ScoJo as Black Widow. Um, Thanks?

Superherohype reports from another report that ScoJo is a lock as Black Widow.

Wasn't expecting this, and frankly don't know what to think. Stunt casting? Really good agent? Oh, for sure, I can stare at Ms. Johansson for hours and find her striking and immensely photogenic. The thought of her traipsing around with grappling hooks and machine guns is pretty exciting... However, the inaugural Iron Man set a pretty high standard for acting in these silly superhero flics we love, and I'm not going too far out on a limb to suggest someone might find themselves a tad behind in class. I have seen Johansson in many a film and she can get the job done, I far from dislike her on film. But Woody Allen maven or not, as far playing opposite Downey Jr., I'm having a hard time seeing her as more than attractive in black leather. Shame on me, I know, but I will be happy to be proven wrong.

(art in the above by Dan Brereton. If you know the photographer for the lovely companion shot, let us know!)

X-men Origins: Wolverine

Oh, Fox. What have you done? Yeah, the new trailer sure has a lot going on and would most definitely be described as "kick-ass," but what's really going on here. Well, this set of profiles from USA Today seems to indicate that almost everyone in this film has super-healing ability. Hmmm.Really?

All comic book geekery aside (which includes straying from canon--bone claws anyone?), let's just think about that. Everyone heals quickly. Now, this obviously takes away from Logan's uniqueness. Afterall, it is that ability which helped him survive the process which fused adamantium to his bones. But the other effect this has is what you will be seeing on screen; yes, all those "gee-wiz" action scenes the movie is selling, and most likely all it will have to offer.

You see, when no one can really get hurt or at least suffer something permanent, it's an excuse to stage over-the-top action in the hopes that the audience will think, "wait, that's impos--oh yeah, they can take the damage." As I've always believed that action scenes are little stories in and of themselves, if the repercussions of these mini-stories, be it physical or emotional, can't be felt beyond those scenes, the story ultimately suffers.

This is the last film properties that Marvel "farmed" out to another production company before taking the reigns of their franchises. Now that Fox has that pesky Bryan Singer out of the way, who fought to keep rosters down and the action more grounded, we've got mutants coming out of the woodwork, shooting, jumping, skipping, roaring their way across some odd millions of dollars in effects. With all that's going on in that trailer, I have my doubts that the film will have time to breath some life into the characters. I could be wrong, but haven't we learned anything from X3?

Anyway, Gambit's in the film....

And the Watchmen movie will be...?

If you're at all like me, you've dreamed of a Watchmen movie for a long time. For that brief period when Terry Gilliam was attached, I believed the book would get the movie it deserved. But Hollywood never quite worked it out, and that was a fan's biggest fear. The last thing any lover of the novel would want is some hokey summer blockbuster or lo-rent direct-to-video. My dream held vision of a Watchmen film that contended for best picture. A bit much to ask, but hey, it's Watchmen.

Well, Hollywood is right good and fucked beyond redemption, so as a blanket attitude I don't expect much. That's why the drizzling of info and imagery from Zack Snyder's production surprised me. That guy is trying to do something as best he can, and its starting to look like he's going to pull it off!

But... as I wrote prior, I just finished re-reading the novel. How the fuck is this going to be adapted to a movie?

Is it really going to follow the story? Can screen time be taken up by vast segments of pure dialog? Will they at least keep all the best dialog, like Dan's thoughts about their past to Laurie? Doctor Manhattan remembering his life? Rorshach's explanation of his origin? Ozymandias' crazy awesome explanation of his master plan?

How do you adapt the nine-panel grid narrative of the comics to much more linear film storytelling. Is the movie going to skip around in the timeline at random intervals or will it be told from front to end?

What are they going to cut out? What are they going to add?

How come Nite Owl looks all buff and cut like Batman? He's supposed to be kinda out of shape, that's part of his charm as he gets back into the action...

Will they keep the ending? Or what did they change it to??? Will it work as well?

