TearsInRain
-
Posts
273 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by TearsInRain
-
-
I was not dissing the film - I was expressing my displeasure of it - its themes, its execution and its supposed coolness factor masking the fact that film is 2 hours of repetitive head bashing.
Which is exactly what everyone (not including you) has been saying about constantine. Hypocrite. Pot calling the kettle black and all that. You forget that Constantine was based on a comic that was about the supernatural & occul;t and a man who got through that world everyday through cunning cons and not action & violence which is what the flick turned out to be.
Sin City on the oter is all about Violence.
What is Sin City about? Anyone?Entertainment. Real entertainment.
That's exactly the problem. When violence becomes real entertainment. Welcome to Rome.
-
by the way, Tears, I'm not so sure that women are going to find this so horrifically offensive given some of the reactions I've come across. Most intelligent people are probably not looking at this movie in the completely non-ironic way you seem to be. THE most feminist film critic on the internet (go to flickfilosopher.com) raved about this movie and she is a critic who finds gender issues in nearly EVERY movie she reviews. And she's not the only one either. I would suggest that you missed something in your viewing.
And really, man, take a look at Constantine before you go dissing other people's movies. James said everything I wouldve wanted to.
Because I actuallly work in film I am not allowed my opinion of another's? Bullshit. I was not dissing the film - I was expressing my displeasure of it - its themes, its execution and its supposed coolness factor masking the fact that film is 2 hours of repetitive head bashing. Hey, that can be great for a few laughs when the bad guy gets it - but this film's plot is basically the same idea repeated over and over - some low life ugly smug toughie who will kill and die for some young naked thing who sells her coochie to the highest bidder. That's art?
If you want to compare Constantine and Sin City in every post, fine - that's your hangup. My honest opinion is that Sin City being 100 % faithful to its source does not make it great, groundbreaking or art in any sense of the words. I'll even go out on a limb and state that Constantine - being only 35.6% faithful to its source was in the end a better movie. Of course that's my opinion and I'm obviously biased, yes? But look at the talkbacks for the two films on any websight and compare the discussions. When you do you'll see that Constantine provoked viewers' curiousity about a range of subjects - suicide, religion - heaven and hell and yes that dreaded word most Hellblazer fans seem to hate - redemption. It was at least about something. What is Sin City about? Anyone?
-
I'm not bitter, just amazed at the hype surrounding this cartoon. Call me old fashioned but I just don;t find gratuetus violence a form of mass fun filled entertainment. And when I watch a young audience eat it up and digest it as great cinema it just bothers me. I chose not to take my girlfriend and man am I glad I didn't. This would not have appealed to her or the majority of the female audience. The rest of night would have been very cold....
Nice baiting, derogatory use of the phrase "cartoon".
I find it interesting that you bemoan the film's use of "gratuitous violence", when your own film featured several scenes of graphic violence which could have been cut or re-written with virtually no impact on the story itself (Mexican being shot in the hospital pool, holy shotgun scene, Constantine beating up Balthazaar). If you think those scenes in Constantine existed for any other reason than to appeal to the whooping kids in the audience then you're delusional beyond help.
And of course, Constantine featured a helpless heroine who served little purpose in the plot than to be the living womb for a grotesque demon, and to flash her continually wet cleavage and bra at the camera whilst making gasping noises. Hardly a poster child for independent feminist power (and you can go on about how she's intelligent and fights back, but it doesn't change the fact that she's completely impotent and is essentially only another plot device to keep the hero gadding about).
Sin City is trashy, pulpy, violent, misogynist nonsense, but - unlike Constantine - at least it has the balls to admit it. And it has a damned sight more coherence and artistic merit than your dreadful, re-written, re-constituted, flimsy none.
So I'm not allowed an opinion here? I did not like Sin City. Sorry. It wallowed in its violence and brutality, wearing it as a 'cool' badge of honor. Are you going to make me like it by attacking Constantine again? I thought this was the Sin City thread. Sorry, I'll go back to the other forum where I guess I belong.
-
I'm not bitter, just amazed at the hype surrounding this cartoon. Call me old fashioned but I just don;t find gratuetus violence a form of mass fun filled entertainment. And when I watch a young audience eat it up and digest it as great cinema it just bothers me. I chose not to take my girlfriend and man am I glad I didn't. This would not have appealed to her or the majority of the female audience. The rest of night would have been very cold....
