One word -
Fan-fucking-tastic!!!
'Nuff said.
Is that really one word?
Your right, I missed something out.
Fan-fucking-tastic!!!!
(Damn those sneaky exclamation marks.)
Progs 6 and 7 of JUDGE DREDD - DROKK CITY - are some months yet from completion, but we thought boarders would enjoy having a gander at the remastered and recoloured artwork for thse issues, based on the works of Brian Bolland & Mike McMahon:
- TC
Link: Drokk City Prog 6 & 7
You liked it then?
A mate of mine has access to a pirate DVD of this, so I might see about giving it a watch.
I actually wrote a letter into The Guardian about this, so it should be in today's paper if they published it...
It is in the paper too!
Ha ha! I'll destroy you all with my poweful rays of celeb-based fame!
Since I refuse to buy the Guardian anymore, you going to post it up then? ;)
who no Guardian?
"I read with interest Steve Rose's entertaining interview with Frank Miller (May 27). However, one of the "comic book" cliches reared its ugly head: the reference to "garish, effects-driven superheroics". Sin City is not unique: for every Batman Begins there is an American Splendor or A History of Violence, successfully derived from comic-book material. Comics are neither innately childish nor obsessed with spandex-wearers - superheroes were a rarity in British comics anyway.
The UK industry was once amongst the largest in the world, but the readership has dropped from millions to thousands. One reason for this is the inability of the media to accept comics as a legitimate medium. Even Alan Moore, perhaps the best writer in the genre, is more lauded as a literary figure abroad than at home.
It seems a pity that the only way comics can gain critical credibility is when they are adapted for another medium."
Of course that's cut quite a bit from the original email (quite rightly), and a number of words have been changed too.
Courting the masses are we Virgo?
Yup, masses, blocks, chunks, totalities, assemblages, aggregations - any kind of accumulated multitude really.
Of course Sin-City is about as much like Spiderman et al as Spiderman is like Ghost World.
Did you catch the arsey "Comics hate women" article in the Times?
No mention of Jean Grey and Pheonix then.
"The comic-book geek, long regarded with paternalistic tolerance by mainstream culture, has been cruelly undone by his latest big-screen crush, Sin City. For despite pretences of sophistication ? a Cannes premiere, a media charm offensive, and even suggestions of High Art ? this computer-generated comic-book adaptation is so steeped in fetishistic adolescent imagery and casual misogyny that it overexposes the sinister appetites of its hardcore fanbase. In fact, such is the sublime level of sexual sadism on display here (paedophilia and slut-killing are big in Sin City), and so relentless is the leering softcore depiction of prostitutes, dancers and slatternly lowlifes, that the movie unwittingly reveals the frank and masturbatory hatred of women that is fundamental to any understanding of the comic-book geek.
For most people (those who have a life and don?t actually care about the great intergalactic struggle between Marvel and DC comics) contact with comic books is generally a secondary experience. It is something filtered through the enthusiasm of publicly anointed geek figureheads, such as the director Kevin Smith and the internet fanboy supremo Harry Knowles. What these men represent, with their giddy encyclopaedic knowledge of comic lore, their tired eyes, and soft, unthreatening, roly-poly demeanours, is the cosy comfortable face of a jaded industry that?s male-dominated and entirely hostile to women, from the initial moment of production (see Elektra, Satana, Black Canary and Oracle ? action ?heroines? with enormous breasts and great boots) right through to the final point of sale"
I admit they have a point about Sin City - I only ever read one book, which was full of these overly glamerous hookers, which is a personal peeve of mine (I can remember going past Kings Cross as a kid and seeing these poor fucking girls, perhaps only a few years older than myself, standing sivvering in the pouring rain). However, once again the article makes the mistake of assuming that everyone who likes comics likes AMERICAN superhero comics. Personally I couldn't give a toss about Marvel or DC, or the 60 year-old spandex wank-fantasies they sell.
There again, if I wanted good journalism I'd go to...well, I don't know where but it wouldn't be The Times (they've always been talking out of their arse when it comes to film reviews).
I think I might have seen a film that had glamorous, melon-breasted hookers in it once.
Therefore all people who watch films hate women.
Eisenstein, Welles, Ford, Scorcese, Coppola are just as bad as Michael Bay.