It it just an adaptation of the novel? Are they going to try any meta storytelling in regards to film or hollywood? Will the symbolism and metaphors be culled direclty from the novel or instead reflect on the movie? Will they go highbrow or lowbrow? Will there be a car chase? (Never underestimate Hollywood's ability to insert a car chase into a movie)

I think that while I may be looking forward to the movie, I'm really looking forward to some insane director's cut 5-hour DVD that I can sit and watch with the book in my hands. Comparing frames and shots to the comics panels, all geek-like... at least if the movie is half as good as we hope it is.

Wanted

Ug. Wanted is one of those movies that makes you want your money back in return for the time you had to spend sitting through it.

Thing is, I put off seeing it, then I kept hearing how cool it was so I thought I'd check it out. I heard it compared to Fight Club and The Matrix. Hell, no. It is not remotely close to the clever, de-saturated nihilism of Fight Club and leagues behind what made The Matrix the stylized, FX revolution of its time. As a film it can't even be casually grouped into the visually "cool" as far as I'm concerned, I don't think there was one memorable sequence that stands out as unique or inspired. By the end of the movie things devolve into the absurd and any hope of buying into its fantasy universe is long gone. Perhaps viewers who hail Wanted as something enjoyable just haven't seen enough good movies.

Originally all I knew of Wanted was its comic book origins, but as far as I can tell the only thing the movie has in connection to the comics are a few of the names of the main characters. I had thought even the base premise of the comic would bee good fodder for a summer movie, but sorry, no. It's like the produces actually went out of their way to take out the most interesting concepts of the comic and throw together their idea of a "high octane action film," thinking one or two visual gimmicks could see them through. And I hate to break it to you, but mid-air bullet-on-bullet action played it self out in the early 90's via Hong Kong gangster cinema. I'm trying to recall the first time I saw opposing trajectory bullets collide... Was it Gun and Rose? Well it was cool then, and it could no doubt be cool again but Wanted was not able to join the ranks of cinematic gun fu.

Brought into the ring of all that's been offered this summer, Wanted does not play.

Hellboy 2: The Golden Army

I DID catch Hellboy 2 when it opened and enjoyed it alot. It went in some different directions than the comic mega movies that surrounded it, but that's what made it refreshing. The Hellboy movies in my opinion are only loosely based on the comics, pulling the core concepts and characters into the theatrical realm. But how that's done is something we rarely get to see.

Guillermo Del Toro is a cinematic visionary-- but I don't say that in the way of some overused adulation. I mean it literally, where here is a man who has a specific vision for what he wants to put on film and executes it beautifully. By doing so he begins to create his own version of the Hellboy mythos, not that what Mignola has done in book form could ever really be replicated in another medium. There are so many great things to watch on screen, and it comes in a steady stream of the bizarre and fantastic. And what's so great about it all is that it filled me with the thoughts of all the great fantasy movies they don't seem to make anymore. Labyrinth, Legend, Dark Crystal, Hawk the Slayer, Willow, Neverending Story, Baron Munchausen, Time Bandits (all from the 80's coincidentally, I bet there's some sort of scocio-economic connection there). Hellboy 2 is packed solid, with virtually no wasted space. The shots are wide and long when they should be, then close and personal to bring it home. Everything from the costumes to the creatures to the sets is pure eye candy.

Prior to this Del Toro brought us Pan's Labyrinth, which is also an amazing looking film, but it's matched there by dread and bleakness. Hellboy 2 is fun and lively wrapped around moments of thought and pathos, and at times sheer wackiness. Yea... I probably could have done without the Barry Manilow, but in the end that is just part of the oddity of it all. The story behind resurrecting the Golden Army is solid and awesome to watch come to fruition. The action sequences are balls-out, something I wasn't expecting at all. The last fight scene between Prince Nuada and Hellboy is amazing to watch, I hadn't felt that sense of unexpected, wide-eyed awe of a duel probably since Darth Maul's showdown in Phantom Menace.

