tell me about the spirit

Started by bearded, January 08, 2009, 03:49:18 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

bearded

has anyone seen it?  is it worth paying to go see?

danhagen

It is the first movie I have walked out on in 12 years. And I never walk out on super hero movies -- until now.
Veritas et probitas super omnia.

Mr. Hamrick

While I didn't walk out of it, I will say that I regret spending the money to go see it. 

Frank Miller is a great comic writer but he has no business directing a movie.

thanoson

Long live Slaanesh, Prince of Pain!!!

danhagen

The lead actor is a properly period charmer, the film is beautifully mounted and the whole enterprise is pointless and boring.
It's the Batman TV show meets Pulp Fiction. Watching camp material that tries vainly to make the emotional connection with its audience that it has already irrevocably severed is like watching a stand-up comic bomb while bathed in flop sweat.
The romantic comedy interplay with the Spirit's many beautiful admirers was about the only thing that worked, and then for just a couple of minutes.
Oscar Wilde was one of the few artists who could make camp work. These people are not among those few.
Veritas et probitas super omnia.

Figure Fan

Quote from: danhagen on January 08, 2009, 11:53:29 PM
The lead actor is a properly period charmer, the film is beautifully mounted and the whole enterprise is pointless and boring.
It's the Batman TV show meets Pulp Fiction. Watching camp material that tries vainly to make the emotional connection with its audience that it has already irrevocably severed is like watching a stand-up comic bomb while bathed in flop sweat.
The romantic comedy interplay with the Spirit's many beautiful admirers was about the only thing that worked, and then for just a couple of minutes.
Oscar Wilde was one of the few artists who could make camp work. These people are not among those few.

LMAO

Gremlin

I enjoyed it in the same way I enjoyed Miller's Sin City or the Dark Knight Strikes Back. The Spirit is interesting insofar as it is so self-consciously a pastiche of various noir, pulp and comic elements, pointing out how you can't really tell a new story anymore. So yes, it's crappy, but I think it was supposed to be crappy. Cinematography's interesting, at least.

Rentable.

GogglesPizanno

I knew it was going to be bad, and it was.
I totally agree that this whole Frank Miller as director thing has me scratching my head a bit.

However my low expectations probably helped me out, in that I was bizarrely enthralled watching what the next weird turn of Sam Jackson and Scarlett Johansen was gonna be. The rest of the movie was pretty blah, but there was something about the two of them and their interplay together that reminded me of like an old vaudeville act. You could tell the two of them were just relishing the fun of being weird and bizarre.

Its worth catching it on cable just for the "Nazi" scene... as it just kinda leaves you staring going... Huh?

TheMarvell

I'm pretty sure nobody really sets out to make a crappy movie on purpose, especially with the budget this movie was given.

I haven't seen the movie myself, but I'll take everyones word that it sucks.

deano_ue

#9
i didn't enjoy it, i didn't hate it. it was just meh.

i really think milliar can't realise that his style doesn't works for every thing. the more i think about the film the more i pick holes in it

Midnight

It was terrible. Absolutely terrible. I walked out during the walk and talk scene with The Spirit and Commissioner Dolan. This is the sort of film that people will rent and laugh derisively at for the next decade.

The sad thing is, the production design is fantastic, the film oozes style and panache and the cinematography was very solid, if not spectacular. Unfortunately, it resulted in a camera pointed at some very pretty people saying a whole lot of nothing.

Gremlin

Quote from: TheMarvell on January 10, 2009, 06:24:43 PM
I'm pretty sure nobody really sets out to make a crappy movie on purpose, especially with the budget this movie was given.

Miller can do fantastic work, and he has. I don't think he suddenly decided to get really crappy at Dark Knight Strikes Back. If you look at his work on Hard Boiled, Sin City and the like, you see a shift to a more satirical tone. By DKSB, his writing became pure irony, and he's never turned back, no matter which medium he's worked in.

zuludelta

Quote from: Gremlin on January 12, 2009, 02:47:09 AMMiller can do fantastic work, and he has. I don't think he suddenly decided to get really crappy at Dark Knight Strikes Back. If you look at his work on Hard Boiled, Sin City and the like, you see a shift to a more satirical tone. By DKSB, his writing became pure irony, and he's never turned back, no matter which medium he's worked in.

I agree that Miller's tone in writing has shifted mainly towards irony and satire in recent years (the perfect example being his short vignette in Dark Horse Comics' Happy Endings collection... Miller basically recreates the last 15 years or so of his work in 6 pages), although much of his material has always had a sardonic bent to it. But for irony to work the way the author intends it to, the audience must be "in on the joke." In the case of Miller's writing in DKSB and ASB&R, I don't think he's made it clear enough what that joke is, and oftentimes, comes off as self-indulgently parodying his earlier material.
Art is the expression of truth without violence.

