TearsInRain

Dear Tears in Rain,

 

I understand that you're quite attatched to the motion picture "Constantine". I appreciate that not everyone will necessarily feel the way that many of the folks on this forum feel about that film.

 

What I don't understand or appreciate is why you bother coming back to this forum to harangue and generally attempt to get a rise out of it's patrons.

 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Well Tom, you responding angrily to my short tiny little asides that should cause no bile to raised, really - is probably exactly why I still come by. I post something I run across on Constantine - the MOVIE - in the "movie forum" and I get called a [over-used word] for just stopping by. I mean I like [over-used word]s as much as the next guy but being told to fuck myself, which is physically impossible, is kind of a twisted early morning shot of caffien. But hey, I truly believe under different circumstances - say at a pub there or a fully nude lap lap dance club here, you and I would be sharing a watered down drink and cackling about all the wasted energy spent here. But since that ain't never gonna happen, this is all we got, Tom! Enjoy it while it lasts! ;)

So who's the more pathetic, the ones still complaining of what could have been or those that liked it enough to continue expounding its virtures?   Call it a draw?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

No, because we're not complaining about what could have been, we're complaining about you being a [over-used word].

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Well at least I serve a purpose here - An outlet for those big four letter words you're so dying to use.

So help me here, is me being a [over-used word] worse or better than you being a dick?

All in fun now.

44 issues, to be exact -- Swamp Thing v.1 1-24, Annual #1, and Swamp Thing v.2 #1-19.  :)

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Except that Vol. 1 22-24 were ignored for continuity purposes by Pasko and Yates, Swampy still had no inkling as to what he was or wasn't at the end of issue v. 2, 20, and there was a several year gap between publicaiton of Vol 1 and Vol 2.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Which is why it seems that if any comic ever needed to be truncated into a cohensive storyline, it's ST. It's been f*** with so much by the writers over the years trying to inject some kind of animal life into a plant, that many of the fans are in complete disagreement as to what really is relevant.

I only thought if a movie had to be made - it should focus on one run - specifically Moore's run. That could be the basis for a very cool film with a metaphysical slant, something no one has ever attempted in a comic book film. The monster as the central character - his voiceover as a guide to his own evolution? Think about it, would that be so damn wrong? I mean did anyone see that POS Man Thing on Sci Fi?? It was the typical monster flick - thing in swamp kills people that are bad. Moore's grand themes rocket the storyline into a region that might just bring fans back to the theater. Otherwise, everyone in here is right - why bother?

Please, no. Then I'd have to get my weekly paddling at stripperweb.com.

...or you could just fuck off.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

:icon_shotgun: I can always count on James to cut through the mustard.

But hey, seriously - why should I not come here? You guys hated the film and are still posting to the Constantine "movie" thread . So who's the more pathetic, the ones still complaining of what could have been or those that liked it enough to continue expounding its virtures? Call it a draw?

Besides I love the sense of comraderie in here. It makes me tingle with appreciation. :D

Why is it that when you find one review that agrees with you, it is automatically "well thought out" but all the very similar detailed and coherent arguments against most of what your IMDB friend says is not ?

 

You should put that review as one of the extras on the DVD so as people know what they have been watching.

 

One phrase to deflate the chap's whole argument:

 

"Those who complain that John never used any firearms in the comics, think again. He did wield the Holy Winchesters (I’m not sure what issue/arc, but I remember their presence). "

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Actually there are a lot of people who have written good things about the film - even renowned reviewers that some here revere. I just thought it was getting boring and thought i'd post it just to get taken to the matt once again. Been standing too long, ya know?

Reprint from TATO87 posted on IMDB today, 5th, 2005 - I thought this was a well thought out opinion and applied to this thread.>>>>>

Why is it whenever someone mentions that their favorite scene in this movie is during John’s ascension into Heaven – when he gives Satan the official New York state bird – that some of you say that, in essence, a big middle finger toward Alan Moore? Moore should be one of the last people to get credit for this fascinating pulp character. Sure, Moore introduced the character in the pages of his fantastic “Swamp Thing” run, but he hardly developed the character. It was writers like Jamie Delano and Garth Ennis who really breathed life into the character and made him what he is today. From what I am to understand, both Garth and Jamie liked the film’s interpretation of the character. It seems to me that the aforementioned scene is a straight homage to Ennis’ and artist Steve Dillion’s work on the book. Why? Because it feels so much like Garth’s humor and I can really imagine Steve’s artwork for the image. It’s classic.