The cast brings the characters alive, clearly much more at ease in their roles since the first film. As Hellboy, Pearlman keeps his wit and aplomb balanced keenly with an outsider's self consciousness and need to be accepted. I was also happy to see much more of Abe Sapien, well 'cause he's just awesome. Doug Jones even wins his own voice back this time around. Selma Blair is always someone I like to see show up, tho her character Liz definitely seemed to be short changed, waffling between shrill crow and all-around second banana. The biggest treat for me was Luke Goss' Prince Nuada, who's character I just wanted more and more of. Tho the title says otherwise, I say he was the real star of the movie.

Hellboy 2 is way better than the first in all these respects, both in story and how we see it told. I hope its success is an opening for more great fantasy movies to come.

The Dark Knight

Here are some thoughts that have been with me since seeing The Dark Knight. They are not particularly organized because I'm still kind of speechless.

See it in IMAX if your city has one. Driving a reasonable distance would be well worth it.

The Dark Knight makes Batman Begins seem like a light, simply constructed prologue.

Commercials and trailers thankfully have no bearing on experiencing this film. There was at least a full third of the movie that has had nothing promoted or hinted at in any way.

There have been some pretty cool comics movies lately but they are looking a bit quaint in hindsight. The level of complexity and climactic tension that the story builds to rivals any film since I can't recall when, superheroes or no.

You are probably aware the movie features Harvey Dent. I won't be spoilerish, but Holy. Fucking. Shit.

Speculation: The Joker will return. He will be recast and likely recast well. But it will be no Heath Ledger. That guy is getting an Oscar for what sadly was the performance of his life. That sounds kind of gushy, tho judge for yourself.

If a movie could have sex with you, The Dark Knight would ruin you for other movies. Okay maybe that's a bit much. I recommend seeing this movie.

Incredible Hulk: Smashy, Smashy

What is weird about The Incredible Hulk is that it's not a relaunch, reboot, or a "requel" as it's been called, in suspect to "make up for" Ang Lee's 2003 version (which has its own batch of weirdness). What we got here is just another in a long line of Hollywood trends: turning and old TV show into a movie. This latest version of the Hulk doesn't even try to hide its roots in the Bixby series of days past, it's a flat out continuation. In some ways it's disappointing, namely the origin. I always thought the Hulk had a great origin for film, but that's yet to be adapted at all. As has been noted in other reviews such as The Beat's, the Hulk's origin is told in an opening montage that likens to a flashback, for a movie that never existed.

But going in with low expectations, as I did, has its advantages. The movie isn't that bad-- I was fairly entertained. I don't think it has the impact of Iron Man, but there is plenty for any action film aficionado or comics reader to like. Almost too much, I can't imagine someone who knows nothing of the Hulk following more than the broadness of the story. What I felt was that the fanboys finally got everything they could want from a comic book movie, but at the expense of having it be anything more than a by-the-numbers adaptation.

There is tons of "Hulk Smash." It's close to Transformers in the wanton destruction of property department. And you know, it's fun to watch the Hulk go all aggro and rip cars in half and throw tanks around. A nitpick of mine is that this movie had the Hulk use shrapnel as weapons more often than not, which to me is a transparent translation of things to make into toys, but whatever. Hulk doesn't need accessories, Hulk has fists!



So while it's neat to watch the ridiculous CG money pit Hulk against Abomination, what I missed was any attempt to actually define what the Hulk is and its relation to Banner. A huge part of the comics, when it was at its best, was the turmoil of Banner dealing with the Hulk actually being a part of himself, a gamma-born psyche that fights to be set free without limits. The movie treats the Hulk more as an unwanted super power that Banner is afraid to unleash not because of what it represents, but for the superficial damage it does. Maybe I am asking too much from the new wave of comic book films.



As for the Hulk itself, he's just a big, nice, expensive CG animation that bounces around and hits things. He doesn't have the pathos of Gollum nor the subtlety of Yoda. Sure they try to hit you over the head with their attempt at that in a couple of scenes, but it's lacking. Strangely Abomination has more personality, due likely to his extra non-human deformities. Though I must say I am extra critical in this department, and for all intents and purposes 'ol Jadejaws is a commanding presence when roaring in full theater surround sound.

Clearly after Iron Man and now The Hulk, movies are the new Marvel. Which makes me wonder why the Fantastic Four movies are so awful. Talk about needing a reboot!

