I don't know how people can't like this movie, I mean, it's a parody, you guys do understand that right? It's not meant to be 'good' just stylish with some cool visuals, hot women, funny one-liners and slapstick comedy. The only way I can see so many people not liking this is if they somehow thought 'frank miller! must be deep, shutting down amusement centers!' it's not particularly high energy, is it that you need a lot of loud people to make you laugh? dead-pan ..look it up...anyhoo did anyone else think the octopus's costume in his first scene looked suspiciously like alucard from the anime hellsing? what with the hat and the coat and the guns...no? I think there's something to it.
edit:: i mean san serif is a font for jebbus sake!
I've seen at least two posts on here that stated they "get it" yet mention how wooden the acting was. No... you didn't get it. Might as well say Naked Gun sucked because it too had bad acting.
As a Noir film with pleasing visuals, its a good movie. The fact that it was shot in 50 days really shows in places and some scenes actually look like they are animated storyboards, but others make up for them.
As a Frank Miller version of the Spirit universe, its great. More of Sin city? yeah I am happy to watch that. Monotone and boobs, worth the fiver I paid for the DVD.
But as a Spirit movie its not great. Unfortunatly a lot of us read the Spirit and that it missed the mark kind of gets in the way of whats good about the film.
I mean, it's better than the Nolan batman *beep* (who tried to compare them?) but it falls flat on being Will Eisners themes and story. Basically the comedy and lighter aspects feel clunky and tacked on, they just don't help the film.
Miller would have been better served leaving the comedy out entuirely and making a hard boiled movie based on his mentors IP. Just make it without the quirky aspects of the Spirit and say, hey this is the Spirit doen by Frank Miller in the much loved Frank Miller way. Will Eisner was my hero but I'm a different guy. 85% of the movie was heading that way and it felt like he occionally rememebred the quirky side of the character at shoehorned it in.
Either that or get a writer in who can do comedy. Hell, just flat out steal a bunch of scenes from the original cmics and film them as written - just like Rodriguez did with Sin City. That would be completely acceptable.
Frank Miller is a fantasic writer within his own genre, not being able to write comedy like Eisner doesn't change that.
I would bet money that every one of you who argues "This isn't Eisner's The Spirit" has called a Star Trek fan who doesn't like Abrams' obnoxious reboot "Grandpa"....
"Re-imaginings" are fine as long it's not your favorite that's being changed.
Did it ever occur to anyone that the Eisner comics as written were not filmable - financially or from the aspect of "political correctness"? Describe The Spirit's sidekick to me again?
People bitch that before it was chemicals on his grave and in this Miller made it Octopus' formula.... Well, yeah because there needs to be a story arc. If he'd left it the other way you'd be bitching "it's just a bunch of scenes strung together".
The REAL problem I think is that people have a visceral reaction to anything humorous in a superhero movie because of Adam West's "Batman" and the Joel Schumacher films. You're all scared crapless that if you find something funny in any comic book film then Hollywood will go off the deep end again (because they have your living rooms bugged and will know?).
That's why between both of Nolan's films you can count the moments of comic relief on one hand.
Relax, dammit!
There won't be another show like West's "Batman" because that humor was anti-establishment and that's not allowed anymore. And they've obviously learned their lesson about armor with nipples.
I love this film. I think it's hilarious. "C'mon...toilets are always funny!"
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Last night, I was lying back looking at the stars and I thought...where the *beep* is my ceiling???
Just saw the movie and my response to it was "eh, kinda boring and almost good."
1. Saying that someone who doesn't like a particular film "just didn't get it" is simplistic and insulting. If there is something to "get" from a movie and it didn't deliver that to the general audience, then it may not be that we are all unintelligent, not hip, or out of touch. Maybe, just maybe, the writer/director didn't connect to their audience well enough through the story. I got that the movie was supposed to be hyperbolic and tongue-in-cheek. It still was not funny to me.
2. I don't even remember what Sin City was about, so my not really liking this movie isn't because I thought I was watching Sin City. I can read; I knew I was watching a movie called "The Spirit."
There were parts that I found somewhat funny and entertaining. I did like the incorporation of Greek mythology (even referring to Hercules by his Greek name Heracles), Eva Mendes' arse was "banging", and if gay marriage was legal in the US I would totally become Mr. Eric Balfour. At times though the dialogue seemed forced and too comic-booky. Granted it is a comic book adaptation, but there were live actors, and having a pretty good cast of accomplished actors could've made even a comic book movie a little more substantive. Also, again I realize that it was supposed to be tongue-in-cheek, but it bothered me how the main character fell in love with "every woman he met." If he is going to be a Casanova-type character, that's fine, but why did the director force us to develop sympathy for his doctor girlfriend who he constantly treated like a throw rug? At first I felt sorry for her, but then I just dismissed her because she willingly put up with him saying "you're the only one for me" and not five seconds later start putting the moves on the next woman. I give this movie a 3 or 4 out of 10, and would catagorize it as a movie to watch on a Sunday afternoon when nothing else is on and your still a little hung over from teh previous night. If you thought the movie was wonderful, then good you got something wonderful out of it.
If you don't believe in gay marriage then don't get gay married.
A good film requires a good story. That goes with comedy/parody/satire as well as with any other genre. Here, with all Miller/Eisner debate put aside, you don't really have a good story.
It is possible to understand AND dislike a movie, much as people like to believe they're special, brilliant and gifted for successfully grasping the conceits of a Hollywood movie.