criterionforum.org

With the movie being a complete disaster, at least people will have something new about Frank Miller to complain about. I was getting tired of all those "I'm the Goddamn Batman!" jokes.

dx23 wrote: By the way, what the fuck was the constant mentioning of eggs by Octopus? You could have a drinking game just basing it on how many times eggs are mentioned in the film.

Perhaps he saw Funny Games, which just so happens to be as bad as The Spirit and has just as many bizarre egg references.

conspirator12 wrote:Hey guys, thought I'd weigh in here. I don't buy this assertion that Frank Miller has never had an artist's eye. I think Ronin, Elektra Lives Again, and Sin City (among others) contain some absolutely beautiful artwork, not to mention innovative panel layouts.

I can buy that sometimes he cranks out a nice panel or two, but "beautiful artwork" might be stretching it. I suppose I'm showing my bias here for fundamentals, but Miller's draftsmanship has never been the best. His anatomy and perspective is and always was dodgy at best, even going back to his early Daredevil days. I've never, ever, seen him draw an anatomically correct woman even if you can argue that his "style" is deliberately stylized. His sense for spotting blacks consists of throwing a whole bunch of black ink on the page and then showing a blot of white or two for contrast. Sometimes the images that are left white are so obscure that you often can't tell what he's trying to highlight amidst all the black. I could go on.

I'm not saying I think he's the worst artist around (hello Rob Liefeld) but he's usually best when he doesn't try to get too fancy. I thought that started with DKR and reached its worst point in Sin City.

I'm sorry if this seems completely pointless, but -

I just cannot get over the fact that this movie has a fight scene where Samuel L. Jackson attacks another man with a seven-foot tall pipe wrench. I mean...really? That's the best joke you've got? He reaches into hammerspace and makes a giant wrench appear? Will Eisner didn't write fucking Looney Toons. And then the coup de grace with the toilet followed by the flying kitchen sink. This is one of those things that will interrupt my dreams at night and wake me up like a bolt, covered in cold sweat. One moment I'm flying over the moon, the next Sam Jackson strikes me with a commode and howls "Toilets are FUNNY!!"

God damn, Frank. One movie under your belt and you've already sunk below Ed Wood to something like John Derek levels of haunting badness (anyone who's seen Bolero or Ghosts Can't Do It understands this kind of pain).

This movie sounds amazing!

jojo wrote:

conspirator12 wrote:Hey guys, thought I'd weigh in here. I don't buy this assertion that Frank Miller has never had an artist's eye. I think Ronin, Elektra Lives Again, and Sin City (among others) contain some absolutely beautiful artwork, not to mention innovative panel layouts.

I can buy that sometimes he cranks out a nice panel or two, but "beautiful artwork" might be stretching it. I suppose I'm showing my bias here for fundamentals, but Miller's draftsmanship has never been the best. His anatomy and perspective is and always was dodgy at best, even going back to his early Daredevil days. I've never, ever, seen him draw an anatomically correct woman even if you can argue that his "style" is deliberately stylized. His sense for spotting blacks consists of throwing a whole bunch of black ink on the page and then showing a blot of white or two for contrast. Sometimes the images that are left white are so obscure that you often can't tell what he's trying to highlight amidst all the black. I could go on.

I'm not saying I think he's the worst artist around (hello Rob Liefeld) but he's usually best when he doesn't try to get too fancy. I thought that started with DKR and reached its worst point in Sin City.

I guess it all comes down to personal preference and what one considers "good" artwork. While I understand what you're saying about his poor understanding of male and female anatomy, I nonetheless enjoyed very much the sloppy sci-fi insanity of Ronin and the sheer expressiveness of Sin City. The latter defies realism in just about every way, but I was almost always floored by Miller's electric images of white-splashed lovers embracing or a man walking home in rain that looks like a million jagged spikes. Even The Dark Knight Returns impresses with its cinematic panel layouts and Miller's visualization of a grimly futuristic Gotham. He isn't a great artist when it comes to drawing well-proportioned characters or sweeping action scenes (and I'll remain silent about The Dark Knight Strikes Again), but I think he's brilliant in terms of taking the messy stuff out of his head and molding it into something uniquely expressive.

