![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Grindhouse, 300 and more....
I saw Grindhouse yesterday. That was one of the most fun times I've had at the movies in ages. Why? Because I like cheesy B-movies. I like the fun, the love of a story and gore carrying a movie way past the filmmaker's actual talent. The filmmakers of B-movies might not be talented, but at least they are not hacks churning out things to make a buck. They actually love what they're doing. And even better is that B-movie style produced by two filmmakers who are talented. "Planet Terror" was more fun in being deliciously, over the top, but for anyone who has watched loads of horror movies, it's delightfully predictable. "Death Proof", on the other hand, isn't nearly as predictable. I was asking myself "Where is this going?" And was tickled to death when I did find out where it was going. Throw in some missing reels, phony trailers (and from what I gather Hobo with a Shotgun may be a Canadian exclusive trailer) -- and you've got three hours of retro fun ahead of you.
Oh, Grindhouse also has one of the best posters ever. I'm a fan of both Tarantino (not as an actor, obviously) and Rodriguez, so I would have seen it anyway. But when I saw that deliciously retro poster, I said "I HAVE TO SEE THIS!" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Grindhouse3.jpg
And no, Diresquirrel, I haven't yet found out how they filmed the one-legged scenes in "Planet Terror". And yes again, Rose McGowan is very sexy.
Unfortunately, I don't find barechested Spartan fascists all that sexy -- so, 300's charms were lost on me.
As I've said before, I think Frank Miller is a damn fine artist. One of the best ever in capturing the raw primitive power that comics have. And the static images in the film, taken from the book are fine. But I don't think the filmmaker brought anything new to the table, I hadn't read the graphic novel, but I could easily pick out which scenes were not from the original source material. They were the ones directed like bad TV (over the shoulder shot, reverse angle, repeat 40 times till scene ends) and ripped directly from the Lord of the Rings (pseudo-Oliphant and the cave troll). That I could pick these scenes out so easily, when not being familiar with the source material means that the director brought practically nothing to the film. He didn't add a sense of unity or personal vision. He just copied his source material - without shaping it.
Some people might say (although not I think anyone actually reading this), "but it's so faithful to the graphic novel". Sure. But this might be something that some people don't get about me. Fidelty in plot is not an issue with me. I don't care if they mixed and matched X-Men for the films. I don't care if they turned Stryker from a preacher into a military man. X-Men 2 was a damn good action film. The director served the source material by making a great film. The same is true with Lord of the Rings and Harry Potter 3 - liberties were taken, but they absolutely worked as films. Films, comics, novels don't have the same strengths - and an intelligent adaptor will realize this. In comics, you control the pacing as you read them. The reader supplies the movement. Not so in movies, and 300 felt motionless to me.
To just take the original material without bringing your own stamp to it, that's not art. That's just copying.
And yes, of course there's room for disagreement. I know one of my favourite people in the world -- yes, A, I do mean you -- liked 300. I don't expect everyone to think the same way I do. It would be a sad and sorry world if people did.
So, some might wonder - "So, when are you going to shut up and write your own stuff?" And if so, I could now respond "Funny you should ask...." But no, I'm not going to post about that in my blog. Or even talk that much about it privately until it's done.
Allen
Oh, Grindhouse also has one of the best posters ever. I'm a fan of both Tarantino (not as an actor, obviously) and Rodriguez, so I would have seen it anyway. But when I saw that deliciously retro poster, I said "I HAVE TO SEE THIS!" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Grindhouse3.jpg
And no, Diresquirrel, I haven't yet found out how they filmed the one-legged scenes in "Planet Terror". And yes again, Rose McGowan is very sexy.
Unfortunately, I don't find barechested Spartan fascists all that sexy -- so, 300's charms were lost on me.
As I've said before, I think Frank Miller is a damn fine artist. One of the best ever in capturing the raw primitive power that comics have. And the static images in the film, taken from the book are fine. But I don't think the filmmaker brought anything new to the table, I hadn't read the graphic novel, but I could easily pick out which scenes were not from the original source material. They were the ones directed like bad TV (over the shoulder shot, reverse angle, repeat 40 times till scene ends) and ripped directly from the Lord of the Rings (pseudo-Oliphant and the cave troll). That I could pick these scenes out so easily, when not being familiar with the source material means that the director brought practically nothing to the film. He didn't add a sense of unity or personal vision. He just copied his source material - without shaping it.
Some people might say (although not I think anyone actually reading this), "but it's so faithful to the graphic novel". Sure. But this might be something that some people don't get about me. Fidelty in plot is not an issue with me. I don't care if they mixed and matched X-Men for the films. I don't care if they turned Stryker from a preacher into a military man. X-Men 2 was a damn good action film. The director served the source material by making a great film. The same is true with Lord of the Rings and Harry Potter 3 - liberties were taken, but they absolutely worked as films. Films, comics, novels don't have the same strengths - and an intelligent adaptor will realize this. In comics, you control the pacing as you read them. The reader supplies the movement. Not so in movies, and 300 felt motionless to me.
To just take the original material without bringing your own stamp to it, that's not art. That's just copying.
And yes, of course there's room for disagreement. I know one of my favourite people in the world -- yes, A, I do mean you -- liked 300. I don't expect everyone to think the same way I do. It would be a sad and sorry world if people did.
So, some might wonder - "So, when are you going to shut up and write your own stuff?" And if so, I could now respond "Funny you should ask...." But no, I'm not going to post about that in my blog. Or even talk that much about it privately until it's done.
Allen
no subject
Glad you enjoyed Grindhouse though!
no subject
And capes are the height of homoerotic fascist fashion, aren't they? At least Batman seems to think so. (Type "gay batman art" into Google Images to see watercolours from a banned art show to prove this point.)
Allen