A Dame to Kill For

A few years ago, I would have told you that Sin City is one of my top 10 favourite films.  I'm not sure if it's still that high - I've seen some great films since then and not revisited a top 10 list in a whle, but I still thoroughly enjoy it.  So when I saw that the sequel was out I waws eager to go and see it.

The original was striking, new and exciting in the way that it was shot.  The black and white, with the very occasional colour.  It looked stunning.  There were some great quotes, "look at you Hartigan, you can't even lift that cannon you carry" is one that sticks in my mind, and while there was a lot of comic book style violence, it was never excessive, and the story always gave a reason for it.

In the sequel the art direction is stil the same, but more so.  I'm wondering if it was a bit much in some cases.  Less of the comic book and more of the real world would have been nice.  Some of the progresion in it was great, new touches especially with the water physics. However, the amount of block colour was a bit much and detracted from it.  It was done better in the original.

The violence in it is something else that was a bit excessive.  Not in the amount, or the style.  It was the lack of reason that got me.  In the original, Hartigan went after that yellow bastard to protect Nancy, Marv for veneance of Goldie (who had a really nice cameo) and Dwighht to protect his girlfriend who's name escapes me.  In this it seems to be done for kiciks a lot more than for anything.  Only Nancy really is after revenge, and she uses Marv who jjust seems to like violence in this.  Dwight's story is a bit more than just for the hell of it, but not by too much, and gave good background to the original.

I did like how it jumped around in time before and after the original.  Adding depth to the character roster, explaining people's back stories. It kept you paying attention, aan made it feel a lot more rewarding for fans of the original as opposed to a casual viewer.

Out of the new charaters I really liked Joseph Gordon Levitts part, and I thought it suited him well.  It was cool and suave, withh the dose of violence that is whatSin City should be all about.  He also had reason other than "that girl's pretty".

The one thing that really let it down is the lack of quotability.  This may be different after repeat viewings, but for the first time nothing sticks in the mind.  Films like this I want to be quoting it for days after, if not weeks.

This may sound like I'm hating on it, which I really am not.  I thought it was a thoroughly enjoyable film, and willl very probably buy it when it comes out. But it's just not the same as the original, which still sits high on my favourite list.

Desolation of the Hobbit

I wrote something similar to this about a year ago.  Like that case, there are likely to be spoilers here.  But as Martin Freeman put it when he got accused of that, the book is 75 years old.  So if I spoil anything, then you should have gone and read the book.  Trust me it is worth it.

The book of the hobbit is fantastic.  It would make a great film if done properly.  Note the use of the singular there, not the plural.  It would start off slowly, have excitement half way through for the trip though the mountains, a tense situation going through forest, then a grandstand finish with teh battle of the 5 armies.  More action comes throughout, with the wargs the spiders, and of course, smaug attacking esgaroth.  Yeah that would be pretty long, but as it stands there are three 3 hour long films.  And they've changed the plot, added extra action.  And that makes for eexciting films.

Only it isn't necessary.  And it has changed the focus of the story.  And that is why I am so angered by the changes I think.   The book was always about Bilbo growing into something of a leader.  And it celebrated something wonderful.  It celebrated him being clever and thinking his way out. And that has been lost in the movies, in favour of extra action, telling everyone that it is through the heroism of Thorin Fli and Kili that everything was won.  They do this for the good of films, not for the good of the story.

Intelligence isn't something that should be taken so lightly in this day and age.  Look at a previous entry in thi blog to find out what I think about intelligence in general, it is fantastic and underrated.  If we now go and glorify action in its place to the neext generation, we are letting them down, and it won't help us in the long run.  That is a massive shame, and we should be looking at ourselves for letting it happen, and how we can readdress the balance of this.   In short, long live JRR's original message. Long live Intelligence.