Jump to content
JohnMcMahon

Sin City vs Constanteen

Recommended Posts

Two R rated comic related movies, one near 100% faithful to the source, the other not so much.

 

Opening BO figures care of BoxOfficeMojo -

 

Sin City ($40 Million Budget) - 3,230 screens - $28.1 million

Constanteen ($100 Million Budget) - 3,006 screens - $29.8 million

 

A breakdown of reviews on Rotten Tomatoes has Sin City at Fresh (78% positive reviews) and Constantine as Rotten (45% positive reviews) so it'll be interesting to see if Sin City falls away as badly as Constantine did.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There's no way on earth (unless so called earth is filled with morons), that Sin City will fall away as badly as Constantine.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Problem: Earth is filled with morons. Titanic is the highest-grossing film of all time, while Terry Gilliam's films consistently barely (if at all) break even. This, to me, constitutes compelling evidence that the cinema-going public Are Not To Be Trusted.

 

Let's not count chickens before they've hatched, eh?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For clarification:

Morons = people who disagree with, or have other taste than, Mark.

 

 

:D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But of course.

 

If it makes you feel any better (you Titanic-loving freak, you), substitute any movies you didn't like which did well at the box office/movies you liked which flopped for the examples cited above.

 

Happy now?

 

Titanic, indeed. For shame.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
But of course.

 

If it makes you feel any better (you Titanic-loving freak, you), substitute any movies you didn't like which did well at the box office/movies you liked which flopped for the examples cited above.

 

Happy now?

 

Titanic, indeed. For shame.

 

 

Shame is a way to see the dirty thougths within. He won´t tell you he loves Titanic but he´ll go red!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
But of course.

 

If it makes you feel any better (you Titanic-loving freak, you), substitute any movies you didn't like which did well at the box office/movies you liked which flopped for the examples cited above.

 

Happy now?

 

Titanic, indeed. For shame.

 

Hey, the movie may be shit, but the awful theme song is excellent when done by a bunch of tuneless wannabe punks with guitars and the tendency to scream "FUCK!" at random intervals throughout.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
But of course.

 

If it makes you feel any better (you Titanic-loving freak, you), substitute any movies you didn't like which did well at the box office/movies you liked which flopped for the examples cited above.

 

Happy now?

 

Titanic, indeed. For shame.

 

Hey, the movie may be shit, but the awful theme song is excellent when done by a bunch of tuneless wannabe punks with guitars and the tendency to scream "FUCK!" at random intervals throughout.

 

Yes, but if you hear the song twelve times a day in the radio sometimes it will last for a whole lifetime and never wanna hear it again. Then you turn a cd in your player where people shout F*** 50 times in a minute to demonstrate you can live without "my heart will go on".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
But of course.

 

If it makes you feel any better (you Titanic-loving freak, you), substitute any movies you didn't like which did well at the box office/movies you liked which flopped for the examples cited above.

 

Happy now?

 

Titanic, indeed. For shame.

It was a joke, which I hope you understood.

 

But I do dislike the way people (i.e. you:) ) frequently say the majority are "morons" for liking or disliking something else than themselves.

I think south-east asian pop music is atrocious and an affront to good taste, but I realize the Koreanse probably disagree.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

BoxOfficeMojo have an article up which suggests that the Sin City audience may have been frontloaded, suggesting that it could fall off quite drastically.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
But I do dislike the way people (i.e. you:) ) frequently say the majority are "morons" for liking or disliking something else than themselves.

 

Yes, I got that it was a joke.

 

I used 'morons' in response to Akhira's post - my point (which I thought was pretty clear, even allowing for any arrogance I may have allowed to creep in - I just used examples which work for me personally, and which I've mentioned here before. As I said, feel free to insert your own) was simply that I don't see Sin City's trouncing of Constantine at the box office as anything like as certain as some people seem keen to believe it to be. I'll be very happy if it works out that way, but it's nothing remotely like a guarantee. I wouldn't be surprised if it only does modest business at best, to be honest - it should do well on DVD, mind.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, if it does fall off, so be it.

But Sin City was, by far, the more enjoyable movie---for me at least.

 

I felt like it was the kind of movie I could recomend to friends that don't read comic books. In fact I did.

 

I had hoped it would do better simply because it would be good to send a message to Hollywood that it is possible to make a film that sticks to its source material and is successful simultaneously.

 

As for calling the film-watching public at large "morons," well, I think thats a rather apt summation, and not simply because I disagree with their taste (as if an amorphous entity could have "taste").

