RoR: Forum

Is a superficial change enough to create the "gen x" syndrome where the older generation accuses the younger of [whatever lack of values]?

I would say that tolerance levels have changed in so far that now graphic violence and gore has entered mainstream cinema.

It was always around, but not generally appealing to a large audience.

Now Tarintino and Rodriguez are growing up and making big budget versions of the B movies they watched in their youths.

I think values portrayed in many films today have not changed since film first began - it's just the more graphic psychological detail that has.

(Edited by Marcus Bachler on 6/13, 2:55pm)

Post 21

Monday, June 13, 2005 - 3:10pm

I agree Miller does have a strong Objectivist streak, and is supposed to have had quite a lot of influence on this movie. That's why I'll be so surprised if it is just mindless violence with no underlying message.

Both Rodriguez and to a lesser extent Tarantino are supposedly influenced by one of my favourite directors, Sergio Leone. Granted with Tarantino one has to separate the valuable (certain elements of Kill Bill) from the trash (pretty much everything else ;-)), but I can't help but wonder if one has to "get" what the directors are trying to do in this style of filmmaking in order to grasp the values.

Leone's spaghetti westerns, when they first came out, were perceived as being quite shocking in their violence and certain stylistic elements (inverting many of the conventions of "Hollywood" westerns made prior to then). Certain of his movies were even hacked to pieces by the studios because the executives didn't "get" what Leone was doing. And by the standards of the time, the violence was much more extreme and stylised than what people were used to, and some of Leone's techniques were very radical (the use of flashbacks, the way the musical score was tied to events on screen).

Today, all six of the movies he directed are regarded as cinematic works of art, and I am pretty sure I can make a case that five of them have value from an Objectivist perspective. (I leave out the sixth only because I'm not currently as familiar with it as with the other five.)

And here we all are levelling the exact same bunch of criticisms at the "Leones" of today. Go figure.

(Edited by Matthew Humphreys on 6/13, 3:38pm)

Post 22

Monday, June 13, 2005 - 6:06pm

I am a Frank Miller fan and I do like the Sin City comic books. And this was probably the most true-to-the-comic movie adaptation I have ever seen. However...

I didn't like the movie. What worked in the comic didn't work on screen for me. I went expecting to enjoy the movie but was just bored by it.

Note that I said I like, not love, the Sin City comics. For really excellent Frank Miller work, pass the Sin City movie and comic and proceed directly to Batman: Year One. Now that is an excellent comic book. And, no, Batman Begins is not based on it.

I'm 52.

(Edited by Bob Palin on 6/13, 7:34pm)

Post 23

Monday, June 13, 2005 - 6:08pm

Bob,

You outlier.

Monday, June 13, 2005 - 7:32pm

I also went see *Sin City* (31), which I was looking
forward to seeing for its stylistic innovations...I wasn't familiar with Frank Miller's graphic-novel (which the movie was based upon), had read previously about his "objectivist" leanings, but hadn't yet read any reviews, so I wasn't really prepared for its content.

Yes, the movie is very bleak and bloody, but in much the same way that Hamlet, Macbeth, or King Lear are. The film's universe is pretty much rotten, all the people are pretty much rotten, and pretty much everyone dies horrifically. But, in the end, like is generally true with Shakespeare, *something* of rational hope remains amidst the blood-soaked floor.

The movie and its fictional malevolent universe, is grossly indulgent in comic-book style graphic violence, but is none-the-less highly and *interestingly* stylized. As a full concept it was entertaining and interesting both stylistically and thematically, but the surest way to describe it remains: "bloody and bleak".

I found myself fascinated by the film's overall attempt to create a stylized universe (bleak as it may be) in the same way that *Sky Captain* did...

Technically, in terms of its own mission, (to make a living comic-book), I think the movie is an outstanding success, and it has achieved THAT stylistic goal better than any other film to date. From the CG sets, to the way the characters are acted, the movie is consistent to the core (and I don't mean in its bleakness, even tho...)

It has a dark integrity, as a piece of art, that is worthy of some admiration.

