The movie 300, which is based on the graphic novel of the same name by Frank Miller (which is in turn based on historical events) opens in theaters on Friday.
On Monday I'll be seeing it.
I will no doubt be seeing it alone, as I can't imagine Brian wanting to see it (among other reasons, it is, after all, based on a comic book), and Scott's principles don't allow him to see rated R movies, so he can't see it (Even though he wants to. See what having principles gets you?), so that leaves me.
Anyway, here's a very cool (and violent - it is based on Frank Miller's work after all):
I like the approach they've taken. They haven't gone quite the Sin City route in attempting to bring Frank's vision to life, but they have definitely given it a Frank Miller feel. Love the way the blood looks - that is definitely like something straight out of Frank's comics.
In his recent works, Frank has kind of gone over the top (even for him), and seems almost to be parodying himself. The Dark Knight Strikes Again was almost like him taking a whiz on the masterpiece that it served as a sequel to - the classic The Dark Knight Returns.
And of course the less said about All-Star Batman and Robin the better (Though to say something about it, in one scene, Batman says to a traumatized young Dick Grayson, whose parents just died in front of his eyes, and whom Batman has actually kidnapped and is taking back to the Cave - a process that takes like three entire issues, which, thanks to its shipping schedule, amounts to about six months, "What are you dense? Are you retarded or something? Who the hell do you think I am? I'm the goddamn Batman.")
Still, Frank remains a comics master and was well on his way to single-handedly changing the face of American comics forever even before the British Invasion came along and helped him do it.
I recently had the distinct pleasure of reading (and in many cases re-reading) some of Frank's early work on Daredevil. Bear in mind that this was material from nearly 30 years ago, and that in most cases going back and trying to read comics from that period is a daunting prospect given how bad the dialogue will often be and just how simplistic the storylines are, especially in contrast to today's more "mature" comics. Reading old comics can cause so much pain as to send you spiralling into a coma.
Not so the work of Frank "The Tank" Miller - as Dave of Dave's Longbox is trying to get people to refer to him. Make some minor tweaks to the slang used, and update some of the fashions, and you could very easily put those books on the rack alongside the best work of guys like Ed Brubaker (and in front of the works of guys like Brian Michael Bendis).
Timeless, would probably be the best word, though, visionary works just as well, which is why it's only fitting that the collection of those Daredevil stories was in a book called Visionaries. When it comes to Frank, they weren't kidding.
So yeah, I can forgive him some of his recent foibles, and I will happily stand in line to see his vision on the big screen in 300.
I'll also wait impatiently for the next Sin City movie.
The movie was initially delayed by the pregnancy of Angelina Jolie who was going to play the titular (in more ways than one) role of Ava Lord in the segment A Dame To Kill For.
She was a good choice, and would have been worth the wait, but as it stands now, Angelina will not be filling that role, so they have to find a new Ava.
I've seen speculation that the part will be played by Rachel Weisz. I like her, but I don't think she's right for the part.
So now I will go on record and say that there is only one actress who can do the role justice: Scarlett Johansson.
I don't even have to go into the reasons why she's perfect for the role because they are self-evident.
So if you're reading this Robert Rodriguez (as if), get to work on casting her .
And Scarlett, if you're reading this (I think my chances of winning the lottery are better than the chances that she reads this blog, and I don't even play the lottery), go to Rodriguez and demand the part. You've said on the record that you're ready and willing to do a nude scene, so here's your chance to deliver on that promise.
(And for the record, there's always a lot of talk about nude scenes being "integral" to the story. That's very seldom the case - though I very seldom complain about it - but in this case, it really, really is integral. You need to have that scene of Ava standing there naked, exposed in her magnificence and revealing why she really is a woman that men would, have, and do, kill for.)
Beyond that, Ava is a complex and interesting character, and I suspect she would be a lot of fun to play.
So now, Mr. Rodriguez and Ms. Johansson, go forth and do my bidding!
(Oh, and on the topic of Daredevil and Ed Brubaker, I want to say thanks to Ed for, first of all, being Ed and just generally doing great work, and second for swooping in and cleaning up the mess that Bendis made during his Daredevil run, and for writing one of the best single issues of a comic that I've read in a long time.)
Anyway, the point of this whole thing was mostly just to show off the 300 clip, but I kind of got carried away. Oh well.
5 comments:
Rachel Weisz would be a perfect Ava lord and she is ten times more the actress Scarlett Johansson.
can hope she would be.
I certainly don't have anything against Rachel Weisz. I just don't think she'd be right for the part of Ava. She's a beautiful woman and a great actress, but she's just not the sort of bombshell vamp that Ava is. I think Scarlett could pull it off. Just my not-so humble opinion, and I'm eagerly awaiting the movie regardless of who ends up playing the part.
Oh, and incidentally, happy birthday to Ms. Weisz!
http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0001838/
I’m sorry but I have to disagree with you. Rachel Weisz has the looks, the range and the acting the chops to pull off the character of Ava Lord perfectly. She would make Ava a complex character that would have you guessing to the very end, unlike Angelina Jolie who you would know would sell you out and unlike Scarlett Johansson, who has the range of a cardboard box.
I'm not saying that she couldn't play the part or that she wouldn't bring something special to the role. One need only refer to her performance in The Shape of Things to see just how well she can play the part of a manipulative vixen.
That being said, beautfiful as she is, I just don't think she has the right look (and I think that Scarlett does) and there's nothing you can say that will convince me otherwise.
Further, I think Scarlett is a better actress than either of you is giving her credit for, and I think that the fact that she's young and can look so sweetly innocent would bring a lot to the role.
But that's just me. You can believe what you want and I won't tell you you shouldn't, but ultimately what we think doesn't really matter, as they will cast whoever they're going to cast irrespective of what's said in the comments section of a low-traffic blog.
And I will pay money to see it no matter what.
But anyway, thanks for commenting! It's so rare that anyone - apart from a few regulars - actually takes the time to say anything.
Post a Comment