 

The problem is not simply that good movies are not embraced by the public (because they sometimes are) but more along the lines of how fickle the public's taste is---the public's consistent half-hearted support for mediocre movies like the latest ashton kutcher farce results in a steady stream of mediocrity from hollywood, and when coupled with this strange desire on the part of the public to equate gross returns with quality, it means there is unlikely to be another Straw Dogs, Taxi Driver, Wild Bunch, Apocalypse Now, hell, even Scarface as these movies simply don't "test well".

 

It used to be a mark of pride that a film so disturbed the audience that people got out of their seats and left the theatre. Now the offending portion is quickly cut, irregardless of the "artistic vision" or its overall importance to the script.

 

So what you get is a film that the majority of people watching "like" but no one really "loves" or even remembers the next day.

 

Not to say that I don't love the Ashton Kutcher movies, mind you...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

An important point raised there, in passing - there's a world of difference between "I don't like <film X>" and "I think <film X> is a bad film". Or at least, there should be. Too many people seem unable/unwilling to make that distinction.

 

An example: I loved the widely-reviled Deuce Bigalow: Male Gigolo, but really profoundly dislike the critically-acclaimed masterpiece, The Shawshank Redemption (no, really. I do. I hate it. I'm not kidding here). Does that mean I can't intellectually acknowledge that the latter film is a far better piece of work than the former? It clearly is - it's intelligently-written, beautifully-shot, well-acted, whereas Deuce Bigalow is competently-shot at best, adequately-performed, inconsistently-written, and utterly puerile and idiotic. But it makes me laugh like a drain, whereas I find myself irritated beyond measure by the cynical and manipulative sentimentality of Shawshank.

 

I wouldn't expect people to agree with me about the subjective opinions expressed here, but I'd like to hope that my attempt (and that's all it is...100% objectivity with regard to matters of taste/art is, of course, impossible, not to mention undesirable) at an objective assessment of the relative quality of the two films has at least some validity.

 

Anyway, that's just me blowing off steam. Back to Constantine vs. Sin City, I suppose...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think that Sin City will make as much in the cinema as Constantine, though it certainly deserves to.

 

Then again, it cost $60m less to make than Constantine, so it's already made three quarters of its budget back. And I suspect it'll do well in Europe and on DVD.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
As for calling the film-watching public at large "morons," well, I think thats a rather apt summation, and not simply because I disagree with their taste (as if an amorphous entity could have "taste"). 

 

The problem is not simply that good movies are not embraced by the public (because they sometimes are) but more along the lines of how fickle the public's taste is---the public's consistent half-hearted support for mediocre movies like the latest ashton kutcher farce results in a steady stream of mediocrity from hollywood, and when coupled with this strange desire on the part of the public to equate gross returns with quality, it means there is unlikely to be another Straw Dogs, Taxi Driver, Wild Bunch, Apocalypse Now, hell, even Scarface as these movies simply don't "test well". 

 

So what you get is a film that the majority of people watching "like" but no one really "loves" or even remembers the next day.

 

I'm not sure I agree with that asessment or the film-going public. People by and large will buy whatever is on offer. So, if they're constantly offered a diet of lo-com-denom bullshit they'll develope a taste for it. I certainly have and so, by the looks of things, has Mark.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, I already figured that Sin City wouldn't do any better than Constantine at the box office. Borrowing what Mark's link in the other thread mentioned, Sin City has alot of visual artistry but as a film the stories just can't hold the interest of the audience enough. The fact that the general audience hated it doesn't make the film bad of course. I believe Sin City in all its faithful adaptation can really only appeal to comic book readers, people who are familiar with the source material. Constantine on the other hand while a crapass adaptation entertains the general audience (moreso than Sin City at least) whether they know it's Constantyne and not Constanteen.

 

But yeah we are talking about a world where Titanic is no. 1. What made the Lotr adaptations so good was that you could watch the films and enjoy them without knowing shit about the books. I'd say the same applies to the Harry Potter films. I fell asleep watching Jean Cocteau in film studies, the days for craft over content in film are over.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Red, as a fellow-enjoyer-of-Titanic I do regret taking the other guy's side but I do agree that if this were a just world, Titanic would not be the highest grossing movie of all time.

 

Chan, do you really think the general audience hated it? in a mere 2 days after release, the movie has Already rocketed to 112 on IMDB's 250 movies. Its got an average rating of 8.7 last I saw and IMDB ratings are voted on by the public (ie the general audience) not just critics. Every single person I have asked absolutely loved the movie.