I actually found myself less bothered by *Sin City* (as a whole), than I was at the childish brutality of Kill Bill (particularly part 1). That movie gave me a headache, and I did not enjoy it at all. It seemed to me to be an extended temper tantrum, tied in with adult fetish fantasies of pure violence. Gross stuff, in my book.

There was one moment in *Sin City* that I did find completely offensive...and actual squirmed a bit in my seat. Ironically, it wasn't any of the stylized gore, but the "Valkyrie" speech/slaughter scene which seemed to me to be the kind of dangerous glorification of violence for the sake of violence that feeds some of the nastier trends and ideologies of our own benevolent universe.

RCR

Post 25

Monday, June 13, 2005 - 7:33pm

Sarah,

ROFL. I had to look up the word outlier. It describes me perfectly. Thank you for the laugh and for increasing my vocabulary.

Post 26

Monday, June 13, 2005 - 7:56pm

RCR-

Excellent points. I'm not a comic book fan and expected to be turned off by the presentation, especially the black-and-white with tiny focal points of color which I thought would be reminiscent of an Advil-commercial ('little, yellow, different'). However, the style was in fact very intriguing and catchy.

Agreed on it vs Kill Bill. Though I did like certain points of Kill Bill 1+2, they had far more purely gratuitous violence, and had it visual rather than implied (much of Sin City fades to sillouette or leaves the violence itself unseen).

I hadn't thought about the Valkyrie speech, but you are right; that was one point of the 'good guys' not just instituting justice, but enjoying killing. Trying to think of more critical points one other I can come up with was also in the Old Town scene - though the crooked cop who tried to shoot a prostitute deserved to die, it would take collective guilt to justify the killing of the other passengers in his car.

Post 27

Monday, June 13, 2005 - 8:12pm

It's been a while since I saw the film, what are you referring to as the "Valkyrie speech?" As to the passengers getting killed they were standing by and helping back at the apartment and they knew what they were in for by going into Old town, you play by the rules you live out your fantasies, you break them your taking your life in your own hands and though their actions were nowhere near as bad as Jackie boy's they weren't innocent.

Dwight himself I thought was one of the more interesting and underrated characters, he kind of seemed like Chris Clearmont's description of Wolverine as a failed samurai, I guy who doesn't actually know how good he is, always making tons of apologies and attempts at redemption for his few wrongs even though he has a strong (if somewhat strange) moral compass.

As to Bob's criticism of the stylistic points of the film the only thing I think didn't work was that sometimes the action scenes needed drawn out longer in order to facilitate the voice-overs. Makes scenes that read much faster and more kinetic in the gn seem slow by comparison. That was the only real criticism I had and to a degree it, and especially the other stylistic points, were necessary in order to make the stories work.

---Landon

(Edited by Landon Erp on 6/13, 10:36pm)

Post 28

Monday, June 13, 2005 - 10:27pm

Aaron:

Excellent points. I'm not a comic book fan and expected to be turned off by the presentation, especially the black-and-white with tiny focal points of color which I thought would be reminiscent of an Advil-commercial ('little, yellow, different'). However, the style was in fact very intriguing and catchy.

HA! That advil bit is funny. I'm not a comic-book fan either. Although, I have always held a certain level of interest in them as a form, their enduring sense of adventure, greatness, and with their ability to juggle ideas in a certain enjoyable way. But, ultimately, they are generally just too far-and-away for me to really get into, or spend much time on.

Aaron:

Agreed on it vs Kill Bill. Though I did like certain points of Kill Bill 1+2, they had far more purely gratuitous violence, and had it visual rather than implied (much of Sin City fades to sillouette or leaves the violence itself unseen).

I also liked *moments* of Kill Bill most of which involved Lucy Lu, and I almost liked part 2 as a whole. The one scene that I couldn't bear to watch (I really turned away and cringed) was Daryl Hanna's lengthy death scene (which, incidentally is almost an exact duplication of her death scene in *Blade Runner*)...

I *really* enjoyed David Carradine's performances in part 2. The scene with the long bits of dialogue, in black and white, on the porch between Uma and Carradine were some of my favorite moments of the film (their fight in the living room at the end, was however, dumb as hell).