BONUS! Hop over to io9 for a look at some concept art of Hulk and Abomination. "Frankenstein Hulk" would have been awesome!

The Hulks that Almost Were

Iron Man: Ten Kinds of Awesome

Best.
Superhero.
Movie.
Ever.

UPDATE: Okay, now that I'm down off of my Iron Man high, let me break down the awesomeness.

10. Cocktails! I don't know that the general movie going public is aware of what comics readers have grown up with-- Tony Stark eventually evolves into a raging alcoholic. I can't imagine this not coming into play should more movies make to to screen. That being the case, it is a rare scene in this inaugural outing that Stark is shown without some kind of drink in his hand. Nice.

9. In jokes. Not unlike the above, plenty of references to Iron Man lore far and wide.

8. Toys. The movie is full of male fantasy power toys, from private jets with stripper poles to sports cars to the armor itself. Who wouldn't want to suit up in an impenetrable, flying, war machine? Aside from the gaping hole in your chest, I mean.

7. Script. It's very well written. No, it isn't Shakespeare, but in the class of many superhero flics (or even just your average summer blockbusters) it's tight. There's plenty of Star Trekky techno babble, suppressed romantic sub-plot, and tack-sharp one-liners. The funny stuff is funny (it's got more humor than I'd have guessed) and the serious stuff is serious. And while the movie as a whole plays out in Hollywood beats, at least it doesn't insult me.

6. Pepper Potts. Usually Gweneth Paltrow is a reason not to see a movie. But here as Stark's ever-present Girl Friday she's great to watch. Her and Stark's relationship through the course of the film is a genuine development, and Paltrow is a surprising and pleasant feminine presence in a testosterone dominated story.

5. Quirk. There is some just plain out weird shit in this movie. Redonkulous. Not just the odd, fumbling "I've got to learn how to be a superhero" kind of thing. The suspension of disbelief has to be, uh, suspended fairly early. The science fiction isn't exactly as grounded as it is thrown at you with flagrant plausibility. This is where I thought the movie would lose me, as I'd have preferred some hard-core science, but instead it takes more of a roller coaster approach with extrapolation of technology we see every day. And honestly, when Iron Man is bringing the thunder, you don't really care.

4.Favreau. This movie was directed by Jon Favreau. Really? Elf Favreau? Zathura Favreau? He will always be the swinger we know and love, but I tell you he put together one hell of a big-budget Hollywood blockbuster while keeping a pretty true core of what makes Iron Man so cool. The acting in the movie from all players is fun and tight, and I'm guessing Favreau has alot to do with that. Throw in the management of all the crazy effects sequences and I say "Good show, old man!"

3. Stark. Robert Downey Jr. owns this role. It doesn't hurt that's he's surrounded by a great cast, either.

2. Kick-Assery. Dude, Iron Man kicks so much ass in this movie. Actually I take that back. He didn't kick enough ass, there really needed to be more ass kicking. Tony Stark is indeed the billionaire playboy, but in that suit it is all motherfucking business. MOAR!

1. The Armor. It looks sooooooooo cool! Face it, the armor was what was going to sell this movie. And the prospect of future movies with the built-in gimmick of new armor is like money in the bank.

I know the movie wasn't perfect, not that there could be a perfect movie. There's a few elements that border on cheese and Hollywood screenwriting business-as-usual. But I sure enjoyed it, and it's by far the best representation of a comic to date. Prior to this I only held Spider-Man 2 and Batman Begins in such high regard, nowadays (for me) Iron Man is the one to beat. Give me sequels! Screw the Avengers, 'cause I guarantee they're gonna screw that one up, just give me more Iron Man.

Hellboy II

How great are these costumes? I need this image wallpaper size!!

... Selma Blair ZOMG HOT

Hellboy II: The Golden Army

Joker... Joker... Joker!

Yup, the town has Joker fever after the release of the new trailer for The Dark Knight. I'm trying not to get caught up in it, Batman Begins was a pleasant surprise and I'd like to retain that sense of unexpectedness for the sequel.