It looks like there's one thing The Spirit can't do -- stop falling stock prices.

Oh, how the mighty have fallen. As a comic book nerd this is a particularly sad, gruesome fall from grace for Miller.

I plan to see this this weekend along with Valkyrie as a kind of "new camp canon/first gruesome flops of 2009" double-bill (yes, I'm aware Valkyrie is not a total flop, but still and all). Perhaps I will follow them up at home with Tommy Wiseau's The Room and make it a three-fer.

You'll probably be disappointed by Valkyrie. It's actually not that bad, despite Cruise (I guess it helps when you have a director that is at least competent.) The Spirit (based on what I've heard from those who have seen it--I haven't... Yet!) and The Room are completely different puppies altogether.

The Spirit is a film that is clearly ahead of it's time. In the same way as it took 2001 a bit of time to develop, The Spirit will. The cinematography and the lighting were both really comic-bookie and sharp. The girls were hott in it and Samuel L. Jackson is the octopus. What isn't to like? This is clearly a modern classic with all the trimmings. If you didn't like it the first time, see it again.

I quote The Spirit when he says: Somebody find me a tie! I don't care what kind, but by God, it had better be red!

hahahah, it is also very comical, which i liked a lot.

moviscop wrote:The Spirit is a film that is clearly ahead of it's time. In the same way as it took 2001 a bit of time to develop, The Spirit will.

You are only allowed to make this statement in the past tense.

So this film makes me feel awkward. True story follows. My grandmother was really good friends with Will Eisner. She knew I was a big cinephile, and she was probably the most cine-literate of all my family. She passed away last year. I'm not going to make it out like it was the last thing she said, but one of the last things she told me before her stroke was to catch Will Eisner's movie. I didn't even know what that was. Now, I'm finding out it's this film. I think I'm going to defy one of Mom-mom's last wishes.

I would see "Postal" if those were the circumsdances

Yeah, it's a few bucks and some time that isn't necessarily lost, it could be... rewarding, maybe.maybe.

moviscop wrote:The Spirit is a film that is clearly ahead of it's time. In the same way as it took 2001 a bit of time to develop, The Spirit will.

A movie built around a Carmen Sandiego impersonator and a drag queen fighting over "the shiny thing to end all shiny things" will never, ever develop past the "festering pile of shit" stage.

moviscop wrote:The Spirit is a film that is clearly ahead of it's time. In the same way as it took 2001 a bit of time to develop, The Spirit will. The cinematography and the lighting were both really comic-bookie and sharp. The girls were hott in it and Samuel L. Jackson is the octopus. What isn't to like? This is clearly a modern classic with all the trimmings. If you didn't like it the first time, see it again.

I quote The Spirit when he says: Somebody find me a tie! I don't care what kind, but by God, it had better be red!

hahahah, it is also very comical, which i liked a lot.

I think you posted in the wrong thread. It's supposed to go in the Rediculous Reviews one.

But hahahah, it was also very comical, which he liked a lot [-X

>>In the same way as it took 2001 a bit of time to develop<<
Afraid I don't get this comment. 2001 had the second highest box-office (Funny Girl came in first) the year of its release.
(No wonder. Most of us went to see it both straight and stoned, to see if made more sense one way or the other.)
And while the critical reception was not unanimous, 2001 got some very, very positive reviews.

Samuel L. Jackson is the octopus

Having no knowledge whatsoever of The Spirit before reading this line, I was thinking that moviescop just coined new slang.

Man, that guy's the octopus!

Grand Illusion wrote:My grandmother was really good friends with Will Eisner. She knew I was a big cinephile, and she was probably the most cine-literate of all my family. She passed away last year. I'm not going to make it out like it was the last thing she said, but one of the last things she told me before her stroke was to catch Will Eisner's movie. I didn't even know what that was. Now, I'm finding out it's this film. I think I'm going to defy one of Mom-mom's last wishes.

You might take an odd sort of comfort in knowing that had she lived to see it, your grandmother would probably not have considered this Spirit to be Will Eisner's movie at all.