Aaron:

I hadn't thought about the Valkyrie speech, but you are right; that was one point of the 'good guys' not just instituting justice, but enjoying killing. Trying to think of more critical points one other I can come up with was also in the Old Town scene - though the crooked cop who tried to shoot a prostitute deserved to die, it would take collective guilt to justify the killing of the other passengers in his car.

Yes, that scene bothered me too. I recall seeing that shot of the woman leaping down from the building to serve some justice (I assumed) in the previews, and I was looking forward to seeing the whole context, and then when I actually got to it, it seemed cheap and gross, and "justice" as you say, left the building, so to speak.

RCR

Post 29

Monday, June 13, 2005 - 10:44pm

Landon:

"It's been a while since I saw the film, what are you referring to as the Valkyrie speech?'"

I think it is Dwight's speech (I forget their names). It was the culmination of his subplot, and he is standing up on a mount with his woman killing everything in sight. As the camera pans around them shooting, he is giving a long speech about how he and she are like the fury of the Valkyries--killing gleefully for the lust of doing so.

I understand their "context", but that speech delivered so coldly, righteously, and with perfect calm, in particular, was a very uncomfortable moment for me. I kept thinking to myself, oh yes, this is how cultures of violence (i.e. jihad) fuel themselves.

While we are talking about this movie, I wonder if anyone can explain to me the exceptionally creepy character played by Elijah Wood. I couldn't figure out where he came from or why he could do the things he could do. I suspect it is complicated...but, I'm just curious.

This brings to mind another fact about my experience with this movie...I feel like I should see it again, as many of the plot details didn't stick with me, but I can hardly imagine doing so.

RCR
(Edited by R. Christian Ross
on 6/13, 10:49pm)

Post 30

Monday, June 13, 2005 - 11:21pm

I remembered the scene a little before you posted. I think the speech just adds Dwights context, it's like they're gleeful because they know this is what they have to do to keep things safe, their entire way of life was almost destroyed that night and this is the only way they are going to be able to fix it.

It is hard to keep up with all of the subplots but seeing as the movie was put together from three separate gn's (each character's subplot is a complete work in comic form).

As to Elijiah Wood's character I'm not sure if it was Miller's original idea or something he decided on while developing it for film, but I got the impression that he was affected adversely by Yellow Bastard and made into kind of a twisted version of a man who was a source of constant fear to him through his life (knowing Miller studied the "Romantic Manifesto" and planted the seed that they were sharing a house, Yellow Bastard gets sent into overdrive mode by screams, and the character's silence I believe this to be an intentional set of connections).

Also I would recommend a second viewing, you'll probably notice the violence wasn't as bad as you remember it... Just minutes after exiting the theater with my fiancee was remarking to me that it initially seemed like there was a lot going on but when she started breaking it down scene by scene it was actually playing out more in your own mind than on screen. It's kind of like in Revenge of the Sith, when Anikan gets approached by the youngling who just think's his savior has arrived and then all that happens is Anikan draws his lightsaber, but you'd almost swear he split the kid in two with it.

An older example of a scene in texas chainsaw massacre where there are only two survivors left, the kid in the wheel chair and his sister, you see them run into Leatherface head on and Leatherface swing the chainsaw into the middle of the guy in the wheelchair, the man then shakes shortly then stops. You could swear that it's much more gory than it actually is but the seed is just planted so deeply in your mind that you never even notice that there isn't a drop of blood in the whole movie (except on the sole survivor, from a real wound she received after slipping and falling).

I think that's one of the things I like so much about it, it totally controls your perception of everything with just a little bit of blood in the beginning, and a few beautiful shots of naked women (in my opinion some of the most beautiful female nudity ever captured on film, but it still has that sleazy feel)

---Landon

Post 31

Friday, August 12, 2005 - 12:59pm

Ok, my take on the film: Age 23

Artistic wise, this movie rocked big. I can understand that the way of life portrayed in this movie is not the Sense of Live of Objectivists (to get the Solo in here :P) and ultimately everyone expecting to see this philosophy portrayed here is wrong. Nonetheless the movie was (from a formal aspect) perfect, it had a start, dramatization on three heights and a mirror ending.
Of course, there is much violence and the display of this violence is made with utmost care and might push away a broader audience, as will the lack of a positive philosophy or humor, but the rest is awesome.
It is a 1:1 copy of the comic, the movie was filmed not with a script, but from the comic book. Secondly, Robert Rodriguez had to quit the director's union in order to make this movie (which alone is a real life feedback that I encourage ;) ). If he hadn't quit, he wouldn't have been able to do this movie he so much loved to do. I'd say that he is someone who believes in his work and the goal he wants to meet. But this is only off-screen things, but it reminds me of the characters, who are have also stumbled in their lives, but all fullfill something they want to have for themselves (mostly for their loved ones).

