FRANK MILLER TO DIRECT THE SPIRIT

i wish brad bird was doing this :(

(there was some talk)

Apparently he came on set as an artistic consultant or some such, but fell into being so involved that RR felt he had co-directed the film.

Brighter side: LOVE. CHUNKS. GODDAMMIT.

Yeah, me too.

I think it will be worse than Robocop II.

Let's remember that Will Eisner denial of racism regarding the Ebony White character (drawn with the fat lips!) rings very hollow. Because when a man devotes an entire book on whitewashing or 'unstereotyping' a (fellow) jew character in Charles Dickens work, ("Fagin the Jew" is a nice piece of revisionist history on a fictional character) then you know that he has a problem with stereotypes, just not with stereotyping black characters ...

A non-stereotyped black detective appeared in several later Spirit stories.

Er, Michael, and in his belt buckle.
I'm almost embarrassed to know that.

Er, Give Me Liberty?

That's why shows like '24' are so refreshing, at least seasons one and two, with TWO strong black women, of which one the Evil Borg Queen, even. And also with Lostaway Daniel Kim as Cool Swat Guy.

http://www.apple.com/trailers/wb/300/

It looks like it'll either be incredible or very, very silly.

2. It looks like a sub-Sin City + sub-Troy mashup.

3. At least it has orientalist girl/girl action.

I'm the Goddamn Spirit!

Eva Mendes has the key role of Sans Sarif, a beauty with dangerous curves but no non-structural details at the ends of some strokes that make up letters and symbols.

She's becoming the poor man's Jessica Alba.

That's some industrial-strength dumbing-down from Frank "Beware Hollywood! They fuck up your ideas!" Miller there. He who fucks nuns...

that's weird. I just met her a couple of weeks ago.
Also, enjoying again for the first time: "A hero born, murdered, and born again" for all its terrible awfulness.

Frank Goddamn Miller

Haha, looks proper gash:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TLRdxZRUlq8

If by 'proper gash' you mean 'really really ugly and stupid' I agree completely.

Something like that, yes.

It will either be genius (mental at that) or it will be utter pants (equally mental.) There won't be room for middle ground.

leaning towards pants

Sadly it looks like we're getting "overly reverent but just Not Getting It" Miller rather than "What are you, retarded? I'm the goddamn Spirit" Miller. Oh well.

I have (woefully misplaced) faith in you, Frank! :D

ugh ugh ugh denny looks stupid, sam jackson as octopus misses the whole fuckin' point of the character everything about that looks bad and "based on the comic book series"? The Warren one, eh?
Yipes. I'll pass.

Oh, to be fair, I'm in the pants camp myself. But Miller's mentalness might put some interesting stuff up on screen before the implosion.

??The Warren Spirit mag just reprinted old Eisner strips

God save me from CGIed buildings shaped like words.

-- 100% CHAMPS with a Yes! Attitude. (Austin, Still), Wednesday, 19 July 2006 23:07 (2 years ago) Link

^^^^^^^^^ prescient motherfucker

ward: yeah, I know; that's what I'm saying. They don't even have the sense to call them strips rather than books cuz it might confuse the groundlings. Such a stinker.

georgemichaelsolo.jpg

guys, that trailer actually looks kinda entertaining

^^^^^^^^^ prescient motherfucker

Thanks, but come on now. Anyone could have seen that coming from miles, er, years away

why must everything look like kill bill or sin city.
pulp has been beaten to the ground

looks less boring than dark knight you guys

Comic creator Frank Miller had a well-publicized feud with Wizard, initiated by his keynote speech at the 2001 Harvey Awards, during which he ripped a copy of the magazine apart and threw it in a trash can, calling it a "bible written by Satan", a "monthly vulgarity", and a "tree killer (which) regularly cheapens and poisons our field."[3] The two parties have seemingly repaired their relationship (notably, after Miller's successful Sin City film), and Miller was a "Guest of Honor" at Wizard World Chicago 2005.[citation needed]

a "bible written by Satan", a "monthly vulgarity", and a "tree killer (which) regularly cheapens and poisons our field."

Pretty much describes Frank's own work of the last few years. Except for the "monthly" bit.

Didn't Warlock Mag (RIP) adopt Miller's screed as a credo?

Why is Miller using Dick Tracy's catchphrase for the Spirit tagline???

Just enjoy the cleavage!

A BIBLE WRITTEN BY SATAN

New trailer: http://www.apple.com/trailers/lions_gate/thespirit/

Better than the last two.

Somebody get me a tie! And it sure as hell better be red!

