|
Post by Fullerov on Jun 28, 2005 21:49:27 GMT
I would overlook it...
and try and judge the film on its merits.
|
|
|
Post by Smileadelic on Jun 29, 2005 8:35:05 GMT
Hmmm… I’m sure if it had been homophobic or racist you all wouldn’t be quite so enthusiastic …even if that was the “point”. Yeah, I agree. I'm not sure "that's the point" is capable of being an all-encompassing excuse. Do we excuse "The Birth of a Nation" today? It glorifies the KKK, after all, but that would seem to be "the point". I've not actually seen this film yet, though, so I can't judge. I suppose a film like "Dr Strangelove" is misogynistic on the surface, but is actually a satire of the male inclination towards machismo and destruction... or something...
|
|
Raanraals
Lieutenant
Attorney General
Posts: 256
|
Post by Raanraals on Jun 29, 2005 8:48:33 GMT
Ah, but it's a perfect excuse with regard to Sin City. The point of this particular movie is ludicrously gratuitous cartoon violence and sexy femme fatales.
|
|
|
Post by Monpot on Jun 29, 2005 10:53:12 GMT
...and you wouldnt drink champers from a teacup We would in our house.
|
|
|
Post by coastal on Jun 29, 2005 17:43:36 GMT
Yeah, I agree. I'm not sure "that's the point" is capable of being an all-encompassing excuse... I’d watch yourself Smileadelic… I’ve just had an anonymous “smite” for daring to criticise it. (either that or it was poor Psyche punishing me for freaking her out with all that home village talk… ) I would overlook it... and try and judge the film on its merits. fullerov… it wasn’t something I was looking out for. I’m not the sort of person that starts creating when there are no main female characters in a film - I don’t generally notice (not being that gender aware) - I also don’t tend to object to sex/nudity in films. But this genuinely made me feel very, very uncomfortable. As I said before I thought the filming was stunning, but the content drowned out any pleasure I got from this. I’m not starting a petition to get the film band, merely stating how it made me feel.
|
|
|
Post by Monpot on Jun 29, 2005 17:59:06 GMT
I'll be seeing the 21:10 showing of this film tonight, and I'll give you all my thoughts on it's portrail of gender later tonight, or possibly tomorrow.
I'm sure you're all dead excited, I bet you can't wait.
|
|
|
Post by Monpot on Jun 30, 2005 1:04:54 GMT
Right then, thoughts on Sin City.
Firstly, not as great as everyone says it is. Seems like everyone I know have gushed about how "amazing" it is, I thought it was allright, enjoyable, good.
I preffer the graphic novels, there's something more striking about them. You can tell in the film that there's been teams of people working on the post-production stuff, whereas the books are a one-man labour of love type job, which makes it more endearing. I don't think the characters and stories are interesting enough to hold your attention through a 2 and a half hour film. I wish the various narratives had been more inter-woven, instead of broken up into Pulp Fiction style chapters. Actually I think the comparisons to Pulp Fiction are way off-mark, Pulp Fiction is 36 times better -Camenbert to the Craft Cheese Slices of Sin City.
There were bits where the computer generated imagery just didn't look tangible at all, one scene in particular where Marv was running across the roof-tops was just crappy looking.
I didn't think Bruce Willis was well cast, no way is he believable as a man approaching 70. I think I liked the Clive Owen story bestf, which is odd, cos I'm not usually a Clive Owen fan.
I think to brand it as misogynystic ignores the fact that it's depiction of masculinity is just as ridiculous as it's depiction of femininity, but I can understand where you're coming from Coastal. Also, the women in it are generally shown in a positive light. Yes they are overly-sexualised, but the prostitutes only work on their own terms, and are utterly self-reliant (appart from 2 characters I suppose), and more than capable of sorting themselves out.
Michael Clarke Duncan was the best thing in it. Genuinely powerfull looking, unsettling, and well acted. That bit where he was squeazing the girl's face just felt uncomfortable.
Anyway, getting slightly rambly now, so I'll call it a night. But long story short, I preffered Batman Begins.
|
|
|
Post by i_deserve... on Jun 30, 2005 11:40:07 GMT
It's two and a half hours?! I seriously didn't notice, I thought it could've been longer.
Bruce Willis is always shit.
|
|
|
Post by Monpot on Jun 30, 2005 12:26:12 GMT
Well it was 2 and a half hours with the trailers anyway.
|
|
|
Post by DangerousDoug on Jul 1, 2005 10:44:03 GMT
Bruce Willis is not always shit!!! What about 12 Monkeys?! 5th Element?! He was good in Sin City too...
|
|
|
Post by Fellalady on Jul 1, 2005 10:49:36 GMT
Yeah, I really liked him in Fifth Element and Pulp Fiction.
Actually, he has been growing on me lately. (Not literally, that would be hideous ........and more than a little impractical)
|
|
|
Post by i_deserve... on Jul 1, 2005 21:47:53 GMT
He's just got this general aura of poor mental health.
He has nothing on Tom Cruise though. I'm enjoying his gradual descent into madness quite a lot.
|
|
|
Post by coastal on Jul 1, 2005 23:06:55 GMT
I think to brand it as misogynystic ignores the fact that it's depiction of masculinity is just as ridiculous as it's depiction of femininity, but I can understand where you're coming from Coastal. …but it’s depiction of masculinity, though ridiculous, was more varied (the evil, the benign, the flawed but good at heart etc) and on the whole, as far as the main male characters are concerned, was, I felt, positive. The female characters are all portrayed as “vulnerable” which I didn't feel was particularly positive. Also, the women in it are generally shown in a positive light. Yes they are overly-sexualised, but the prostitutes only work on their own terms, and are utterly self-reliant (appart from 2 characters I suppose), and more than capable of sorting themselves out. The only “positive” female characters only think they can look after themselves, but arse it up big time and so need a big strong man to come to their rescue to sort it all out… and they are prostitutes so ultimately only there for men’s sexual gratification. Wasn’t really expecting a huge debate about this and was certainly not criticising anyone for liking the film, just merely giving the views of someone watching it from a different perspective. I think I’ll shut up now that I’ve completely spoiled a chunk of the storyline for anyone who has yet to see it.
|
|
|
Post by i_deserve... on Jul 1, 2005 23:42:07 GMT
The only “positive” female characters only think they can look after themselves, but arse it up big time and so need a big strong man to come to their rescue to sort it all out… SPOILER SPOILER They wouldn't have arsed it up without the general cuntiness of Benicio Del Toro and Clive Owen's inability to listen though.
|
|
|
Post by coastal on Jul 2, 2005 7:49:21 GMT
I know, I know My feeble brain found it too hard to explain why I disagreed with Monpot saying they were positive characters without making reference to the storyline. Hehe… we should have a DON’T READ IF YOU HAVEN’T YET SEEN THE FILM disclaimer at the start of this, just to cover ourselves.
|
|