-
I just finished watching it (after sneaking in with some lame "I'm going to see 'Robots'" excuse that no one within a twenty-meter circumference of me believed in the slightest), and I have to say, this just smacked Unbreakable out of the running for my favourite Superhero/Comic Book-related movie.
My God, this thing was absolutely brilliant.
I'd go on a two-page long spiel, but some folks still haven't seen it, and my awe for the movie has left me incapable of typing anything other than "It kicked arse!"
So let me just close by saying, Frank Miller can act!
Well I guess I'll be the naysayer on this one, but I saw it last night and other than a few puncy pulpish lines straight out of the comic - it left me uninvolved and numb. But I can see how every 14 year boy will love it because it's basically a film that champions every violent act their impressional little minds might want to witness. And every girl in it is a woman worthy of beating or raping or doing the same in return to some low gravely voiced man. It was fun to watch the stylized scenery but was so over the top it merely becomes an excercize in excess. There was tentative applause from the more basic members of the crowd - those that screamed out - YEAH - everytime a nude breast was shown. It was as if they had heard that the film is sooo cool and they'll be branded as Nancy boys if they actually offer an opinion other than the heard. Sorry, but if this is the "best" comic book movie made than I pity those that don't find blood gushing violence entertainment because it's a loong road down from here when everyone in Hollywood starts copying it.
-
Variety: 4/1/05 Warner Brothers announced today that it is continuing the saga of John Constantine but will do an overhaul from the first film to satisfy audience members and share holders alike. Although moderately successful, and still climbing overseas, Constantine was not the huge blockbuster studio executives dreamed about when pouring an excess of 100 million into a potential franchise. "It was a beautiful film to look at but was too cerebral and missed its opportunity to draw in the young male audience like what Sin City promises."
In an era where video games make more than the movies they mimic, Constantine Two may just reverse the trend. "The Holy Shotgun got the best response on our exit polls so we are expanding on that idea and inventing many new and exciting weapons for John Constantine to use in the second. These will assist him when he goes up against some of the most expensive demons ever put on film."
Although script duities have yet to be announced, a preliminary treatment has already garnered interest from genre director Paul W.S. Anderson.
"I would be thrilled to f*** death to get the chance to amp JC up to the bad ass he could be. If I have my way people will forget the first film and the comics and know JC as someone no one in heaven or hell f***s with. He will be the new action hero of the new mellenium. And since he's lost his sidekick driver I see him his license and building a kick ass vehicle that will put the f**** Batmobile to shame. They'll be controls inside that will release all kinds of Hell on the streets when he passes. Action fans are gonna be freakin' pissin' in their pants when they see it!"
Keanu Reeves will not be back as the cancer cured pulp hero but the studio is not at all worried. "Batman used four different actors and look where it is today." Although producers wouldn't speculate, sources say the names on Anderson's short list are Branden Frasier, Christian Slater and Paul Walker.
Gerald Wayne / Variety
-
Hmmmm.....maybe the sixth sense, but I wouldn't agree with his latest- The Village. It fell quite short to plot, dialogue, and suspense. Very predictable and rather dull. The premature tool shed scene revealing "the wizardry behind the curtain" (already predicted) as well as the other scenes-were a complete let down especially come to find out how a developmentally delayed individual could be so skilled at skinning animals as well as the noises in the woods he was able to vocally conjure.......and all of this came about through a counseling group. Yes....Let's not examine this with the level of scrutiny and litmus test Constantine has received from devoted readers and critics. Few movies/adaptations would pass the test. On that note, looking forward to Sin City.
Shamalayan's films aren't about the supernatural, they aren't about the twist--they're about family, and what people will do for love. On that level, the film succeeded extremely well. It was the story of family, and what people can overcome for love. Sixth Sense is about a man whose life is empty, so he establishes a relationship with a troubled boy. Together, they help each other work out problems. The Village was about two people in love, and what fear and difficulty one person overcame in order to make sure that that love was allowed to grow.
