood this decades ago.

    Re: Movies to Walk Out On (none / 0) (#34)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon Apr 25, 2005 at 06:10:29 AM EST
    Uh...every movie is shot from a graphic novel...they're called storyboards. I don't think you guys get it. The moviemakers have not only cut themselves loose from the studio system, they've cut themselves loose from the studio. All of the scenes with actors could be shot in a municipal ampitheater painted blue. All of the rest can be done anywhere in the world and transmitted digitally. Check out the credits. 'Nuff said.

    Re: Movies to Walk Out On (none / 0) (#35)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon Apr 25, 2005 at 08:21:17 AM EST
    Forget 9 1/2 weeks. It's all about "Barfly" baby. "Anybody can be a non-drunk. It takes a special talent to be a drunk. It takes endurance"

    Re: Movies to Walk Out On (none / 0) (#37)
    by roger on Mon Apr 25, 2005 at 08:42:32 AM EST
    Kdog- I would definately advise that you NOT do 'shrooms before this movie, WAY too intense!

    Re: Movies to Walk Out On (none / 0) (#38)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Mon Apr 25, 2005 at 11:50:06 AM EST
    'I can't begin to understand why so many people have described the movie as "visually stunning."' Robert Rodriguez was the DP, what do you expect? "only lasted 25 minutes." "wish I could get my ten nine bucks back." Next time you leave a movie 25 minutes in, just go to the ticket booth and tell them that you want your money back. I had to do it years ago during "The Lemon Sisters."

    Re: Movies to Walk Out On (none / 0) (#39)
    by kdog on Mon Apr 25, 2005 at 04:50:33 PM EST
    Absolutely right scar...I got my money back after 20 min. of "The Mask" w/ Jim Carrey...bloody awful.

    Re: Movies to Walk Out On (none / 0) (#40)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon Apr 25, 2005 at 08:25:01 PM EST
    Just got back from seeing Sin City...I thought it was fantastic. A great experiment in filmaking with sex, violence and Bruce Willis. What else do you need? It was a total mindblower...

    Re: Movies to Walk Out On (none / 0) (#41)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Fri Apr 29, 2005 at 04:01:25 AM EST
    Given, I'm a film student and analyze films constantly but I'm still puzzled when people walk out on a film. I don't get it at all, it's like reading three pages of a book and then making wild guesses about the ending. I've sat through films I have hated, including the terribly misogynist Hollow Man and the weirdly fascist The Missing, if only to be able to better articulate why I found the films upsetting. There are a lot of flaws in Sin City to critique, but most people just seem immediately turned off by the violence. Films are just like any other art form; they require an amount of objectivity. But then again, I'm writing my thesis on slasher films so violence doesn't really bother me. I enjoyed the Clive Owen storyline quite a bit- a shame you missed it!