"see Elektra, Satana, Black Canary and Oracle ? action ?heroines? with enormous breasts and great boots"
...and, in the case of Oracle, a wheelchair and great Google skills...
"I can remember going past Kings Cross as a kid and seeing these poor fucking girls, perhaps only a few years older than myself, standing sivvering in the pouring rain"
You'd think it would be a relatively simple task to find an image of Rob Newman as "Jarvis" using Google image search, wouldn't you...?
Just as not everyone who buys the Telegraph is a fossilized Lord Kitchener, so not everyone who reads comics is a violent misgynist.
However, I suspect strongly that the reviewer has a point, particularly when it comes to fans of Sin City and Frank Miller. It's overstating (like a good journalist) to say that all or even the majority of this group will entertain fantasies about violence towards women, but I'm prepared to bet that you'd find a substantial minority much greater than you'd find in a random sample of the population.
"You'd think it would be a relatively simple task to find an image of Rob Newman as "Jarvis" using Google image search, wouldn't you...?"
I don't know what that means, but I'm sure it isn't complimentary.
I do know what you mean though Dud - there certainly is a large element within comics fandom that both objectifies and fetishises women. However, on the other hand this is hardly uncommon in the film or music industries, but no-one seems to be classifying all those who go to the cinema or listen to a cd as a fat, spotty onanaistic freak harbouring dangerously violent thoughts toward women.
I don't know what that means, but I'm sure it isn't complimentary.
One of Rob Newman's characters in Newman and Baddiel in Pieces from the early 90s. Jarvis was a creepy pederast who wore a smoking jacket, held a cigarette holder and had long black fingernails. He used to come out with lines like Noisybast quoted, followed by "Oh, Godddd!".
"...not wanting to come over all Mother Theresa. Oh Godddd! That would be *terrible*! Especially if she had a clean tea-towel on."
Ahh...Rob Newman's a very funny guy. I saw him at the Tricycle in Kilburn a few weeks ago and he was great there.
I couldn't really be offended by being likened to someone wearing a smoking jacket - I still remember when my father gave me my first smoking jacket when I was just a little boy...
If you were to look at fans of anything like that reviewer does comic fans,then you could say anybody who likes football is a violent racist who bet up strangers cause their team lost/won.
I like what i've read of the Sin City comics and yes they can be extreme in alot of ways.But I don't read or buy them because of how they treat women.
I've read alot of comics and they haven't made me became a women beating wanker like he puts forth.
I'm sorry if this post comes across as rambleling or gibberish,it just angers me the way anybody who reads comics is portrayed.
What we should do is wrap violence against women up in a dryed up social services style documentary where there is no connection with children brought up with it and then put them under a microscope in little musty rooms to keep the whole thing a private, domecile,stuffed in a small brown paper jiffy bag, handled by underpaid, underqualified,underinterested social workers who are just in it for the money,(but for the rare few) so it never sees the light of day, for it shall not darken our intellects ever that this gracious English speaking land is full of misogyny, domestic violence,pederasts and small time tyrants squeezing the love from any individual aching to know what love truly might be,as he or she ventures forth into a maturity tainted by the fact they struggle with the human condition that is found in all of us,by this very nature someone as equally capabale of such thoughts, could judge them.
I reckon.
Bravo on nearing George Orwells double think nightmare.
....And not put it into the form of art or puppetry of charactors that are pleasing to the and not the feckin groin, so as to follow with the heart and the mind.
I have heard it said that cartoonesque creations reach a deeper part of the emotions than just solid statistics and documents.Albeit a little romantacising , done well a purer incription of how we feel about certain situations is sustained in ilustration alongside documented data.
For years we have done this. Through depictions of gods to heroes back to gods and martyrs,the thing thats occured to me is the person is blaming the fans and not the writers.Or is it a give/take/give, circle?
Chicken''n' egg hinduism?
Purely sporting on comicbook people is a big mistake and there is no leg (IMO)for this person to stand on.Where is their back up evidence? The fact we dont use asthetically pleasing modes of dress and hygiene. We use oils instead of Charlie/stud/Hugo boss?Dont get me stared on the injustices involved with all that palava.
Yeah.I like to trewat myself once in a while and smell the best anybody has ever smell.But I do dogging in the car park because of it.In the "real world" the Times correspondent is coming from is a world where women love "cock".And they,re gonna proove it.