I can understand that the message or the reality displayed in this movie and the exhausting use of violence might turn people away from this movie, but from an objective formal point of view, this movie is one of the best out there.

Post 32

Saturday, August 13, 2005 - 3:39am

Max writes:
>....ultimately everyone expecting to see this philosophy portrayed here is wrong.

This is as good a starting point as any, I suppose.

Firstly, obviously films express all kinds of philosophies. Some can be made with a specific philosophy in mind. Some with none. Some can be made with a bunch of them all stuck together. Some can even end up expressing *the opposite* to what the maker intended! (very few directors have 'final cut'). Finally, and most importantly of all, the auteur theory is vastly overrated. As the great director Michael Powell remarked, the most important people in making a movie are: the writer, the art director, and the lead actors. With those elements in place all the director has to do is put the camera somewhere that captures what all three are doing, and you will get a good movie. But what are the chances of all of these important people sharing the same philosophic viewpoint? Virtually nil. And we haven't even started to talk about what the money men want...

So if you go to a movie, and your enjoyment is going to be predicated on how much it conforms to your philosophic expectations, you are pretty much *guaranteed* to be wasting your 5 bucks. And this is, after all *the movies* - not Sunday School.

Surely it's better to ask: how original and courageous is its vision? Does it pander to its audience's expectations and prejudices, or challenge them? Does it assume you were smart, or was it is simply saying "Hey rubes! Over here!"? Does it feel like anyone cared when they made it, or did they just do it by-the-numbers? Does time stand still when you're watching it? Does your ass ache? Do you laugh or cry? In the appropriate moments? Do you wish it would never end, or wish it had ended already? And most importantly of all, did you walk out looking at the daylight a different way?

On that incredibly precise and scientifically calibrated scale, I did not rate "Sin City" incredibly highly.

Firstly, I did kind of groove on the overall styling. The noir angles, everything foreshortened and overamped, everything real flattened to a graphic.

Fine for the first hour or so. But the problem for me is exactly that: it stayed stuck in the comic book, and didn't transcend it.

It's like someone once said about the screen version of "The Thorn Birds" - the industry that once cheerfully bowlderized Shakespeare now treats Colleen McCullogh's every word as if it were Holy Writ. Same with Frank Miller. The guy writes comics. A respectable enough artform, but sheesh, do we need to reverently reproduce *every frame*? That cloying reverence ultimately chokes the life out of the movie, ironically making Rodriguez and Tarantino doing Miller about as simpering as Chris Columbus doing JK Rowling.

While we're on the topic of Miller, I have to say for all its faults (its chief virtues being Mickey Rourke's fantastic characterisation, Elijah Wood's creepiness and Carla Gugino naked - something I've wanted to see since "Snake Eyes") it was way, way, way better than "Batman Begins". OK, Christian Balle makes the movie almost watchable - *almost*. But once again, there's this whole schtick about 'taking the Batman character seriously' - about his deep disturbed inner psychology, the sociological metaphors, the mytho/archetypal imagery etc.

Uh, guys...we're talking about *Batman* here?! Gimme a break. And if I have to see one more interminable tracking shot introducing the Batsuit, or hear another PR-generated "debate" about the latest Batmobile, I am going to toss my cookies.

Frankly, I think its time to deep-six Miller's selfconscious artsiness and get back to what Batman is really all about. Let's face it: the original Batman screen franchise - TV and movie - was far better *before* he ever got near it.