If, however, you're one of those shallow people who went to The Village hoping for an awesome, amazing twist--you overlooked so much of the film while waiting for the twist that you missed everything. The Village was a beautiful film about love, and what parents will do to in order to keep their children safe, and what people who love each other will do for each other. The violence in the film was amazingly well-handled. A single stabbing, and I heard people in the theater gasp, it was so shocking. Funny how Constantine didn't elicit that response when John opened up with the Holy Shitgun. Phoenix and Howard gave elegant, moving performances, and they lit up the screen when they were on it together. The dialog was well-crafted and foll of rich depth, and if there was a problem it was that the older adults didn't sell their 'stilted' speech properly. It came off sounding too much like the actors were stumbling on their lines. Which, considering that we were dealing with Sigourney Weaver and William Hurt, was something of a tip-off.
Never was the film inconsistent to itself. Never was it unclear. Never did it misunderstand what it was trying to do. People misunderstood the director's intention, but that was a problem of their expectations, rather than with the film itself.
The Village stands up very well to the kind of scrutiny that has been applied here. That you didn't get it is... not surprising, especially considering how much you have contributed to this thread so far. The Village was a beautiful film that I greatly enjoyed, because, like all M. Night films, the details stood up to the kind of scrutiny that Constantine utterly failed to. You didn't like it, that's fine. But it stands up to the kind of analysis here quite well.
No, what's not surprising is that you can't accept his view of the Village without attacking him personally. You do at least three times in your post. The Village did not work for many people. It was not sold as a family love fest, it was sold as a suspense thriller with monster overtones. In that regard it didn't live up to expectations. And I have to add that Sixth sense was a total director misdirection which on second viewing reveals it to be a plot device based on selective editing. We're shown scenes where Bruce Willis is with his wife and she ignors him - as if they are having marital problems. Total misdirection that falls completely apart when you THINK about it. If we were shown 5 more seconds between them we would have all seen that what Willis would have obviously seen - that he is not there. I still like the movie a lot but it truly is a plot not based on character reality, but whatever the director chose to show us.
-
naruhodo.
I think you have read how i admitted i liked it, but that was because i had been bored.
Abhi put me straight, and i was very sorry for my mental weakness.
These are not the droids you're looking for... move along...
-
I'm waiting with baited breath here, but I guess I'll have to log in again tomorrow to see if Tom survived the experience.
they are probably still in the pub drowning his misery in Guiness
But... what if all the bad hype here caused him to recoil for months only to be let down by his own negative feelings and he actually... gulp... likes it.
Will Hell freeze over then?
-
Good luck, Tom. The jacket is for your own protection...
-
Oh for bloody arsing cock's sake don't you (and James) recognise sarcasm when you see it ?
If the bloke doesn't want to say "the studio fucked up" because, you know, he might want work in the future, but he is prepared to say what he was saying when Kris quoted the punchline above, I think there is slack that could be cut here.
:-) one pint on me, AB
-
It comes down to what Matador had said previously - the filmmakers did not spoon feed the audience the answers - it purposely kept it "muddled" to allow for your own interpretation.
And I suppose those 50 re-writes had nothing to do with it, eh?
The director's already admitted that the grey area over Gabriel's status as a half-breed is due to a fuckup caused by so many re-writes. You yourself have complained about how the final thing was different from the original vision. Why should we believe your new claim that it's all intentional?
Face it, the whole thing's an illogical mess. I have no idea why you even bother to attempt to save face like this.
And if you think this is in anyway comparable with any of Kubrick's output (except in the context of "this is infinitely worse than any of Kubrick's output") then you're delusional.
And I don't even like Kubrick.
Actually Kubrick himself had no idea what his films were. Why else would he need 90 takes for a man opening a door? That's not genius, it's OCD on a massive scale. But Constantine is another matter - everyone at the studio knew exactly what they wanted. The first drafts were deemed too logical and spot on and confused absolutely no one. It took 50 rewrites to get the exact muddled feel everyone was shooting for. Thank god some were willing to go that extra mile to get there.
-
...Don't know James, I didn't get that. Yes, he stopped Lucifer from taking John's soul, but why he let Lucifer take the cancer and give John his life back? We could think, then, that God agree with Lucifer and prefers to let John live so he can prove what he really deserves (heaven, taking a better life, or hell, fucking with his life again). So, in way, Lucifer's decision was the better choice at the end.God, apparently, still has a plan for John.
And could you elucidate that line of Keanu's? It really doesn't make any sense to me.
