Sin City: A Dame to Kill For movie review: meaner streets

I agree that the latter there sounds like a common sentiment in many of these reviews. It doesn’t mean this review was great at addressing how that makes this an inherently bad/worse/whatever film. Particularly by comparison. Because if one is willing to watch the first film and randomly go, “Oh, it’s post-9/11!” as a justification for the level of violence or similar…that they would then see the violence or similar in this film and not go, “Oh, it’s ten years on and everyone’s horrible to each other!” as a framework for what it must be saying socially and would, instead, go, “It’s ten years on and everyone is still horrible to each other in these movies?!” indicates that she allows the first film to be interpreted through an immediate social lens regarding the timeframe…but doesn’t allow the second to be interpreted through that lens…because it’s later.

But me, I don’t see how one might view a film such as Apocalypse Now and easily project the public sentiment or various ideas regarding Vietnam (or war as a concept) onto it but then would see The Hurt Locker and be like, “This is just meaningless.” when there’s an immediate frame of reference for it. You know, Middle Eastern conflicts – or war in general – that the public also has various ideas regarding. If one says, “Apocalypse Now is great because think about Vietnam.” to then turn around and say, “The Hurt Locker is awful because it’s not about anything.” seems disingenuous. But I assume it’s not in this case – that something notable or relevant regarding the disparate nature of these two approaches was omitted but the reviewer (as well as others here) doesn’t seem to acknowledge much aside from, “Time has passed and this is her opinion.” Yes, obviously, time has passed and this is her opinion. But why was time passing given consideration for Sin City and not Sin City: A Dame To Kill For except to apply negatives to the latter while excusing elements of the former or praising it by comparison?

Essentially, I’m looking for consistency. Not somebody to align with my worldview outside of the (I would consider, rather reasonable) suggestion of, “Film reviewers should convey a consistent sense of film from their own perspective.”

I don’t mean “bridge” in terms of the film’s content. I mean within the review. Why is mindless violence a post-9/11 commentary in 2005 but mindless violence isn’t a “13 years post-9/11 commentary” in 2014 (particularly when one cites the work and the world as both being very harsh/grim/etc.) and, instead, is treated like it’s just mindless violence? Simply saying it’s a different time or views change doesn’t mean much as the former is evident regardless and the latter doesn’t matter as the above review acknowledges (without discounting) the post-9/11 subtext for the first film. So there’s a gap in what’s being put forward about the films within how they’re reviewed.

I wrote reviews for a newspaper for quite awhile and had lots of people commend me on my work (and not in that false manner many who are sucking up appear to).

Yeah, and I’ve written for lots of outlets and had lots of people commend me on my work. So what?

Alright, then I’ll say it: so what? You think you’d be the first newspaper film critic who didn’t know jack shit about film? And was a lousy writer, to boot? And yet managed to hold a column for years? What did you think the Rex Reed comment meant? Claiming that you yourself are a film critic just means you have even less excuse to be this obtuse.

*nudge* Apostrophe.

Let’s say I don’t like Vanilla ice cream (the most popular flavor in the U.S.). But I do like Butterscotch, which most people don’t like. I don’t think anyone deserves an explanation of my taste in food. It’s my taste/opinion. You don’t like it? Fine, but it IS mine.
MA, bless her pea-pickin’ heart, gave tons of reasons why she liked film one and didn’t like film two. Accept it, grow up, move on. Nothing to see here.

if the reviewer saw the first film for the first time today, would the reviewer say, “Nope. Not a good movie.”?

Yes, it’s possible I might. The world is different now, and I am different now. (As I have explained more than once, though, including in the review itself, there are other problems with this movie that were not present in the first film.)

If so, that calls the reviewer’s relative reliability into question (because it’s more about their slant

Of *course* it’s about my slant! It always has been. And if you think I wasn’t slanted in 2005 and I am now, you might want to look at your own slant.

Or you might be at the wrong film site.