Asthetically pleasing Backstreet boys and hordes of hero worshipping thirteen year olds,thrusting thier way to the front of the queue to be impregnated by these gallant muscular, talentless(btw)pop behemoths.
This is not their excuse for peodaphilia tho. Its comicbook readers,right?
I mean we joke about the funbags an that but its in our work its an entertainment.One of the purewst form of enterainment plausable.No human being is being exploited and jut because Hollywood wants to make a dirtload of cash on it,I'll be watching same as any other aspiring movie goer.Tar me with that too.
More to add on this Ill promise you.
er..and correct.
skullcrushing headache !
Just back from seeing it. It's shallow as a puddle, but beautiful in many places - imagery like I've never seen.
Probably falling into his small categories somewhere, I'd love to set Marv on that "journalist".
Geek... Kevin Smith... male-orientated... mysogynist... fanboy... masturbatory hatred
I mean, was that written by some program that shoves together all the tired cliches that journos get out whenever they want to turn a review a comic-based film into some tirade against the people that read comics?
I completely agree with the clam, this guy is despicable. Mind you, aren't all journalists are amphetamine addicted, chain smoking child-molesters, hanging around school playgrounds with their sick slimy voyeuristic papparazzi counterparts.
There, that's the balance redressed somewhat. Apologies to the journos who post here, you're good guys, it's not true what they're saying in the chatroom.
I havn't read any thing of sin city and i barely know frank miller, can any one explain the story?
Hmm, explain the story eh? Well, probably best to say it's set in a city with no end of nasty characters with their own stories. All done in a noir style with a distinctly 'adult' flavour. Extremely violent, snappy dialogue and usual noir narration by the protagonist at the time. Cops, killers, hookers and worse. That's about all you can say without telling the actual story.
Umm, hope the DH plug isn't out of order here.
Link: Stuff here
Anyone know - the Sin City story "Babe Wore Red" reprinted in Megazines 42-44 (volume 3) - was that the first Sin City story? Is is a good Sin City story?
I didn't really get into it when I read it, wondered if I should give it another go before seeing the film, or not to bother.
I was thinking the same thing,Oddboy.
Well the bit about reading the comix.
Thanks lobster, i had trouble with my signing in but its sorted now.
I think A Babe To Kill For was the first of the comics Odders, although I may be wrong. It's first in a list on the DH site anyway.
AFAIR (eh?) The Meg reprinted stuff wasn't anywhere near as good as The Hard Goodbye (as it's now called), the story with Marv, the middle of the film one. That's the only one I've read. Was very very impressed by the film though. The film seems to make it more gruesome but less dark, if that makes sense. You can read the book and it feels pretty bleak, but the "coolness" of the film lightens things a bit. Not by much mind :o)
The Hard goodbye was the original story, followed by a couple of six pagers, then it was A dame to kill for (The first story to feature Dwight- think it's going to be the sequel) and after that it was that Yellow B@stard, then family values.
Think that covers the timeline of the film, but that is from memory.
Bolt-01: got them all.
I saw that this afternoon, with just me and the Wife in the cinema, it was great.
I really enjoyed it, and so did my wife... and she's a woman!
I really am tired with all the bullshit comic book mysoginist lazy lazy tired writing these fucking hacks churn out everytime a comic book movie is released.
It was a fun movie, darkly funny, and clearly a pastiche of a genre where woman are exploited. I reckon that if it had been written by a profesional self serving wanker like Will Self or Germaine Greer, the same people who are slagging it off would be congratulating themselves in seeing how clever the whole thing is.
You've never actually read a Will Self book, have you?
Thank you Art Im not definitivly ready to sleuce Will Self as his name account for egotistical journolism.
Therefore not a selfserving prat.
I could be wrong though as he does play close to the bone,Rac?
#ready to sleuce Will Self as his name may account for egotistical journalism.
No I haven't. I picked his name, because in mid-rant, his was the only one of the Newsnight Review brigade that popped into my mind.
just wondering, is it worth me (who hasn't read sin city) buying the comic before seeing the film?
Hmm, not if you don't want to spoil the story I'd say. I'd only read "the middle of the film" but ages ago, so I was being reminded of bits all the time. If you read it just before I imagine it'll spoil it a bit cos you'll know exactly what's going to happen, depending which one you read.
cheers lobs
Well that was a waste of ?30 (2 adult tickets, popcorn, plus baby sitting) and a rare night out.