My woefully misplaced faith is being rewarded by a less obnoxious (dare I say enjoyable) trailer! Thanks, Frank! LOVE CHUNKS XOXOXOXOX

Is he updating it to the modern day? Cars and clothes looks retro and guns look modern in the trailers.

I'm guessing he's going for more of a "timeless" period that's both old-time gumshoe and future-noir.

So, has anyone actually seen this movie? Ebert gave it one star... I wonder if it's even worth watching as an illegal download?

Looks like it's kind of bombing.

it's doing tolerable business, I think

someone give me an excuse to see this

The critics love it!

"In comics, it took Miller decades to devolve into embarrassing self-parody. In film, he’s made that leap over the course of a single disastrous film."

"There is not a trace of human emotion in it. To call the characters cardboard is to insult a useful packing material. The movie is all style -- style without substance, style whirling in a senseless void. The film's hero is an ex-cop reincarnated as an immortal enforcer; for all the personality he exhibits, we would welcome Elmer Fudd."

The movie is all style -- style without substance, style whirling in a senseless void.

sounds like my shit

my review - no spoilers

It was good at times. It was bad at times. There wasn't any emotion in it so I agree with the stupid critic ^^^ for that point.
But the action was wellrounded, the art was provocative, and there was some classic comicbook sort of narration that kept the movie feeling like a comic book. Also the sound effects/music/and the occasional bizarre humor made it seem even more comicy.

When I left the movie, an outspoken guy behind me said 'that sucked'. I didn't think it sucked but the movie never had me wrapped around it's little finger with suspense or drama. It was more of a plain artistic-comicy-action-showcase. The humor bits were good. The detective from Who Framed Roger Rabbit played the police cheif, which was cool.

Suckiest parts of the movie: The villians weren't the least bit scarey and the emotion/drama/ was flat.
Best Parts of the movie: The artistic style kept you watching, the humor was good - the octopus was funny, and there was a few good bits of action.

The thing I thought about most after the movie was over, was whether there was deeper symbolism or was it all "psychobabble" (a quote from the movie). I imagine that Eisner had some deeper context to the characters in the book - but this was harder to see in the movie.

Yeah, one to miss.

I don't know where to begin, if I was to actually review this film seriously. The movie itself is so incoherent, non-sensical, and ridiculous, how can it be judged?

It truly amazed me! Swinging wildly back and forth between terrible intentional camp and straight-up, stunningly inept filmmaking, it was incredible. Me and my friend had fully busted sides by the end of it, guffawing interrupted only by my stunned silence at how just awful some scenes were. There's this one particular scene with a dentist's chair and Nazi furniture that just seems to never end.

It's resembles virtually nothing from the original book - which was shallow to begin with, but Miller definitely put on his unique, batshit old man misogynist slant on it. Aside from some of the intentional humor, it's amazing that someone like Miller who considers himself something of an Eisner protege (Miller admittedly ripped him off in much of his work) could so completely miss AND intentionally avoid what was so redeeming about the original comics. I really like the comics, especially from a design and historical point of view, so don't let the movie sway you away from them.

(oh, Dad from The Wonder Years, so weird to see you)

I am seeing someone this week which will be spectacularly awkward for so many reasons, but best of all is the fact that her dad exec. produced this. i hope he didn't have any of his own money in it, because that bit where I sad it's doing ok box office is bollocks.

So, is it worth seeing as a godawful batshit curiosity, or just not worth bothering at all?

kind of lol but mostly awful i wouldnt bother

it is not like the happening in that respect then?

It really depends. Do you think you've seen Samuel L. Jackson be an over-the-top caricature of a man? Do you REALLY want to see how ridiculous that can be? Can you enjoy movies that are terribly made, but in a bizarrely high budget while kitsch kind of way? Do you appreciate remarkably corny humor, both when it works and when it doesn't? Will it frustrate you when a movie has leaps of logic and tone in every scene and manage to find the most clumsy way to tell the story that it can at almost every turn, or would you enjoy it? Personally, I don't regret it - I really think it's unique to find a movie this bad, though like All-Star Batman and Robin, so much of it is intentionally bad.

oh shit I forgot to go see this

Can you enjoy movies that are terribly made, but in a bizarrely high budget while kitsch kind of way? Do you appreciate remarkably corny humor, both when it works and when it doesn't? Will it frustrate you when a movie has leaps of logic and tone in every scene and manage to find the most clumsy way to tell the story that it can at almost every turn, or would you enjoy it? Personally, I don't regret it - I really think it's unique to find a movie this bad, though like All-Star Batman and Robin, so much of it is intentionally bad.

This makes it sound like I would enjoy it! I'll wait for the dollar theater though.