They are psyching me up tho with this poster, what with the trailer showing the grungy street-level Joker here we get a glimpse of that suave madness in the purple suit. I realize the movie may be in a completely different direction, but this here is a hell of a shot in any case.

The first teaser poster was freaking awesome, I love it. A friend of mine shares the opinion and writes up his thoughts over at his design blog.

OMG blkspdy iso Emo

Spider-Man 3... There is no doubt that this is really two movies– possibly three– crammed into one. More apparent in this latest Spidey Franchise Extender is a marketing influence, one I suspect was put in place to market as many new characters as possible, because the movie is packed to the point of overflow. Even taking this into consideration, I'm surprised at how well everything turned out.

Comparisons to the other two movies are inevitable. I really enjoyed the first but it was the second that knocked my socks off. Here in the third film there is so much going on that it never could really match the emotional impact of action vs. consequences that the second had but it sure as hell tries. It's hard not to like 3 but as a whole it's massively overweight and convoluted.

Had the story concentrated on any one of the three antagonists, it would have been a stunning movie. I personally would have liked the movie to focus on Sandman, because his role and his story showed the most potential of the main triad. Keeping the undercurrent of the Harry Osborn dilemma as a subplot would have been fine, since it worked out so well in 2, and would have made for a hell of a twist if the introduction of "New Goblin" was saved for the climax rather than the opening.

As for Venom, well, the disappointment starts the moment the symbiote is introduced. Very cheap. There is such a rich underfiction in regards to the Black Costume I feel as a fan I was cheated. As a moviegoer it's more of a throw-everything-into-the-pan type of feeling, but its hard to ignore how much depth is behind the Black Costume and how Venom's creation/introduction could have been the focal point. The all-too-brief scenes with the actual big, toothy blackness that is Venom left me wanting more, and a realization that a full-on Spidey-vs-Venom with the power of the Sony production machine behind it is something that I'd -really- like to see. Instead I feel a bit short changed. Even the character of Eddie Brock is played so well by Topher Grace you can totally see how that's a movie in itself. (strangely "Venom" is never mentioned by name.)

That's the dilemma here, there's alot of good stuff and I just kept thinking, "wow, that was great, there should be way more of that!" But things kept jumping around so that each small sparkle of greatness never got a chance to cement.

The action sequences in 3 are wildly wrought out, but unfortunately there's just so much happening they come across as filler. It's odd, since 2 is not that far removed but I had much more sense of "things are really kicking into high gear now" rather than 3's "insert action sequence here." The main standout in 3 is not the action, but how the rest of the surrounding film is so damn... weird. There's no other way to describe it. It's so weird! There is all kinds of bizarre time compression editing that was somewhat confusing-- you can totally tell there is alot of material somewhere that never made it in. It peaks with a montage of symbiote-influenced Peter Parker, in all his Emo-nality and pseudo suaveness. It's alot of fun to watch, and with a bizarre boiling point set in a jazz club, again you're taken into the territory of a completely different film.

Then it's more girl trouble, friend trouble, fighting... and then Sandman shows up and has just some awesome screen time, with more impact as distraught criminal Flint Marko than sandy FX generator, once again I'm left wondering what movie I'm watching.

So yeah, it makes sense to me that any review I could write of the film would be as all over the place as the film itself. Did I like it? Sure. But I have a very powerful tool in my corner: I can take what I have seen and imagine what could have been, and be okay with that. I appreciate what the movie did, but it's my mind's eye that holds the true vision of what it tried to be, because I have a strong attachment to the material and characters. Maybe I envision alot of things differently, but shy of me running the show, well, you know the rest. But I will say one definite thing about Spider-Man 3: Gwen Stacey is positively dreamy!

300: Hot Gates

Damn, 300 is 10 kinds of awesome. It's beautiful from start to finish, visceral and fierce, unflinching in violence yet not gratuitous. The kind of movie you see first to take it all in, then happily watch again just for all the pretty pictures. Seriously, this flick is gorgeous and thankfully is backed up by everything else.

How to have a flaming skull

Haven't found time to see Ghost Rider, but check out this article at CG Society on the FX.