As of this point (if you’re still reading, thank you) you can well guess that I am a fan of not only the film, but also the comics. Those of you who are constantly nagging and bashing this film (ahem, diehard fanboys) are probably saying, “Sure he is.” The truth is, I am. I was a late comer due to my age and had to collect the trades (“Rare Cuts is my favorite, with “Rake at the Gates of Hell” being my favorite arc, EVER!!) and now I pick up the regulars as well as Midnite’s mini-series. Let me tell you, I was as heartbroken as many of you when WB announced that Neo would be playing the beloved Briton John Constantine. I was also upset when LA was announced as the setting, rather than Liverpool. It got to the point in which I thought that John wouldn’t even light up. I wanted to dislike this as much as you did, but I didn’t. What follows is my personal breakdown of the film. Keep in mind, that this is my opinion, entitle it to me and I will do the same for you. I will also compare “Constantine” to that other comic book event of the Spring, “Sin City”, so this ties into the “Constantine better than Sin City” posts. (By the way, I am a huge fan of both Frank Miller and Robert Rodriquez; in a filmmaker’s eye, Rodriguez should be one of the most respected, devoted, and hard-working men around. Very few filmmakers put the time, effort, and dedication that he puts into his films. It’s sad that he is so underrated.

ACTING:

I do have respect for Mr. Reeves, he is quite and underrated actor, but I wasn’t ready for him to tackle John (by the way, stop bashing him you Jude Law-lovers). The moment that Keanu steps out of Chaz’s cab, I was hooked; it was then that I realized what a catch Reeves was. His body language, dead-pan stare, and, hell, even the way he walked was exactly how I imagined John would handle it. Many claim that Reeves acting was wooden, which is basically emotionless, so how is that not John Constantine? John is one of the most cold, heartless bastards in all of the world. Then it happened, John put a cigarette on his lips and lit up. A smile as wide as the Nile split across my face. Throughout the film I was totally convinced that Keanu was John. The supporting cast was also impressive: Tilda Swinton, Peter Stormare (at his scene-stealing best), Rachel Weisz, and Djimon Hounsou (who is quickly becoming a terrific African actor).

I was ecstatic for “Sin City”, Robert Rodriguez being one of my favorite filmmakers and Frank finally getting the credit he deserved for so long. I walked into the theater expecting the best, but sadly, I left feeling. . .empty. The acting was at best, B-grade. That isn’t saying much, considering that it boasted one of the finest ensemble casts this year next to “Crash”. It felt as though Bruce phoned it in (which he seems to be doing a lot these days), Michael Madsen crashed and burned, Rosario Dawson felt too uninterested (“Tying knots is my specialty!” Ugh), Brittany Murphy was, well . . .Brittany Murphy, and Jessica Alba seemed campy, though sexy throughout. I felt satisfied with only three of its actors: Mickey Rourke, THE comeback kid . . . or man; Clive Owen, not his best, but I have yet to see him in something I didn’t like him in; and Benicio Del Toro, who, let’s face it, could sit still for two hours and still give a good performance.

DIRECTION:

I used to have little to no respect for music video directors, like Francis Lawrence, until folks like Michael Gondry, Spike Jonze, and Doug Liman began making films. These guys have a great taste for visuals (although they can mix up their style over substance) and know their way around the big guys. I was quite impressed with Lawrence’s direction on “Constantine”. He set out to make a movie that wasn’t your typical comic book movie and succeeded. He kept the movie’s pace tight and it never broke from the actor’s performances. I also thought that he framed quite well for this being his first theatrical, widescreen film.

Rodriguez’s (and Quentin Tarantino’s) direction on “Sin City” was just, place the panels as storyboards, and film. Not too much freedom there. I felt that it was too much style over substance in this case, it seemed to never “come alive” in my eyes.

WRITING:

I’ve heard the rumors about Constantine’s multiple rewrites and ghostwrites, including those by producer Akiva Goldsman, but the end result worked. The story was cohesive, the plot came together, and very little of the dialogue felt tacked on, or clichéd.