 

I would also have to agree with mark that the filmwatching public consists of morons in the majority. There is a ton of proof of this on the no 1 spot of the US top 10 at least 8 weeks out of 10. I agree that this is an elitist and somewhat arrogant stance but I also maintain that it is my right to call any audience that sends movies like Boat Trip and Bringing down the House to the number 1 spot when movies like Sideways are playing, moronic. I think Mark's point about not liking a film vs it not being a good film is VERY valid. I've had arguments around that particular point many times. However it IS usually the case that the movie on the no 1 spot is usually a movie that is neither good NOR one that I like. And 99% of the time, the critical consensus is on my side. Now, of course, a lot of people will say this is because the critics are like me in that they are elitists too but I just think that the fact cannot be convincingly challenged that audiences usually flock to the shit/average movies and not the great ones. More so now than before, probably. Red will probably have issue with what im saying here since he doesnt like the majority being called morons but it really isnt about everyone else liking movies i didnt like or not liking the ones I did. Its about how people consistently flock to the shit movies. Not necessarily movies I didnt like but SHIT movies. For example, I hated Mulholland Drive. I thought it was needlessly obscure. However I can see that it is a very clever and skilful bit of filmmaking. However, that week, it was beat out ten times over in terms of popularity by utterly average by-the-numbers movies like Riding in Cars with Boys and The Last Castle. People just do enjoy and go to the bad movies. And even when they embrace the good ones its often cos of some factor external to the film itself - like Oscar nominations/wins etc.

 

And Descartes, man, I mourn with you. I'm taking an American New Wave class this semester with movies like The Godfather and Apocalypse Now and Straw Dogs all on the syllabus and it'll be a cold day in hell before I see movies like that in mainstream release these days.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Chan, do you really think the general audience hated it?

I mean that in general, like if a general audience hates a film it doesn't necessarily make the film bad. Moulin Rouge is a love it/hate it kind of film from what I've experienced (I love it), but it doesn't solely define if the film is good or bad. That's all I meant, sorry.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think Sin City may drop at least 50% next week. It's the normal drop for genre movies like that. Just see the drops the movie had from Friday to Saturday and to Sunday. Very expressives. After that, it will depend on it's legs, but we already know that those type of movies don't have long legs as comedies or kid movies have.

 

Coming Soon predicted Sin City with a $ 27 million opening weekend, and are predicting a BO in the range of $ 60-65 mil. They were on track for Constantine, and the opening prediction are already confirmed, so we could keep an eye there.

 

 

I confess I expected Sin City to do better in the opening weekend, maybe $32 or $ 35 million, because aside from ROTS, it's the most hyped movie this year so far. And, contrary to Constantine, who had the monster hit Hitch (that already was a smash one week earlier), it did not have any competition. And although everyone talks about how beautiful is, and how innovative, word about the core of the movie, the characters and story don't follow the same pattern. The fact is, it's a dark comic book, the movie is the same as the comic, so it's not for everyone, no matter how the marketing campaign try to sell it otherwise.

 

Anyway, I want to watch the movie, it's a shame that it will open here only in June. So I will judge for myself. But, for what I read so far, I see Sin City doing Kill Bill numbers. And it will do well overseas, but nothing nearer to what Constantine is doing, IMO.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
An important point raised there, in passing - there's a world of difference between "I don't like <film X>" and "I think <film X> is a bad film". Or at least, there should be. Too many people seem unable/unwilling to make that distinction.

 

An example: I loved the widely-reviled Deuce Bigalow: Male Gigolo, but really profoundly dislike the critically-acclaimed masterpiece, The Shawshank Redemption (no, really. I do. I hate it. I'm not kidding here). Does that mean I can't intellectually acknowledge that the latter film is a far better piece of work than the former? It clearly is - it's intelligently-written, beautifully-shot, well-acted, whereas Deuce Bigalow is competently-shot at best, adequately-performed, inconsistently-written, and utterly puerile and idiotic. But it makes me laugh like a drain, whereas I find myself irritated beyond measure by the cynical and manipulative sentimentality of Shawshank.

 

I wouldn't expect people to agree with me about the subjective opinions expressed here, but I'd like to hope that my attempt (and that's all it is...100% objectivity with regard to matters of taste/art is, of course, impossible, not to mention undesirable) at an objective assessment of the relative quality of the two films has at least some validity.

 

Anyway, that's just me blowing off steam. Back to Constantine vs. Sin City, I suppose...