Superman Returns

Time to break the silence! I saw Superman Returns last week. I've read all kinds of reviews since and I was struck by how much it was loved by fans almost de facto... Not sharing much of this adoration I sort of sat back and took it in. So is it just me? Then I remembered, it's never just me.

I tend to refrain from using "gay" as an adjective, but Superman Returns? Pretty gay. I'm sure mothers and daughters will love it the world over. There were moments when I saw the visceral impact of what Superman on film should be, but they were quickly derailed by way too much thematic exploration and hack story points meant to force emotion.

My main objection to the film is a little deeper, in that I felt like I was watching a film I'd already seen. This was director Singer's homage, as it were, to the original film with fleeting references to the second. But it's one thing to film an homage, or even a re-imagining, but it's another to use the same lines of dialogue from that which one is honoring. The first instance was cute, by the fifth I'm just a little insulted. The action scenes were cool, but also anemic in their repetition of what had come before.

Superman Returns is good looking, all the money is on screen and Singer paints a pretty picture for his love of all things Reeve and Donner. But if someone gives you 200 million dollars to make a movie, why wouldn't you make it your own?

Batman Begins

Man, I was so convinced this movie was going to blow I really didn't know what hit me. Batman Begins is so freaking good I hope it is the first of many, many more. As a first film for a fresh start there are so many great foundations for the mythos and they all ring true to the character. With so many versions of Batman out there, I thought that was an impossible task.

For a comic book movie, it's phenomenal. For a general, all-around Hollywood flic, it's still pretty good. There's still alot of things it appears filmmakers of today can't escape from in an action blockbuster, such as:

1. Damsel in distress
2. Close-up, super-quick, rapid editing fight scenes
3. car chase
4. Secondary character gets a shot from the mainline
5. Villain is not the villain

I wasn't sure if they were going to be able to capture what it meant to be Ra's Al Gul but they really nailed it. Right down to Ra's wanting Wayne to be his eventual successor (and even hints of his immortality).

I am a long time Christain Bale fan so it was no surprise to me that he pulled it off.

Michael Caine's Alfed was fantastic. For once Alfred is not a throw away character and is played as the integral character to the story that he is.

Liam Neeson, I could listen to him talk for days. He's pretty much got the mentor thing down pat.

Gary Oldman was really great to watch as Gordon, I never understood the previous casting of the Burton versions. I don't know why they had that whole section with the Batmobile. Well I mean I know why in a Hollywood sense, I just wish they'd have found another way around it.

Katie Holmes is pretty to look at, sure, tho she actually held up better than I thought. It's a long way from Dawson's Creek.

Morgan Freeman is good in everything.

Cillian Murphy, he worked okay I guess. The Scarecrow was played about as well as he is in the comics, really just a foil for bigger things. I thought he was the focus of the film as the villain, but he's clearly just a convenient plot device. It could have been a disaster, but not bad at all.

Overall it's a really good Batman story that for once didn't try to insult my intelligence-- too much. Nolan and Goyer really came through. I hate to boil down the responsibility of a movie to two guys, but those are the names attached to this incarnation along with the cast. Luckily for most of us the machine they oversaw is working.

American Splendor Revisited

I caught this on cable today and was greatly enamored with it the second time around. I enjoyed it alot the first time, but I guess I was just caught up with the story and overly intrigued with the life history of comic book seminal Harvey Pekar and his fellow luminaries. On the second viewing it's hard to ignore the beautiful camera work and lighting, with great shots and settings that linger enough for the eye to take in. Far too common in modern films the camera cuts are by the second, denying any allowance to appreciate the scene. American Splendor is full of picture perfect composition wrapped around Paul Giamatti's engrossing portrayal of Pekar, albeit the portrayal exaggerated for film. The film between the film which features Pekar himself and his real-life counterparts is an interesting deconstruction of the documentary/biopic formula. Outside of the interest it would hold for those who enjoy or work in comics, it's a great movie that finds drama in the banal, just like the comics it celebrates.