Adam West and Burt Ward's original costumes are now more iconic than the latest art director's generic wet dream will ever be. What could be cooler than that original Batmobile, with the wings only slightly larger than the average Chevy at the time? What about Neal Hefti's immortal, half-crazed theme tune? The Pop Art art direction? And what about the talent? Who in their right mind would rate Michelle Pfieffer over Julie Newmar and Eartha Kitt? OK, Danny Devito and Burgess Meredith and Jack N and Cesar Romero could be held to par. But Jim Carrey, better than Frank Gorshin? Arnie, better than Otto Preminger? Better the incomparable George Sanders?!! Unthinkable! Forget the alleged 'psychology' and digital eye candy. I say bring back those fake-vertical shots where West and Ward "climb" a building that's really the studio floor! BIFF! BAM! POW!...

- Daniel

Post 33

Saturday, August 13, 2005 - 8:58pm

Michelle Pfeiffer? Ha! The only true Catwoman is Julie Newmar, Lee Meriwether, or Eartha Kitt. And I didn't need *molded plastic* to improve my physique. Pure "West." And how come Batman doesn't *dance* anymore? Remember the Batoosee?

Post 34

Sunday, August 14, 2005 - 3:10am

Andrew quotes:
>Michelle Pfeiffer? Ha!The only true Catwoman is Julie Newmar...

Touche!

- Daniel

Post 35

Sunday, August 14, 2005 - 10:21am

Well, you could get that criticism to any painted movie from Lion King to Peter Pan, but still those are heartbreaking fantasies and many people would disagree with you.

I think the style was true to the comics and when I look at all the other comic movies, I'd still say it is the best comic movie and especially one with a nice twist. It is (like many Rodriguez/Tarantino Productions) an episode movie with a couple of different story-lines. They all have the formula of the classic drama and the ingredients of the comics in them.

This was very important to me, because I have seen Elektra, Cat Woman, Batman movies, Spiderman movies, The Hulk, X-Men and whenever I saw them, I couldn't see the comics in them. There was (except for the leading characters) no recognition of the comics and their way of telling stories.
Sin City plays in a universe that is all different from ours and it looks at people who aren't heros, but on many levels egoists. If you go to a movie with the intention to view an Objectivism related work of art, you will disappointed almost always. There might be documentaries and stuff like that, which would give honor to this idea. But there are many good movies, entertaining movies for adults, that are supporting a total irrational universe that has nothing to do with ours (except on the surfaces) and still they are entertained. I am one of those and thus I liked Sin City and often thought that it is from a technical POV the best work by Rodriguez and the best comic book translation to the big screen. The acting was solid and superb (in Rourke's case) and the storylines were as one would expect them from Miller.

That cloying reverence ultimately chokes the life out of the movie, ironically making Rodriguez and Tarantino doing Miller about as simpering as Chris Columbus doing JK Rowling.

Especially when it comes to movies who adopt the book, I like them to stick with the books. Often, the content of the books is distorted by the screen writers who have to fit a 500 pages work on 120 min. celluloid (or digital bits ;) ) and what is left behind is sometimes the essence of the books/comics (The Hulk, X-Men). However, I never had this feeling with Sin City, which was as close to a moving-picture as it could get. When I wanted to see my comic heros in my childhood, I always wanted to see what lies outside the pictures and Frank Miller and Rodriguez did exactly that. They made it a moving-picture, showing me those protagonists in motion.

Post 36

Tuesday, August 16, 2005 - 7:13pm

    Since I don't have the time at present to justify why, I probably I shouldn't do this; but, I've gotta go 'on record' as saying that I thought it was one of the most 'thought-provoking' short-story-anthology movies I've seen with 'heroes' (whom many reviewers called 'anti-'heroes) that...in their own way...do 'succeed' achieving their goals against the most corrupt system this side of 'Old Chicago' (or Nazi Germany.)
    One may debate the worth of their goals; Roarke's character was out for revenge, mainly, though not only. Given what happened, and what/who he was up against, I got no prob with that. Willis, to prevent the (Boothe) Powers-that-be from using Jessica Alba (who he WAS in love with) against him, did what Galt said he would do if the others got Dagny ( think about it.) And Clive Owen: what's there to complain about his character?
    Plus, I considered it 'integrated,' including the mysterious (no argument: 'evil') victim-hired hitman in the beginning and at the end.
    Sorry, I've no time to justify my perspective...and here I am trying to; so tempting, I guess.
    I'll 'detail' what I think is an incorrect perspective by past posters another time.