 

That's actually a very accurate and honest assessment of everyone's movie going draw. Sometimes some movies just click with us and sometimes, no matter the pedigree, they just don't. The weird thing is the two movies you mentioned have caused much debate between the girls I know. They absolutely loooove Shawshank, even as a prison movie - and absolutely hate Deuce Bigalo. It came down to the girls hating David Spade (high school bully) and loving Morgan Freeman (grandpa figure). I liked both, by the way, for different reasons - I wanted to see something that me laugh one night and something that made me emotional the next. It's what's so cool about film - it's not just that there are different movies for different demographics, but different movies for different moods you're in. I remember one great day several years ago seeing the fast paced trance induced Run Lola Run in the morning and the fully scored, operatioc sprawling Red Violin in the evening and absolutely loved both equally.

 

I suppose I was just not in the mood for Sin City's bleak, overly stylized, over the top - in my face violence disguised as the next great cool thing. It was shot cool, acted cool, and had some nifty one liners and visual set pieces but as a story - how can anyone state that this is a great movie? Because it followed its source materail 100%? I'm sorry, but you can't fault some "morons" for not wanting to watch simple characatures of human beings grinding meat into the pavement every twenty seconds - decapitating heads- smashing faces into pulp, cutting bodies apart and feeding them to dogs - killing dogs - killing cops by skewering their brains - sick twisted grotesuqe figures torturing young nubile prostitutes - in other words sitting through a live version of a first person shooter video game. The main emotional reaction in the audience I saw it with was "ohhhhhh" and "awwwww" which were grunted at every blood flying brutal kill - as if we were all watching a fireworks display of human flesh. That's entertainment!

 

Maybe some have become so desensitized that they find this kind of film completely satisfying - much like a horror film but Sin City is far from the litmus test to decide those who like quality films and those who like shit. It is not worthy of that claim. And as far as Titanic - hate to say it but it is a much better film all the way around and does deserve its place in film history because it managed to connect with the FEMALE audience and coax them into emotional submission - This is a group that many filmakers simply ignore or cast off as an afterthought - or in the case of My Big Fat Greek Wedding or Terms of Endearment as a strange anomoly. Had I taken my girlfriend to Sin City she would have walked out in ten minutes and thought I was sick for sitting through the entire thing. Does that make her a moron because she doesn;t want to subject herself to that kind of film?

 

It doesn't mean films like Sin City should not be made - they should. So should Kill Bill (which I loved ) and any other film that places violence and explotatiion up front as its central themes - but to champion those films - to say they are great cinema and those that shun them are morons is being a bit simplistic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I suppose I was just not in the mood for Sin City's bleak, overly stylized, over the top - in my face violence disguised as the next great cool thing.

 

Again, I have to insist that the film has not been marketed as "the next cool thing". A lot of reviews have complained about it trying to gloss off violence as cool, or use coolness as an excuse for violence, but that simply isn't the case. Nobody behind the camera or in the advertising agencies have gone out of the way to call it "cool", or to sell it as such.

 

It doesn't mean films like Sin City should not be made - they should. So should Kill Bill (which I loved ) and any other film that places violence and explotatiion up front as its central themes - but to champion those films - to say they are great cinema (...) is being a bit simplistic.

 

There is nothing wrong with championing those films and saying that they are great cinema if they are beautifully shot and directed, and have had a great deal of thought and love go into them (otherwise you'd be saying that something like Blue Velvet is poor cinema, and then I really would lose my rag). The content of a film does not negate its form. And the form of a film is sometimes enough to make it great cinema.

 

I mean, Psycho is just some trashy little exploitative flick about some mandman who goes around killing people. Right?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The content of a film does not negate its form. And the form of a film is sometimes enough to make it great cinema.

I agree with this but I don't think the form of a film has mattered as much for a few years now, though this would also depend on "great cinema" in the eyes of who? The movie-going audience? The Oscars? The Sundance? etc. It's hard to come to a consensus on a film anymore since I believe critics nowadays will say what they want to say in a most subjective manner. Speaking of Psycho, Silence of the Lambs won more major Oscars than Titanic did but the former grossed almost $300 million worldwide while the latter grossed almost $2 billion worldwide. You can't trust anyone's taste, at all. Me, I'm giving my money to Kung Fu Hustle this weekend 8-)

 

Shifting back to Sin City vs. Constantine a moment, accuracy doesn't equate quality and improvisation doesn't equate innovation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Of all the ridiculous things said this thread, Tears saying David Spade somehow resembles a "high school bully" is the most ludicrous by far.

 

COWER BEFORE HIS BURLY MIGHT!

 

spade.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×