“Sin City” was, word for word, the comic. ‘Nuff said.

CINEMATOGRAPHY:

Phillippe Rousselot has always been one of my favorite DPs, so I might be a bit biased here. I felt that LA was captured like no other film before it. It had that dark, smoked look that it needed to have with the silver bypass. I also felt that the green tint gave it a very unique look. The scenes in Hell were also lit beautifully, though mostly due to CGI.

I have yet to see a film shot on High-Definition DV cameras that contains really impressive performances from the actors – except for “Collateral” and “28 Days Later”. So I felt that this might have subtracted from “Sin” a bit. I understand that this technique is much easier to use (quicker filming, unlimited film, less expensive, MUCH easier to work with) and I know it made to colorizing much easier to accomplish, but it still took some value away from it.

MUSIC:

Brian Tyler’s score was simply, magnificent, as are most of the young composer’s contributions to the films he scores. I got the CD after I saw the film so I knew what to expect, but I was still blown away. John;s theme is simply one of the most expressive and perfect themes for such a “devil may care” character. Rachel’s theme was also quite beautifully written and managed to tug on the heart strings a bit. Although Klaus Badelt’s action cues are predictable (watch “Pirates of the Caribbean”) they were typical Media Ventures work, which could be a good thing or bad thing, depending on who you are. I recommend this score even if you hated the film, it works on its own.

I bought “Sin City’s” score the day that it was released and was quite impressed when I popped it in my first listen. It captured the noir feeling perfectly. I was able to listen to the soundtrack while reading “The Hard Goodbye” before I saw the movie and it also works well with the books. Though now, it has gotten a bit stale; but I still go back to hear John Debney’s contributions to Dwight’s tale, “The Big Fat Kill”.

OVERVIEW:

“Constantine” had a very dark, omniscient tone and feeling to it, which is great. It’s what the film should have been. It was, at its heart, a classic film noir. It had all of the archetypes: the lone detective, the damsel in distress, the deceiving character, good vs. evil, etc. It was the essence, the spirit of the books. In “Hellblazer”, John is constantly losing those who are close to him, and it is always due to him. The same formula goes for the film. Those who complain that John never used any firearms in the comics, think again. He did wield the Holy Winchesters (I’m not sure what issue/arc, but I remember their presence). Besides, if it were in the books, you wouldn’t have a problem with it. It wasn’t even a real shotgun; it was a weapon, a tool, used to combat evil. We also know that even though John decides to pick up chewing gum with his new lungs, he will ALWAYS go back to smoking 13 packs a day.

“Sin City” was a very faithful adaptation to one of Miller’s greatest works. Does that mean that it will be a good movie? Not at all. I am an American, and I am one the last to be freaked out by violence, but I felt the violence was done wrong in this one. It never seemed to click with me. The performances were mediocre throughout and the film left me feeling like I hadn’t been fully satisfied. I wanted more from it, but I never got it.

Again, these comments are my rightful opinion and I would love fans of all kinds to respond to my comments. Good day.

seems to me all you like to do is troll, you're lucky John runs this board and not me because i would've banned you a long time ago.

Yeah that's because you're worse than Hitler .

I usually appreciate TIR's commentaries, they're so cute! Nah, the only thing you have to considere is:

"Any commentary about Constantine will be taken as a personal commentary by TearsInRain".

Once you have this in mind, things are much more easy! :wink:

 

Oh and am I still bored? not since Saturday when i posted this, but you should be very very glad i can't physically reach you from where i'm sitting. 

 

Oh! Seems to be a love story growing here... What would you do if you reach TIR?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I'm sure it'd involve a secret handshake and some non-american beer.

hopefully.

Wow, someone without a sense of humour, what would you call someone like that? An Asshole or a Wanker?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Who said I had no sense of humor? I laugh everytime I come on here. Talk about taking things so seriously... who's the one that resorted to profanity? Peace, love.

Are you still bored? :-)

2/3 of the internet believe constantine was Shit with only 1/3 thinking it was The Shit

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Wow, someone who actually has the power and time to cout every single person on the internet! Which word do you think describes someone like that - Geek or Fabricator?