LLAP
J-D

Edit Addendum: For those familiar with my posts in PARENTING FORUM, I must add however, that I definitely wouldn't agree to my 11yr-old seeing it anymore than playing Grand-Theft-Auto on vid-games, until he's 15, for reasons I'll go into later (no, nothing to do with nudity, language, violence, or gore)...or elsewhere.

(Edited by John Dailey on 8/16, 7:24pm)

Post 37

Thursday, August 18, 2005 - 12:47am

Marcus:

This film represents everything that is anathema to the spirit of SOLO.

It revels only in violence and depravity. It rolls gleefully in muck. Even the heroes enjoy torturing their opponents before killing them.

    I disagree with your 'over-all' evaluation, as well as your impression about exactly what it 'revels' in.
    (My explanation will take up a few posts [which I discovered only after finishing THIS one.])
  . If the violence, 'depravity', and supposed 'torture-enjoyment' is ALL that one sees, I understand the perspective of seeing apparent 'reveling' over nothing-but-it, (sorta like replacing porno with Hannibal-run Inquisition-sadism [can one say: Gibson's "The Passion"?]) although I'd really have to guess which particular scenes you're concerned with, apart from Marv (Mickey Roarke) feeding Kevin (Elijah Wood) alive...to Kevin's victim-eating wolf-dog. Re this scene, which I take/guess to be 'representative' of why you clearly dislike the movie, let me attempt a 'justification,' both for Marv, and for the scene's inclusion into the movie.
    By the time of this scene, we're clear that - 1) Marv has been framed for a murder of someone he had 'love-at-1st-fuck' with. Someone 'high-up' is pulling strings to get him blamed, not only for that murder, but a whole set of others. (As we gather later, it's only because he's an apparently handy-appearing Scapegoat.) - 2) Kevin, the active perp of THESE murders, is a very-sadistic cannibal who's protected by 'the authorities' (who we LATER find out are 'influenced' by a clergy-'Cardinal'-Roark (Rutger Hauer), [brother of a Senator who has his own 'problem-child,'] and who, in trying to 'help counsel' Kevin became a willing accessory-and-partaker ('identifying-associate?) of Kevin's...proclivities...supposedly because the victims were professional-prostitutes, ie, mere 'whores/sluts' of obviously no value to anyone of worthwhileness. (Talk about rationalization for a justification of one's personally accepted addiction! )
    Marv works his way through his own...very brutal...style of, well, (Guantanomo interrogators would envy him) 'interrogations,' shall we say, to find out that there's a bona-fide 'Kevin', where Kevin stays, and, that Kevin's unofficially protected by corrupt officials.. --- side thought: Methinks the 'proper' way to look at these 'anti'-heroes, like Marv, is cued, herein, by the scene where the hitmen are 'guiding' him to an alley outside the movie-centered bar (Kadie's Club Pecos) and one comments "Your killing days are over, you over-the-hill do-gooder sunuvabitch." Marv may be 'bad news' if you step on his cape; but if others consider him as a 'do-gooder,' what does that imply about what he's up against...and what he 'really' is? I can only think of the Batman Begins line: "It's not what I 'am' underneath; it's my actions that define me." Marv does some 'actions' that are not for Peter Pan's Neverland, true; and, these actions consequentially help...no one of worth, especially to him? Including himself, re his personal idea of...'justice?'
    Marv later finds that Kevin also acquired Marv's parole-officer sympathizing-friend as Kev's next...pleasure-moment 'happy meal'. Kev finishes his meals by decapitating them and mounting their heads on a trophy-wall; and he apparently doesn't eat them only dead. Kev's one sick puppy, who knows he can stay that way (given the protection), and wallows in doing so...need I add, by choice? He's sick, granted; also, he clearly (given awareness of protection by 'officials') chooses to stay so; THAT's 'evil,' not merely demented.  (Aside:-Some say 'Nancy's [Jessica Alba] head was there on the wall, but, Marv talks to her elsewhere later, so...nope, just a look-alike.)