One of my wife's work collegues told her that she should go and see Sin City, so we did, and she hated it. She doesn't like ultra-violence and I'm not really sure what would make someone think that the film was a good one to recommend to a woman.
I thought it was okay, but I would have rather have gone to see Revenge of the Sith, War of the Worlds or Batman Begins. Comparing it with films I have seen this year, I liked it better than the Magic Roundabout not as much as Hitchhiker or The Incredibles. My enjoyment might have been a bit more if I hadn't been sitting next to someone who was cold and bored, but it certainly didn't make me want to read any of the graphic novels, or see if I'd like The Babe Wore Red better on a second reading.
Does the woman or the man in the first secene reappear later to shed light on either of their motives? I think he's in the last scene but can't remember what he did or said in it.
Wake
I've found pretty much all the plot summary I wanted on Wikipedia
Cheers,
Wake
Link: Sin City plots and stuff
I just got back from seeing it tonight with my girlfriend. We both really enjoyed it. The girl I share my office with loved it too.
I won't attempt any commentary or analysis, as it is getting late.
I liked it better than the Magic Roundabout
That's the best put-down I've read in years. Mind if I nick it?
Watched this last night.
Very very good and beautiful visuals.Easily watchable again just for that alone.
I saw it for the first time last night
I loved it- beautiful to look at
I completely give up. My judgement is clearly out of alignment.
Watched it again with the g/f last night. I now have independent support in my conviction that it is, in fact, a cocking terrible piece of film-making.
Too many complaints to list, but they all essentially sprout from the following general note:
Some things (be they visual quirks, storytelling techniques, or - most especially - dialogue styles) work very very nicely in comicbook form... but stick out like a big crude ugly poorly-crafted unpolished 40-ft ingrown turd when someone gets too religious about being "faithful" in the movie adaptation.
...And that's without even getting into the whole macho wank-fantasy woman-hating side-debate.
"...And that's without even getting into the whole macho wank-fantasy woman-hating side-debate."
you say that like its a a bad thing?
'...And that's without even getting into the whole macho wank-fantasy woman-hating side-debate.'
i said that to my better half jo, si - but she made the point that the male characters fit just as easily into silly stereo types too... i found that hard to argue with to be honest.
joking aside- the sexual stereotypes are just as obvious in the comic
Yeah, valid points. And I know, it's just the same as in the comic... Aaand I wouldn't ever get *too* high and mighty about the gender issue because I have read, and did enjoy, the Sin City GNs.
But there's nothing more awkward than sitting next to your girlfriend - who you persuaded to see this movie - watching a supposedly Proactive, Strong, Tough Female Character respond to a bloke hitting her by going all doe-eyed and compliant. I found myself apologising on Frank Miller's behalf.
But, ignoring all that, it's the Suck that got to me far more than anything too Un-PC.
A much more educated, patient and understanding person once taught me the word 'misanthropy', to use when something has across-the-board dumb male and female characters instead of just dumb broads. In Sin City, Marv is a shitty excuse for a human being, but few people are going out of their way to decry Sin City as being anti-man in its perpetuation of knuckle-dragging illiteracy as a desirable male ideal.
On the other hand, if you're seriously dissecting Sin City in the belief that one instance of cinema can somehow define all comic book readers or cinemagoers like they were a quantifiable race - rather than a group with a shared pastime - you need your bloody head examined.
I thought it was boring. Whilst I enjoyed the cinematography at first, after a while the novelty wore off, especially in the action scenes.
It has to be said there were a ot of nice bottoms on display though
Havn't seen this in ages and think I'll treat myself to the tin box DVD.
I really enjoyed it but I wouldn't drag the girlfriend (if I had one) to see it.
Not really a chick flick, is it?
the film is perfect as Mickey Rourke as Marv was best thing of the film!
Oh dear.Unfortunatly the link for the times review didnt work.Anyway pretty much got the idea of what it was saying.
Its one of the reasons that i dont buy broadsheets or take the blindest bit of notice of anything that they review or rather i do as they are a constant source of entertainment.
Its funny how they generalise so much about comic book readers but they probably get paid by the word and they have to write something .In this case they get all high and mighty about the films portrayal of women.