I’ve also noticed a chance since you seem to be more lenient now (by giving Step Up 5 and Endless Love a positive review). I’m going to slightly veer off-topic, well from the film, but it’s got something to do with the comment at hand. If you were to see the film *Irreversible* for the first time today, do you think you would’ve still given it a positive review (well, in the review you stated it’s a hard film to recommend but, you commended Noe for the delivery of such a common crime and how he made it look just as awful as it actually is)? Also, what light did you give that film back then, out of curiosity since the review didn’t seem to have anything against the film, but it didn’t seem to be all that positive either?

I referred to the critic as “the reviewer” because I am discussing the reviewer in response to someone who is not that reviewer. For a similar instance, when discussing a film with someone, even if for some behind the scenes material or similar, one can easily and reasonably refer to “the filmmaker” or “the director” or similar. The forum does not exclude the use of a term such as that – and, in fact, encourages it in some cases.

I agree that a reviewer such as this might give Sin City a wildly different review were it to be released today – and I feel that calls the reviewer’s abilities to review the film (rather than, say, their feelings on the day which could be influenced by anything from recent political events to indigestion following lunch) into question. There are countless examples of films which can be viewed reasonably by audience members, regarding their individual quality, despite being removed from the original time in which they were made. To point toward one of “the greats” (making no direct comparison to Sin City or Sin City: A Dame To Kill For), I mean, Casablanca doesn’t only play during World War II.

I find it ironic that there appears to be so much resistance to the suggestion that a reviewer should be open to critique. I brought up the matter of how this review contrasts with what is put forward about the original Sin City, alluding to how the reviewer appears to draw conclusions regarding a film’s quality based on sentiment and seeks to justify that even if it contradicts other points (I did this when referring to issues with moralistic perspectives projected onto works) rather than approaching the film with a level of openness and understanding. That is, there appears to be a disconnect because this is roughly a “cart before the horse” style of critique. “I felt this way – why was that?” rather than, “What is this? What does it cause me to feel?” I have heard people say that the latter takes people out of films but if people find it’s the case that they can’t think and feel at the same time, I would say that’s concerning. I don’t imagine that is the case with the reviewer and so that led to me questioning why one film is given thought during it and the other is apparently not.

Of course, the easy, dismissive replies to something like that would be something about how the latter film “doesn’t deserve it” or “doesn’t give the audience anything to think about” or further. But those are sentiment-driven positions rather than having a basis in something one can discuss as a part of the film within reason – of course with differing interpretations in many cases, but where one can see the point of reference. It’s like saying, “I can’t stand this musician.” and, when asked why, saying you “I just don’t like them.” There’s no substance to it. Again, this would generally seem ironic when that appears to be the claim of this review regarding the film.

Nevermind. It’s clear we’re at an impasse and it’s unlikely that further discussion or repetition of various points would prove fruitful as far as broadening understanding.

Dude, Pepsi’s just gross. That’s a proven scientific fact, yo. ;-)

Why would she lie about not liking the movie? I never implied that. What I implied is that her reasoning appears (at least) erroneous in what she’s put forward (that is, erroneous in the sense that it doesn’t line up or is inconsistent – not that her opinion is somehow invalid in itself). As there’s a contradiction between that in the immediate and the subject she discusses for comparison (the first film) and there’s a lack of information regarding how that was reconciled. Save for, roughly, “It’s a different time.” So? At what point is Ben Hur a horrible film because “it’s a different time,” when speaking in a relatively public forum about the general quality of films? At what point does The Thomas Crown Affair turn into a pile of garbage based on, “Eh, it’s a different day.”? These questions should appear rhetorical but, if not, one questions legitimately how one seeks to define, for “the public at large” or similar, the quality of a film solely on the basis of the time of its release or the time in which one watches it. As opposed to the qualities of the film itself.

While it’s evident that a reviewer will put some elements of themselves into the review, the whole “focused around myself” mindset could make a film where a character is vaguely reminiscent of a bully one knew in high school…considered horrible or amazing…not on the basis of something inherent to the film itself that one has sought to communicate meaningfully to the public but on the basis of, “That’s how I feel.” Well, at least, put it within a framework easily conveyed, wherein one expresses a sense that the film portrays (if, indeed, it does) bullies or people in positions of authority and incorporates this into its narrative. Don’t just say, “I experience this due to my immediate framework I am rather arbitrarily applying!” That doesn’t play. It’s like a film made for a very niche audience – of course it has to be taken as what it is but if it still can’t convey something within that, it’s not living up to its intended goal.