    Finally, Kev (smaller [we're talking Frodo-cum-Gollum here, vs The Terminator-student], but obviously faster and more vicious) and Marv do their mano-a-mano. Marv barely wins out. Here is a 'problem' scene.
    Marv clearly is not looking for information at this point. He saw the heads, knew his friend was next, and heard her story of Kev before she got diced by officials.. 'Interrogation' of Kev is an irrelevent concern to him. So, why not a 'simple' execution rather than have Kev's limbs chopped off, tie him to a tree, and allow Kev's dog-wolf to use awake-Kev as the dog's next meal? Oh, maybe remembrances of Goldie, and Marv's trusted parole-officer...and maybe even empathy for the whores whose mounted heads were on the wall...and what they all were allowed by 'authorities' to have to endure. Maybe he was using Kev as a scapegoat himself...for the 'Powers-that-be.' Whatever, I don't get the impression that Marv 'enjoyed' the going's-on in a sadistic sense, so much as, "You made them suffer before you allowed them to die; I do the same to you."
    Given the situation Marv finds himself at this point, I got no...moral...prob with how he handles it. Not that *I* psychologically could have done such; indeed, I wish I could, given such situations re my 'significant others' [hey, if such happens; who knows?]. If that sounds like 'admiration,' so be it.
    As Charles Bronson said at the end of a movie where a pedophile of a 9yr-old oriental girl was finally put into a cell with another inmate whom one got the vibes of being a 200lb'r who 'liked' new 'fish'--> "Now, THAT'S 'JUSTICE.'"
    Marv finally got to the 'Cardinal,' and beheaded him, and...frame-wise got the chair for murdering all dead so far (except Kev; I don't think he was referred to...for some reason.) Such is the lower level of the 'Law and Order' in "Sin City." Lowest of the 'Higher' was yet to be shown...for others, but not for Marv.
    The only prob I have with Marv, as presented, is how 'tough' he's presented as. Now, I know this is based on a 'graphic-novel' ('comics' to you plebeians who think of such only in terms of Bugs or Mickey), but, getting thrown, nay bounced, into the air by a car...2x...and just getting up and walking back; then shot...uh...I lost count how many times (more than 5), well, this made him a bit...over-the-top for 'tough'; unfortunately. That's my only complaint on the movie.
    Otherwise, I see Marv as the male equivalent of Kira in We The Living. He was one bad-news tough cookie that the system finally put down. Yes, Kira was aware of 'better things,' that she tried to reach, whereas Marv was barely becoming aware of ...the idea of 'better things'. As I see it, he tried to 'do the "right thing"' with having no awareness of how to Identify/Recognize it; can one say...Sense-Of-Life? Call me weird, but, I think Rand would've hated the whole idea of "Sin City;" (Wonder what she would have thought of "Schindler's List"?)...but she would've definitely liked Marv.
    Dwight, Hartigan, Gail, more Nancy, Senator Roark and his son Yellow Bastard and 'Old Town' girls (aka communal-Union of Hookers, or "UH") not to mention "Sin City" per se...next post.

LLAP
J-D

Post 38

Tuesday, August 30, 2005 - 10:52am

The movie jumps around a lot if you remember Bruce Willis is in the bar and sees Marv in the bar before the hit men get him. This means the seen with the heads on the wall has not occurred yet. When Bruce Willis goes to the farm �Kenneth� Elijah Wood is sitting on the porch that means that Elijah Wood knows what "Nancy" "Jessica Alba" looks like, there for Elijah wood starts killing the whores after Bruce Willis kills the senators son. Then Bruce kill himself. Then Marv goes to the farm cause of what the preacher says and Elijah wood takes him out.Marv is in the room where the heads are mounted on the wall. Marv breaks free killing the cops and finds Wendy. Goldie twinsister. Then Marv goes back to the farm and lights the place on fire. Killing Elijah wood and then goes to the cardinal place and kills him. So in fact the head on the wall is Jessica Alba

I have watched this movie over twenty times and Jessica Alba head is on the wall. I would like some kind of proof like a link that I can go to or Frank Miller saying that it is not Jessica Alba head on the wall. Thanks

Post 39

Tuesday, August 30, 2005 - 3:09pm