I think its a case of someone being offended on someone elses behalf.In this case a man getting offended on behalf of women.
I have to admit to not knowing what '...And that's without even getting into the whole macho wank-fantasy woman-hating side-debate.' is all about.
I am not that interested in a newspaper Hack,Journo,critic,reviewer Media "Whore" has to say and perhaps they know more about Mysogony than i do.thats the impression i get anyway.
Anyway i enjoyed the film ,I thought the prostitutes looked good and they didnt come across as particularly stupid.The whole women hating supposed agenda of the film went straight over my head.
And i dont dislike women.At least no more than i dislike the male species.
My guess is the reviewer enjoyed it as well ,felt guilty about it,so went on the attack himself.I am always a bit suspicous of those who get over offended on someone elses behalf.
I enjoyed it and i am not apologising for it either.
Mickey Rourke as Marv was best thing of the film
Mickey Rourke was brilliant.
"Mickey Rourke was brilliant."
I think so too.
Do these journo /hack /critics speak for themselves or are they part of some sort of moral majority ?
I am not sure myself.I dont even know to what extent they reflect their readership anyway.
We are all protistutes anyway especially the Times reviewer who whores himself to the Rupert Murdoch media empire.
The review mentions :
Elektra, Satana, Black Canary and Oracle .
I don't know much about Satana, but big plumpies aside, those are all strong women aren't they? I know Elektra is. In a comic book I read some while back she actually beat Wolverine in a fight... and bear that's without any super powers!
Comics do exploit women to the extent that many are depicted curvy bodies, but that's hardly hatred of women is it? Men are depicted with huge rippling muscles too. Some might argue women might like that... (depending on the womens taste of course...
As for Sin City, I liked the film. A comic book movie in the actual comic book style which actually works is a rare thing. As for the Sin City portrayal of women, I've only read one Sin City graphic novel, and the women in that were dealt with sympathetically. I forget the name, but the entire focus of the story was that very point.
I think that pretty much everything in Sin City is a cliche (apart from the groundbreaking visual style)- an intentional homage to noir films and pulp detective novels; the protagonists monologue, the language, the gender stereotypes of macho man and damsel in distress (tough girls all secretly want to sleep with the macho guy, a slap in the face has the weak at the knees), the rainy city, trenchcoats...even the cars.
It's like taking all these things and making something new , yet very familiar out of them.
And they all had lovely bottoms, of course
Watched this again and still don't see why it's seen as sexist. As mentioned before the guys are shown as being just as shallow and is there really anything sexist about portraying women as being uniformly sexy as hell? Surely that's a compliment.
Actually that last post might have been sexist, I just don't know anymore.
Personally, I loved the film and can't wait for a sequal.
I've just bought the recut and extended edition in a nice tin box from HMV.co.uk for £6.99.
Link: Recut and Extended for £6.99
I completely give up. My judgement is clearly out of alignment.
Not completely. I absolutely loathed Sin City. Visually arresting for about ten minutes and completely devoid of any content beyond a shrivelled little man's wank fantasies.
I was discussing this film with a mate of mine last night over a few Sambuccas.
We concluded that it's nicely noirish in a stylistic, visual sense, but the MTV edit pacing is all off.
I still like it though...
"I really enjoyed it but I wouldn't drag the girlfriend (if I had one) to see it."
I thought it was stunning, and so did my gf and her sister when we all went to see it. Off the top of my head I can think of at least three women from work who've seen it and liked it too.
Just went through to the bathroom to ask my gf what her favourite bit was (I was greeted by a bum sticking up through the bubbles, which was nice). She plumped for a scene with Marv, I think at the beginning of the Marv sequence, when he's sat on the bed, thinking about and explaining what had happened with the girl and why he was going to get the bastard who did it.
She also liked the violence, particularly the dogs eating Elijah Wood's arms and legs off.
It never crossed her mind that it was sexist.
Regards
Robin
How many Mysogonists amongst those here who enjoyed this film ?
My guess is none including myself.
So much for a stereotype of comic book readers.some so much so that the supposed sexist portrayal of Women went over their heads !!
Amazing that really.