Any word on the sequel yet Tears ?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Nope. I told everyone here a while ago it was shelved. If the numbers were reversed - 140 mill us, 75 world wide, there would already be a sequel in prepro. Now it's wait and see how the DVd sales goes... it's tracking pretty huge for warners but who knows...

These last few posts are pure comedic genius. I hope Tears is taking notes for the "Son Of Constantine's return" script...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Yeah, hilarious. You guys should get together and go on the road with that. You could replace the Insult Dog on Conan. So what ever happend to the 'fan film' of JC? Had to be a work of genius since it was made by loving fans, yes?

And if you think it's about "a man dying and discovering his place in the world - after death" then you've completely missed the point of the story. Which is another reason why I'd rather Hollywood just stuck to the simple "monsters have a scrap" formula. At least you can be sure that everyone on the production team is going to "get" that one.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Okay, fair enough. After digsesting and loving the 6 novels I must truly have a serious reading comprehension problem. So please help me -- What exactly is the point of Moore's story?

You're right.  At least that's how I'd play it.  Do the quick backstory of how he became what he became - then get into that he really isn;t human and let him go off to discovier who and what he really is.

 

But doesn't that rob the story of all of its power? The point of Moore's idea is that Swamp Thing has spent ten or fifteen years (comic time is sort of flexible like that) searching for a way to become human again, only to find out that he was never human in the first place. Remember that there were 20+ issues before Moore's story started, and that this kind of revelation pulled the rug out from underneath the readers.

 

I'd save it for the imaginary sequel, in the same way that I would've saved the lung cancer for Constantine 2. There's no point shaking up that character's world if neither character nor world are established enough for the audience to be emotionally invested in them (unless you're going to make the change of that world the focus of the film, but obviously monsters and angels are going to take precedence over The Green and death).

 

The question is - does streamlining constitutue reinvention and will the fans be up in arms if the storyline is truncated but falls within the spirit of alan moore's evolving character?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Depends if it "falls within the spirit" of the original character in the same way that Constantine did.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

But James, Moore came in to a series that had essentially died and injected a metaphysical slant into a typical Hulk story - man into beast, longing for his humanity. They made two crappy movies and a series based around that. No one is embracing the perfect Swamp Thing movie - in fact if you mention the title to just about anyone - they cringe and laugh remembering those crappy campy movies. And in Moore's run he may have started out finding out he was not human but Moore still treated him with Alec's personality - even having Abigail call him Alec after the first volume. It was like having his cake and eating it to.

Don't yopu agree that if anyone is going to have a chance at getting past a public's perception of Swamp Thing they are going to have to take on the larger picture - the larger concept that can give the creature a real discovery and journey, instead of just another tortured scientist turned into monster - wife is repulsed, creature is sad -- That was the original idea, yes - but it was done in 72 and died pretty quickly even then. Moore's power was inventing an entire mythology where swamp thing was just a part of.

Which movie would you rather see, really? Another version of the Frankenstien story with Swampy heading off into the swamp at the end - sad and lonely. Or a story of a man dying and discovering his place in the world - after death? And forget sequels - you have one shot to hook a new generation of fans.

You people have converted me. I saw the movie, thought it was cool, even though I knew it was way different than the comic, and was going to buy the DVD. Then I read the comic, and realized I was wrong. Now I'm not sure if I really want to buy the DVD. However, it might be worth it if they have the audio in different languages.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

These are not the droids you're looking for...

These are not the droids you;re looking for...

Move along..

Move along...

Christian - remember that they'll most likely want to cut out all the foreplay and get straight to Elemental Powers, which means Conjob as Mentor...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

You're right. At least that's how I'd play it. Do the quick backstory of how he became what he became - then get into that he really isn;t human and let him go off to discovier who and what he really is. Parliment of the Trees, etc. It leads perfectly into him finding his true power through the earth - able to travel anywhere - able to change the course of a river to drain a stagnant lake... A movie told for once through the hero/monster's POV. Voice over, etc. Kind of what they've done with Batman Begins. Show the evolution of a super hero, in this case an elemental. But how to do it still using a human actor sometimes and keep it from not being stupid - and without resorting to full CGI. It's a challenge but it could be the first metephysical super action horro film. The question is - does streamlining constitutue reinvention and will the fans be up in arms if the storyline is truncated but falls within the spirit of alan moore's evolving character?