Wow, two more pages devoted to discussing the ambilence of God - or is it the movie - or maybe both? Interesting... But stating religious beliefs as set rules is kind of like hearing people talk about ghosts- what they can do or don't, as if we in the living already knew it all. The Bibe itself is so convoluted it is conpletely open to interpretation. In fact you're considered immature if you take the words at face value. It's like a Kuburk film - the less it makes sense - the more genius it is.
Everyone takes whatever they need to when quoting the Bible. We all we want cut and dry answers to all the questions of life and the afterlife. Because a comic book movie doesn't provide them does not mean its themes are considerably flawed, nor are the discussions it provokes invalid. It comes down to what Matador had said previously - the filmmakers did not spoon feed the audience the answers - it purposely kept it "muddled" to allow for your own interpretation. If you want precise anwers, I'm afraid you;ll have to wait until that grey twilight after your last breath. Maybe it will all make sense then. Maybe not.
-
Why don't you fuck off to somewhere where everyone will agree with you?
I more or less agree with everything else you said, but I really could do without this sort of thing, personally. There are other people who post here who I disagree with just as strongly as I do Tears, on a wide array of subjects aside from Constanteen, but I wouldn't want them to be told to fuck off either - just because the film raises so many hackles around here doesn't mean basic rules of courtesy should be suspended.
Just my two cents.
In general, I agree with you. However, it's also common courtesy to actually respect people's opinions and listen to them. This Tears has not done-EVER. He is like a broken record, he comes in, tells everyone who disagrees with him that they are wrong, offers no real reason why, reiterates that the film is the best thing since sliced bread, and thay everyone who disagrees with him has some sort of mental deficiency, or can't discern for themselves why they didn't like the film. He has been condescending andf rude ever since he got here; do you consider that post he just made, in which everyone he has ever talked to except for this board thought the film was great? That he has to remind Kris that what Kris says is his own opinion? Tears has not yet been polite in the months he has been here. Early stupidity I can excuse, the Tears simply does not respect that we are also thinking human beings, and I am tired of extending but not receiving courtesy.
Should he begin to treat us with respect and actually open a dialog, then he may find that many of the individuals on this board will do the same. But my patience is gone.
Thought police! Thought police!! Call me whatever you want but you;re the one here closed minded. You don;t even read my posts - you react to them. But I won't stoop to your level of play. I refuse to get my hands and mouth that filthy. I say the same thing over and over? Maybe because I don;t change my opinion based on which way the wind blows.
Have a nice day.
-
I haven't seen Alexander myself, but have heard nothing good about it. To me, it's amazing how anyone could possibly fuck up the story of Alexander the great. I mean it has all that's required to make a kickass movie!
Constantine also suffers from much the same problems at times, embarrassingly cliched dialogue in places, too much concern on style rather than content, a lead actor who looks like he can't express emotion or utter a line without any gravitas, and some disjointed scenes that seem to effect the continuity as a whole.
:p
You forgot to include the simple notation - IMHO, because that's all it is - Kris. Your opinion. There are a lot of people, smart people - that actually love the film. And they love it for exactly the reasons you don't. I've had the opportunity to talk with many many of them, many just average film goers and I have not found one who thinks its a cliche ridden POS. In fact I have heard the opposite - that they liked it because it didn't follow the cliches. They also liked that it didn't explain everything. It just dropped you in and hoped you could catch up. Some like having to think - to figure things out. Others need every plot point shoved in their face. They also liked that it wasn't a bloodfest and was actually about something. it's sparked quite a lot of debate and discussion about theology and the true motivations behind the facades of angels or devils. Check the other sites and you'll see what I mean. For a comic book movie with an unknown protagonist to cause people to think - well that's a pretty good achievement in my book.
I'm hearing good things from fans about Sin City and after reading a few reviews I'm certain it will satisfy the comic and the bloodlust fans - I hear it's one of the most violent films ade in a very long time. So much for the female crowd. But that's what the 14 year olds want, right? Give them the battles, the blood, the decapitations - mindlessly - and they'll drool to see it again and again. But will it be about anything? Other than vengence and revenge? Will there be any worthwhile discussions that spawn out of it? I hope so...
-
HAHAHAHAHAHA.
