--- In
rara-avis-l@yahoogroups.com, DJ-Anonyme@... wrote:
> I'm beginning to think you don't like Sin
City.
>
> I don't really see it as a parody or homage. I just
see it as
pushing
> the genre to its extreme. leaving it to the viewer
to laugh with or
at
> the conventions in stark relief. The connection to
Spillane is
obvious,
> but I liked this and I'm not a fan of Spillane. I'm
not sure why,
> probably because I could get lost in the
visuals.
>
> Sure, it's style over substance, but what style.
Both the movie
and the
> comic. Sure, it's been done in comics before by Alex
Toth, Will
Eisner,
> etc, but I don't see any Spirit movie on the horizon
(and the TV
movie a
> decade or two ago was pretty lame). So I'll satisfy
myself with Sin
> City. I just thought it was fun in its overblown
comic booky way.
>
> As for your rhetorical question about why it was
labeled Adult,
you've
> lived below the 49th parallel long enough now to
know how we
purtians
> freak out about nudity, and there was lots of
nudity, well, female
> nudity, in Sin City.
Never complete nudity, alas. Stuff that would pass w/o a
comment on Canadian broadcast television.
Miller's basic looniness left the actual narrative
unengaging, for me. Fitfully amusing, but not up to, say, his
BATMAN comics, where his obsessions mesh well with the
character, and the OTT aspects of hero comics, particularly
when anti-hero comics.
I found myself admiring primarily the technological details
of both SIN CITY and 300 (and nearly no other aspect of the
latter); as I put it Bill Crider's blog, I came away from
both humming the scenery.
Todd Mason
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : 29 Oct 2007 EDT