"A Writer's Vision (Easter egg)"

 

Ho-Ho-Ho.

 

I'm sure the blurb from Time put a smile on Tears' face anyway.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Well... I heard a rumor that that was a small 1 minute animation done by the writer while writing the 45th draft.... But I could be wrong

Say you were adapting the Allen Moore inspired run on Swamp Thing - can it be told without the guiding hand of JC? I say no - but others disagree. I say call him simply Mr. C and have him in a tan trench coat with an english accent. No one will put the two movies together, right?

Ah! No way! You can even try to convince me that Sin City in not being sold on female sexuality too (wich I already disagree), but to say that Constantine was... uh-uh... no way.

 

I guess all those gasping wet lady/transparent shirt shots were just thrown in for the fun of it.

 

The "whorish" claim is irrelevant because a female character does not have to perform sexy dances to be exploited for her looks. No, she was not whorish, but that doesn't mean that the (thoroughly unneccessary) scene wasn't throwing a bone to the hetero guys in the audience.

 

And of course Sin City is being sold on female sexuality - my point is that Constantine was too, if to a lesser extent.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I guess this is why Lucas taped down Carrie Fisher's breasts in Star Wars - so he would avoid having adolescents getting off with any shot of a woman not in a Burqa and chastity belt.

From the latest issue of Wizard Magazine.

Wizard: Will you ever direct a comic book flick?

Quentin Tarantino: The reason I'll never do a comic book movie with, like, The Flash or something like that is f--- those comic book geeks, man. You can't please them. I might do a comic book movie, but I'd come up with my own characters where I'm God, and I'm the expert and not you guys.

killing dogs

Uhm...no dogs were killed...

- 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.

What in the hell games are you playing?! (--unless you mean third person, as in GTA...though even that lacks 90% of what you just listed...)

And young nubile prostitutes...sigh. Everyone misses the entire point of the Old Town girls. YES they're prostitutes, but the point is they "run" themselves and avoid the abusive portions of it. "But they're still prostitutes!"...Yes, but that's indicative of the nature of (Ba)sin City--you can't really get by on "honest" livings or doing "normal" things.

As many point out: the damn movie is CALLED "Sin City"...if you expect happy fun times with rainbows and puppies, I'm afraid that's your own fault.

And criticizing the quality of a movie for its literal content, not the performance, etc, makes no sense. Do you have to like or appreciate the violence? No. But it's not a very valid assessment all the same.

 

To bring it to an absurd level:

I hate dinosaurs, so Jurassic Park sucks...because it has dinosaurs.

 

It's really not all that different; JP is about dinosaurs. It's criticism of what it IS, now how it is. Sin City is, to some extent, about violence, corruption and sin--or, more accurately, this thin thread of goodness that manages to run behind a city filled with it. So yeah, if you really hate dinosaurs, hate JP and you are justified in hating it. But that doesn't mean its a shitty film just because it contains an element you dislike.

 

Bah, whatever. The whole reason I felt the need to respond comes below:

 

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.

 

Am I completely alone in reading this and screaming "HOLY SHIT! SEXIST MUCH?!"

Maybe I am...

 

   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? 

My closest friend, a 38 year old woman, absolutely fucking LOVED Sin City. Another girl I talk to saw it three times by April 3rd. I could give you loads of exceptions here.

Hell, for fuck's sake, my mother, almost 60, and a preacher came to visit me at school and we went to see...what? The Notebook? No.

Saw.

We discussed it for quite sometime afterwards as well, having both enjoyed it. I was describing Sin City and she said it sounded like something we'd enjoy (but maybe not my father or sister).

 

Jesus.

 

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

The presence or absence of violence is not the determinant for either of these in their being great cinema or not (for the record I despised Kill Bill v1...but it had nothing to do with the violence).

 

I'm, at most, slightly annoyed at the sexist implications of the post, but only mildly so, so don't freak that some random guy showed up and bitched at/about you, this isn't personal or intended as some attack...the vehemence is to outline the problem I see with the post and nothing else, so let me back off on this seeming (and ONLY seeming! :) attack and say, I DO agree with the basic nature of the post in stating that "calling people who don't enjoy the violence morons is stupid"

I'll give you that one, I quite agree. But still. It's no more a gender thing than any of these other societally created gender roles...