That was my first exposure to Corben's work and I was really disappointed - he was being feited as being aces all over the shop then he serves up a real half-hearted effort. I've read a few more things featuring his art since then, all of which have been grotesque in all the right ways.
I am slowly casting this midget Hellblazer movie now....i hope Tears is reading this :p
Kenny "R2D2" Baker to play Stark
Verne Troyer to play Agent Turro
Tony Cox to play Boxer
Macaulay Culkin as Candy
To be honest though, i can't see much of a market for a film that features buggery and shivvings :wacko:
Hmmmm.... half sized stars... that would maybe cut the buget in half... they could play it in smaller theaters.... Maybe warners would reconsider a sequel....
Hmmmm.....
-
If you are near London and want to cheer Tom on, we are going to watch That Awful Film on Good Friday (kind of seems appropriate, doesn't it?) in one of London's cheaper cinemas (tbc).
Why are you picking one the cheaper theaters, Adrian? Hell, I contributed enough myself to get Tom into a place that at least would enhance the experience, not detract from it. That is only fair, don;t you think? Go to a good theater with a good sized screen and great sound, please. That's like this one producer I met who never had time and used to watch bootleg films on a tiny 5 inch screen with the video running on fast forward (he did this with The Godfather of all films) and question the validity of the hype and wonder aloud how such dreck could cost so much.
Give the experience at least a fair shot.
-
Am I part of The Enemy? Or am I one of those former Enemies who betrayed the group? I know that IveSeenThingsYouPeopleWouldntBelieveAttackShipsOnFireOffTheShoulderOfOrionIWatch
edCBeamsGlitterInTheDarkNearTheTannhauserGateAllThoseMomentsWillBeLostInTimeLikeT
earsInRain hates me because I was part of The Enemy, but now? Does he/she hate me?
I so love that little speech of Roys....
Now you know why I had to shorten my moniker. Or use this one...
.. thebulbthatglowstwiceasbrightglowshalfaslongandyouhaveglowedsobrightlymyson...
-
Now why couldn't John Shirley have just written the screenplay.
Because then another writer would be doing the novelization of his work so you could understand it better.
Contrary to popular belief, working screenplay writers are not talentless hacks. And the ones doing the coveted big budget studio projects were not just handed those assignments. Somewhere along the long climb they had to do exceptional work - consistantly. What happens after The End is written is somewhat beyond their control.
-
The role should've been played by Kiefer Sutherland back when he was 25 ... - I'm sure anyone who've seen "Flatliners" will at know what I'm talking about. - Remember the rainy street scene with the bycicles driving by?
Yes, I most certainly do! *smooch!*
You have inspired me to pop in my Flatliners DVD. :)
Speaking of Schumacher, the direction in Constantine wasn't half bad, but I could see Schumacher as director, definitely. I know that after some of the things he's done most comic fans would rather :icon_2gun: than have Schumacher direct another DC Comics movie, but as long as he didn't have script approval . . . ;)
So it was only Akiva's fault that the batman franchise was ruined with Shumacher's 2nd effort? This big ass director was what - hypnotized to direct such a shitty film? He was forced to put nipples on the costumes, blinky colored lights on the batmobile and pretty much redid West Side story with Batman and Robin as chorus girls?? How soon people forget...
-
Let's face it, YOU KNOW when you're being a dickhead.
And if you didn't do it, there'd only be polite disagreements here.
btw: I'll give you one day of my life if you'll get us out of the sequel horror.
I actually tried to keep my objectively biased opinion aimed at Kris. I believe I said - "most here do not agree with him" -- but face it, if I let go on him I do get swatted from the collective. I mean it's why I'm having to defend myself to you, Adrian, and I have nothing but fondness for you. I only let go and became a dickhead when it became a boxing match in here between Kris and the new Hollywood guy, who honestly just didn;t know better. Nothing wrong with giving him the up and up, right? It was just sad to see him defend himself repeatedly to deaf ears. hell I understood what he was trying to say in his very first post about Guy and Dolls and I'm a moron living in a seediless city where the air has eaten away half my brain. And hey, Kris, this is not a personal attack - I'm just trying to get this niave guy up to speed. Face it, he can't win against you.
Now, Adrian, about that day of your life...
I'd like it added to this month so I can sleep in a whole day after doing coke with Johny's model girlfriend.