Its like you have to point out to these Critic/Newsnight Review types that its just a film and not meant to be taken too seriously or literally or over analysed.Rather like the way you have to point out ot some poor unfortunate folk that Eastenders is not real. "Its not real , Its fictional !!! they are just actors !!
Oh for gods sake.
I may not have been paying full attention to the film as i was scribbling as well but i dont remember seeing a Pimp in the film.Was a Pimp in the film? Did the girls have a Pimp?
If not then how is it that the girls in the film were portrayed in a sexist fashion in the film ?
It seemed to me that they were very strong women who had made the decision to be prostitutes themselves and when things got difficult were strong enough to take matters into their own hands with the help of Clive Owen of course .
Does the very fact that a women sells herself for a price make her an oppressed poor little woman ?
Sometimes yes sometimes no but the reviewer chooses to have a polarised view on this rather like a kneejerk reaction to what he is viewing.I despair for these type of persons lack of intelligence.Truly despair.
Carry on reviewing guys ! Its good entertainment !!!
What annoys me is the way that they think they are some sort of arbiters of what is and what is not acceptable for a 40 year old like myself to watch at home for fear that i am going to not get any sleep after watching it due to an all night Wank Fest.
I mean what a presumptious reactionary little shit that reviewer is by being that presumptous not to mention the gross generalisations contained within his dribblings.
Fuck Off and die.
Anyway as far as the girls go Who wouldnt ?
If people like this want to campaign on behalf of womens rights which is a very worthy cause then there are plenty of areas or avenues in which they can pursue a course of action instead of *using* Sexism as ammunition to veil his attack on comic book readers.
He could for a start campaign for the laws to change on how the Police and Courts handle cases of domestic violence and abuse of Women and thats just for starters.There are lots of other examples to choose from.
Sanctimonious do gooders.Pathetic.
As soon as you deconstruct their flimsy excuse for making a point or an arguement it falls to pieces rather like their intellect or pseudo - intellect to be more precise.
I always think that Newspapers should concentrate on News but they like to be all things to all people.
Film reviews are best left to those who understand the medium rather like Comics are.
I find it a bit worrying that the reviewers sit there getting in a tiz like some offspring of Mary Whitehouse.
I haven't seen it since I saw it at the cinema, and although I thought it looked great, it didn't particularly grab me throughout.
Leaving aside the sexism thing, I'm just not sure how well a faithful conversion of such stylised source material works when converted to live action.
The same applies to what I've seen of Speed Racer, and 300 - it's that weird gap where I could be more involved if it was just animated rather than some halfway house between animation and live action.
- Steve
I think its all about the "willing suspension of disbelief"
My girlfriend loves it but as we were watching it she commented how it's a credit to good actors, like Mickey Rourke, that they can deliver these hammy lines and still make it work.
It is very corny but, so what? It's a bit of fun, nothing more
Yeah. The main difference between the cheese in this film and others is that the cheese seemed intentional. If that makes sense...
Actually, "wank-fantasy" is kind of the point of comics I would have thought, if one wants realism there's not much point in having it drawn - stick to straight fiction and films. Creating a (sometimes fetishistic) fantasy world are what comics do best. It's when, as is the case with Sin City, they are converted into film, a genre not very good at conveying a fantasy world (because it's all real people and real physics) that you realise quite how juvenile it is. That's because it's not really meant to be refering to our reality, and is more harmless on the page.
Yeah, I know - I just find it a lot tougher to do that with something that is a live-action comic book, than something that is fully animated.
I think it's just down to the live action being out of place when comic book conventions are used.
Maybe it's just me.
- Steve
I would say that you have to be in the right frame of mind to watch this film. I was knackered on Sunday and it didn't grab my attention because it was so slight.
I would say that you have to be in the right frame of mind to watch this film. I was knackered on Sunday and it didn't grab my attention because it was so slight.
This one really left me cold, although I still enjoyed it. Part of it was that some dialogue really didn't work on film. Or perhaps after reading it, it didn't sound right?
The scene with Dwight and Jack in the car was soooo much funnier in the comic.
Also, the scenes tacked on the the beginning and end were pretty obviously there because they'd have a hard time ending the film with any of the book endings - it's one of those writing styles that doesn't adapt well to a mainstream action movie.
Are those scenes pretending to be anything other than bookends, though? I thought they framed it rather neatly.
That said, the film as a whole was definitely weaker on second viewing.