Sin City

Everyone's talking about Sin City. And alot of them are saying how it's the best comic book movie ever because it stays so true to the source material. Well if the goal was to put a comic book on screen, mission accomplished. But who wants a comic book on screen? I don't, I want my comic books to be comic books and my movies to be films.

Never mind the comics that should never be made into films, Sin City is certainly a worthy candidate for a big screen treatment. But when an adaptation is so dependent on the source material, why bother doing it at all? Another recent example of this is Electronic Art's production of the Lord of the Rings trilogy videogames. They went so far as to rotoscope scenes from the film using the game engine to reproduce them verbatim, "to give the player the ultimate LOTR experience." Dude, I already had the ultimate LOTR experience, it was in the theater. What's the point of seeing it replicated on an Xbox just so I can run around as Aragorn and chop up orcses?

I'm a fan and a follower of Rodriguez, if anyone was going to pull off Sin City as a film it was him. Mega appreciation for bowing out of the Director's Guild to let Miller on the project, too. Tho as I see it, here's where Sin City fails:

1. Narration. The pulpish, dark-city citizen exposition that floods the Sin City comics serve it's place-- in the comics. It's part of the medium, integral to accommodating the flash of the stark black and white graphics to aid the pacing of the stories. In the movies it's such a cop out. I hate narration, hate it, hate it. I am not stupid. I can see what's going on and extrapolate the meaning. Even if I'm wrong, my imagination is better than being force fed every little detail that I can already see happening before me. I can't tell you how many times I watch a movie or a TV show and just think how much better it would be, how much more impact it would have if there was no narration. Try it sometime, the next time you hear it. Replay the scenes in your head without the voiceover and see how much better it is. In Sin City, it's not about giving Frank Miller any more credit for how good of a writer he is. If you've read the books, you already know that. If you haven't, it doesn't mean Miller is any less responsible for the genesis of Sin City itself, no matter the format. It also doesn't matter to me that the narration was necessary to fill in the story holes, as a truly good storyteller would be able to work around this. Or better yet, let the audience fill in the gaps themselves. There are plenty of times in the film where narration was swapped for dialogue and vice versa (and the only reason I know this is that's how painfully close to the source material the movie was). Has Blade Runner taught us anything??

2. Structure. The stories told through the books have little overlapping points, it's very cool to see once you start reading them as a whole. I really thought Rodriguez would take advantage of this, but he didn't. He sorta did, but it could have been done so much better. Pulp Fiction and Two Days in the Valley are better examples of this, both were done with a style that really made the whole thing more enjoyable once all the pieces started falling together. I was a little disappointed that the movie failed to pull this off as (for me) it would have pushed it over the edge towards a higher admiration. The stories that were chosen for the movie were definitely the right ones, although Mickey Rourke is such a bad ass I would have been just as happy if "The Long Goodbye" was the only story. Speaking of the titles, and related to the above, how come no title cards? As one segment ended, I would have loved to see a giant title on screen that said "The Big Fat Kill," or "That Yellow Bastard."

3. Acting. It's readily apparent who the veterans are in this pic. Good actors can survive the heavy handed Miller dialogue, others sound like they are staving off a brain aneurism. Call me sexist but it's mostly the dumb-as-a-post eye candy roles that fall into that category (Clive Owen included). As much as I love watching Jessica Alba writhe around with a lasso, the second she opens her mouth it kind of breaks the illusion. Poor dear. She's much better suited for roles where the primary goal is to stand there and look pretty, like Idle Hands or Never Been Kissed. I've tried to tell her this at several of our clandestine back alley dalliances, but to no avail. I fear she's too overcome with passion to be taking career advice from little 'ol me.

Where Sin City succeeds is in the gorgeous black and white visuals, even the bits with color. I wish more filmmakers/studios would commit to a major release in black and white. When it looks like this, it looks amazing. Ultimately my disappointment falls into the very crowded category of "I would have done it different." It's just that Rodriguez is usually an example that I look up to. He made a good movie, and honestly the majority of the audience just doesn't know any better. My regrets come from the desires of what Sin City could have been, from simply cool... to mindblowing.