The sequel is not happening.
Now... where can I go to get Swamp Thing fans pissed off?
-
And if you continue to fight with him - here or in other sites around the globe - they may even ban you, because for some reason, the powers that be have decided its Kris that needs protecting - he's been elected as the Voice of the collective conscience. And as long as that continues no new ideas or thoughts beyond his will be accepted in this forum without extensive combative debate. He can slap you with any insult he wants but you are expected to be curteous and respectful and every word you write has to be offensive to NO ONE. That's what is considered fair debate here. So I say quit while you;re behind and as far as Kris is the self appointed moderator I'd say get as far away from this site as you can.
Besides - the discussion of any sequel is for naught - it will not happen.
That's the final word.
You can be a right dickhead, occasionally.
Yeah, when I'm not being a pussy which is easy to fall here when getting browbeaten everytime I go a little against the flow.
I'm glad you kind of liked the film, Adrian - I respect your opinion a lot here.
As for the sequel.
X X
...O
____
-
Sure, I expect a response, but when I then point out that I agree it strayed far but not TOO FAR that the comic is meaningless, you kept pushing how far it strayed. Sure, it strayed incredibly far, but not as far as it could have, so that is RELATIVE. John Constantine could have been a human infected with demon blood forced to work for Gabriel and use his demonic powers to "deport" half-breeds violating the treaty or find himself deported, but I bet you a night of drinking (if you're ever in LA or I'm in Aberdeen) that the sequel still takes elements and plotlines from the comic.
However, I won't eat haggis.
Now, excuse me, but I have to snort cocaine while screwing a model.
Okay, now this is becoming very entertaining, especially since I'm not at the middle of it. Of course that will change as soon as I open my mouth. But fuck it, I'm tired of walking on egg shells around here.
So let me advise you, Johny - you're beating a dead horse. Number one rule is you don;t get into scrapes with certain people here - namely kris. You see this is his life, man, his passion - what he dreams about on nights he can actually sleep without his meds. For better or worse he has become the VOICE here on this forum. Now I love the guy for his spunk and the fact he never ever admits he's wrong -- even when he is -- but it does get old trying to make a valid point when he's in the mix. He's like that preverbial Energizer bunny - he just keeps going at you and going at you... and he'll stalk.. er I mean follow you across the internet to make sure you accept his point of view as the only valid one.
He hates the film, that's his right - but he states that opinion as if it were fact when there are many here that don't share his views - some that have rather enjoyed the film - and some who are confused that a few of their revered critics have even written glowing reviews of the film. But it's Kris that you're going to get your head butted in by because this is his sport - the thing he thrives on -- to bully anyone with a view other than his own and let me tell you - arguing with him here is a no win proposition. And if you continue to fight with him - here or in other sites around the globe - they may even ban you, because for some reason, the powers that be have decided its Kris that needs protecting - he's been elected as the Voice of the collective conscience. And as long as that continues no new ideas or thoughts beyond his will be accepted in this forum without extensive combative debate. He can slap you with any insult he wants but you are expected to be curteous and respectful and every word you write has to be offensive to NO ONE. That's what is considered fair debate here. So I say quit while you;re behind and as far as Kris is the self appointed moderator I'd say get as far away from this site as you can.
Besides - the discussion of any sequel is for naught - it will not happen.
That's the final word.
-
Yeah the movie was changed a fair amount at the last moment. The dialogue somewhat. Scenes were cut...somethings different...I wish I'd seen it I could have written the novelization better. Sets for example, actors, couldve been in the book right...
Not to be direspectful of John, whom I will meet at his signing soon, but there is a hell of a lot more room in a novel to flush out characters and detail that unfortunately cannot be crammed in any two hour movie - one that has countless people pulling and pushing to get their own thought inserted. I believe John will agree with me that he normally doesn't have 10 bosses discussing and scrutinizing every word, making him explain or change ideas to suit an audience they're not even sure exists. Screenwriters do not get the credit that is due them, they are never regarded as true writers like novelists are - but there is a definate art of writing within the limited constraints of the movie making world and still finding room to do good work and tell compelling stories. Those that succeed are far and few between but it's not because they're incompetant or void of original ideas - it's just the nature of the beast.
Sin City vs Constanteen
in Comics in other media
Posted
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.