Sin City
I forgot to note yesterday that I am selling the Cutlass (Diva) because I don't suppose the Car Fairy is ever going to come along and fix it magically overnight, and the Car Elves have thus far declined to repair it in the middle of the night (probably because of the neighbourhood I live in) so it is time to sell it. I put an advertisement in the Auto Trader and so far have gotten several calls; hopefully it shall sell soon.
Yesterday Trey took me to see a movie- Sin City- concerning which some conservative columnist was railing about the violence and sex therein. Now that is flatly idiotic; no one should go to see a movie entitled "Sin City" without expecting, well, SIN. If you go expecting to see "Lassie," then you're an imbecile. That being said, I don't think it should have been rated R, it should have certainly been rated NC-17. I figured out that on average, there was an Extreme Act of Violence every 7 seconds, because I counted from one to the next. (I counted an Extreme act of Violence as someone being not simply shot, but being shot in a particuarly graphic and unusual manner and having lots of blood, that sort of thing.) Not only that, but there were extremely adult depictions of sex, nudity, etc- there wasn't what you would call a lot left up to the imagination. There was a lot of shapely lady flesh being shown, that is, what flesh wasn't at the same time being shredded, mangled, bloodied, penetrated, devoured, drowned, stomped, dragged, pummeled, and so forth. Many, many people were also decapitated during the course of the movie.
I don't know if I liked it or not. It's not a movie that I would wish to see again. It's not a movie that I would like to see a sequel to, either, but I will give it this; it was more entertaining and less idiotically saccharine than, say, "Neverland." It was interestingly shot and acted- a very good on screen translation of the graphic novel style, but I believe Hollywood is now going to substitute mindless, increasingly graphic violence/sex for nuanced stories and acting, or on the other side of the coin, trite emotional silliness (heartwarming, ecch) for nuanced stories and acting. So that is why I don't see movies in the theatres anymore. The last movie we saw in the theatre prior to this was that movie about the Japanese children who were abandoned, and that was fairly good-
Now on the other hand, I did very much like Mildred Pierce, which I saw on Saturday evening when Trey was at work- it has Joan Crawford in it and a very interesting and realistic story line. Perhaps it wasn't so realistic 50 years ago, but now the story of the divorcee trying to make it and then the vaguely scummy men, like the heir who had the name but not the money, and ungrateful daughter seem very realistic now. I liked the way it was shot, too. It was a very involving movie- I suppose I am very old fashioned in preferring old fashioned character development to lots of noisy bang-bang stuff. O Well.
Yesterday Trey took me to see a movie- Sin City- concerning which some conservative columnist was railing about the violence and sex therein. Now that is flatly idiotic; no one should go to see a movie entitled "Sin City" without expecting, well, SIN. If you go expecting to see "Lassie," then you're an imbecile. That being said, I don't think it should have been rated R, it should have certainly been rated NC-17. I figured out that on average, there was an Extreme Act of Violence every 7 seconds, because I counted from one to the next. (I counted an Extreme act of Violence as someone being not simply shot, but being shot in a particuarly graphic and unusual manner and having lots of blood, that sort of thing.) Not only that, but there were extremely adult depictions of sex, nudity, etc- there wasn't what you would call a lot left up to the imagination. There was a lot of shapely lady flesh being shown, that is, what flesh wasn't at the same time being shredded, mangled, bloodied, penetrated, devoured, drowned, stomped, dragged, pummeled, and so forth. Many, many people were also decapitated during the course of the movie.
I don't know if I liked it or not. It's not a movie that I would wish to see again. It's not a movie that I would like to see a sequel to, either, but I will give it this; it was more entertaining and less idiotically saccharine than, say, "Neverland." It was interestingly shot and acted- a very good on screen translation of the graphic novel style, but I believe Hollywood is now going to substitute mindless, increasingly graphic violence/sex for nuanced stories and acting, or on the other side of the coin, trite emotional silliness (heartwarming, ecch) for nuanced stories and acting. So that is why I don't see movies in the theatres anymore. The last movie we saw in the theatre prior to this was that movie about the Japanese children who were abandoned, and that was fairly good-
Now on the other hand, I did very much like Mildred Pierce, which I saw on Saturday evening when Trey was at work- it has Joan Crawford in it and a very interesting and realistic story line. Perhaps it wasn't so realistic 50 years ago, but now the story of the divorcee trying to make it and then the vaguely scummy men, like the heir who had the name but not the money, and ungrateful daughter seem very realistic now. I liked the way it was shot, too. It was a very involving movie- I suppose I am very old fashioned in preferring old fashioned character development to lots of noisy bang-bang stuff. O Well.
posted by SavageATL at 10:31 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home