Gremlin

Quote from: zuludelta on January 12, 2009, 02:58:44 AM
Quote from: Gremlin on January 12, 2009, 02:47:09 AMMiller can do fantastic work, and he has. I don't think he suddenly decided to get really crappy at Dark Knight Strikes Back. If you look at his work on Hard Boiled, Sin City and the like, you see a shift to a more satirical tone. By DKSB, his writing became pure irony, and he's never turned back, no matter which medium he's worked in.

I agree that Miller's tone in writing has shifted mainly towards irony and satire in recent years (the perfect example being his short vignette in Dark Horse Comics' Happy Endings collection... Miller basically recreates the last 15 years or so of his work in 6 pages), although much of his material has always had a sardonic bent to it. But for irony to work the way the author intends it to, the audience must be "in on the joke." In the case of Miller's writing in DKSB and ASB&R, I don't think he's made it clear enough what that joke is, and oftentimes, comes off as self-indulgently parodying his earlier material.

Hang on a sec. "For irony to work the way the author intends it to..."  Who's to say that's what Miller wants besides the man himself? Furthermore, why must the author intend that specifically? Just because the joke is subtle doesn't mean it's nonexistant. Perhaps the irony is more than the work itself, but the reactions of those not "in on it." Besides, what's so bad about self-indulgent parody? Maybe that's the point--comics (and here, films) are about wish fulfillment and playing your fantasies, after all; what Miller uses to accomplish that is self-parody. It's wish fulfillment written for the author, not the audience.

GogglesPizanno

QuoteMaybe that's the point--comics (and here, films) are about wish fulfillment and playing your fantasies, after all; what Miller uses to accomplish that is self-parody. It's wish fulfillment written for the author, not the audience.

I wish someone would throw away $80 million dollars and let me do some wish fulfillment....

Gremlin

Quote from: GogglesPizanno on January 12, 2009, 03:27:19 AM
QuoteMaybe that's the point--comics (and here, films) are about wish fulfillment and playing your fantasies, after all; what Miller uses to accomplish that is self-parody. It's wish fulfillment written for the author, not the audience.

I wish someone would throw away $80 million dollars and let me do some wish fulfillment....


Write some awesome comics that revolutionize the industry and convince [read: lie to] studio execs you can make big money.

zuludelta

#16
Quote from: Gremlin on January 12, 2009, 03:08:40 AMHang on a sec. "For irony to work the way the author intends it to..."  Who's to say that's what Miller wants besides the man himself?

Well, I was only going off of your suggestion that Sin City and Hard-Boiled are works of satire. Satire, strictly defined, implies that the author is using the ofttimes humourous devices of parody, irony, and other tools of wit to show his/her disapproval of a certain subject or topic. One cannot ascribe satiric nature to a work without an assumption regarding the author's intent. Who's to say what Miller wants? Why, everybody who reads his material under the impression that it is a work of satire, it's their prerogative. Unlike traditional stories, a satirical narrative requires a great deal of active participation from the reader to work, and that interaction takes the form of the reader reading between the lines to guess at the the true subject of attack.

In the cases of DKSB and ASB&R, if they are indeed meant to be satirical works as you've alluded to (and as I mentioned, I'm inclined to agree with you that they seem to be written in that vein), I don't find a clear target for the humour besides Miller himself (and to some extent, the greater world of superhero comics in general). If that's his intent, all well and good, mission accomplished (and at least in the case of ASB&R, I think that very well may be the case). But an alternative reading of those works is that they're failed attempts at satire in that they haven't made it clear what it is exactly that they're attacking, so the focus then shifts to the author himself. In any event, I find myself laughing at Miller with those two books, instead of laughing with him. Of course, I could very well be missing the bigger picture, and maybe it is Miller's intent all along to give us all a laugh at his expense.     

Don't get me wrong... I like a large segment of Miller's work, but I've always felt that he's better when he's writing "straight" stories (i.e., his early Daredevil work, Batman Year One, Ronin, Big Guy and Rusty the Boy Robot) than when he's trying to do the full-on satire thing (i.e., the Martha Washington books, Hard-Boiled --- which I liked when I was younger but hasn't really aged well --- DKSB, ASB&R).

Quote from: Gremlin on January 12, 2009, 03:08:40 AMBesides, what's so bad about self-indulgent parody?

Nothing at all. I love satire and parody. The Boys is the only monthly title I buy, and you'd be hard-pressed to find anything more self-indulgent and sardonic than that on the stands these days. But it's also one of the most divisive titles out there. People who "get it" or think they "get it" enjoy it a lot (it doesn't really matter if their assumptions about the work's intent are genuinely in tune with the author's as long as they enjoy the heck out of the title), and people who don't "get it" find it to be very offensive claptrap. Miller's recent works inspire the same type of reaction, and I just happen to be on the side that hasn't enjoyed much of his recent output. 
Art is the expression of truth without violence.