 

Anyway. Go about your business.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

you obviously don;t live in the real world. You call me sexist because I state a fact that hollywood is run by men - who for the most part IGNORE the female audience. Titanic proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that the female audience are not only a group to listened to but are a force never to ignored because they MADE that film the number one box office film of ALL TIME. Go back and look at the demographics - of the repeat viewers age and gender and eat some serious crow. And these are sexists statements??? This PC correctness from someone who loves Sin City, one of the most sexist films to come along a great while. And you think because the prostitutes KILL as brutally as men makes that that evens it out??? Sick and twisted indeed. Go to IMBD and read what average women are saying about the film - 900 posts at least.

i did not like the film for all the above reasons you mentioned. It is violent to be violent - it wears it like a badge of honor and people like you who obviously are numb and desentitized to the point of accepting this as entertainment eat it up with both hands and a full and opened mouth.

As for its artistic groundbreaking film style - it's neither. It's completely artificial and overly done. If film noire was the goal - Constantine's real sets and real litghting does the job much better in my eyes. It's about texture and Sin City had none IMO. It was slick for slick's sake. It's gritty realism is lost in the exact CGI style it trumps up. And to claim this is the book fully realized without change is horseshit. As soon as you make a MOVIE of ANY version of a comic you are changing the source. you are interpreting the actors look - walk - voice. And if you say RR just did the book - then why have a director at all? Why not just have the actors and producer walk on a stage - set the comic on the floor and say - do that. Turn the page and say - now do that. What pieces you pull from any source is a decision of a director and RR choose to show the the things that would get the most rise out of people that eat this shit up.

As far as the acting goes - it just proves that films shot on green screens do not give actors anything real to work with. Because these performances are either wooden or so far over the top none can be taken seriously as a drama or comedy. All we wait for is the next gross out violent act to wake us up. For all the shit that was thrown at Keanu's performance in constantine - THIS is what you consider good??? KR was more real in his role than any of those in Sin City. IMO. You want to watch cartoons come to life - that's your choice - but this is not a breakthrough in film making in the least. It is a fake out full of guns and breasts and bad acting and bad sets with enough violence piled on to make you go ooooo every three minutes or so - in other words it's a film made to match the mentality of an Xbox fed 14 year old with a stack of Hustlers and Deer Hunter magazines. Just because your grandmother loved it proves nothing. Other than you didn;t fall too far from the tree.

What specific people from Constantine are involved because I have not heard anything about this from anyone. "From the "set dresser of Constantine" or the catorer....

Somewhat unrelated but falls under the film headingheck out this trailer some guys did just for the hell of it. Actually a pretty cool idea and nicely done.

http://www.theforce.net/fanfilms/nonsw/grayson/

Called Grayson... as in Dick Grayson

And I don't recall Sin City being sold on its "supposed coolness factor" - that's something that you or others have applied to the film, so that particular line of criticism is redundant.

 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

From BoxOfficeMojo --

Dimension spinned Sin City's negatives, emphasizing the picture's relative uniqueness, which belongs to the nihilistic world of Rodriguez and sometime co-conspirator Quentin Tarantino, who both define a character's coolness by how they kill and get killed. The marketing wore the movie's dark comic origins as a badge of honor and relentlessly pursued fans, especially on the Internet. A large cast, including Clive Owen, Bruce Willis and Mickey Rourke as the anti-heroes and with Jessica Alba, Brittany Murphy and Rosario Dawson among the broads, raised the picture's profile, providing eye-catching, character-specific posters, especially of Alba's writhing stripper. Dimension's parent, Miramax, worked a similar routine with Tarantino's Kill Bill movies, and Tarantino's name was invoked on Sin City with a nebulous guest director credit. >>

No, they didn't sell it based on the coolness factor - not at all.

If you really believe that, you've been had.

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!

 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Jesus... I didn't say that - I said that's the impression the girls I know feel about him - and in the next breath I said that Morgan Freeman gave them the feel good impression of a grandfather figure. Please, I get enough thrown at me without having being constantly misquoted. But if I remember correctly, all high school bullies weren;t muscle bound jocks - they could also be loud mouthed vindictive assholes. Which Spade can be at times.