If one bothers to show some insight on the subject, one can easily explain why one enjoys Coke as opposed to Pepsi. They’re different flavors with different relative physical properties and one can then apply one’s preference to that. And, of course, that preference remains what they’re filtering it through. It sometimes seems with this reviewer that rather than conveying a sense of the film through herself, she’s trying to convey a sense of herself through the film. That can be frustrating for people looking for a review of the film. So being the official reviewer and just saying, “I prefer Coke.” in a review on a website devoted to someone reviewing soft drinks, justifiably, should get people stepping in and saying, “Uh…can you kind of cover why that is – like what it is about Coke itself regarding the flavor/taste/consistency/distribution/logo/etc. that you like or what it is about the other ones that you particularly don’t like? Because this just seems like random preference. I don’t know how you expect others to take anything valuable from that alone.”

Again, that’s if it’s on a website with somehow “official” (within the framework of the site) “reviews” meant for people in the general public to be able to peruse for a relative frame of reference if they so choose. But if it’s just a random website, like Twitter – making flat statements of preference or similar is not only “acceptable” but it’s typically encouraged. I expect that, with the above, the reviewer knows what they wish to say or can intuit it in a sense (regarding the primary differences between the quality of Sin City: A Dame To Kill For and its predecessor) but I am wondering where that information is, outside of the relative excuse of “time,” that relates to this film.

And all people can do is say, “That’s just what she thinks.” …Yes, that’s plainly understood. But we don’t give much of anyone in the critical realm an “automatic pass” just because it’s what they think. If that were the case, why write a review? Why not just slap a letter grade on a webpage and take no time to explain? No – the ultimate intention is to convey a sense of the film. You don’t do that with, “I prefer Coke!”-style generalities.

Whew…NOW he gets it!

You just snarked on the same comment you already snarked on two days ago. And the commenter hasn’t posted anything new in over a day, so you’re a little late. I’m not sure that this is helping.

He’s already gone “the F*CK away and stopped trolling.” If you keep provoking him, he may come back just to explain why he’s not a troll. And if you start insulting him after he’s ended the discussion, then you’re the troll.

You find it out of the question that people with similar mindsets might appreciate a similar reviewer and frequent that reviewer’s website? And, therefore, if someone is there and questions that reviewer in a sense, those individuals might be prone to taking what was said in a relatively similar way – whether accurate to what was expressed or not?

I mean, you can go to a website about, say (Since this is a film review website – maybe you simply took issue with my example not being directly related to film?) Star Wars and state a relatively unpopular opinion and watch as dozens of people twist and turn everything you expressed in order to tell you that you’re wrong – rather than listening to what you said and your points first. This is the nature of many – some might argue most – internet communities, relatively. I assume you understand that.

Obviously, I’m not saying everyone here agrees with her or agrees with her most of the time. But that her audience is likely of a certain mentality and relates to or with her on some level. This means they’re predisposed toward not only preferring “her side” (if they assume there’s a side in people randomly commenting – which, of course, not all do) but also that the way they “take criticism” of a review she might have posted might be similar. Which means they might be prone to similar misinterpretations.

You know, like a husband might often take his wife’s side (due to a relative shared interest or shared values or similar) or vice versa – when seemingly “opposed” – although, obviously, they’re not going to agree on everything. It’s that sort of thing – a loyalty. Which is great in many regards.

So it’s not like I’m saying, “LOOK! A CULT! OR CRAZED FANDOM!” I’m just saying, as I keep saying, like prefers like.

While another commenter here, while suspect and likely in the wrong, was basically treated in a dismissive manner, this kind of commentary (including “what the hell…”-type phrasings) does make me wonder if you’ve made a habit out of being dismissive toward those that question reviews in an inconvenient manner or bring up meaningful concerns that others (including yourself) appear to struggle to address.

Or do you mean I clearly don’t like as in I don’t like you (or don’t agree with your views much of the time or find your reviews interesting or similar)? I’ve pointed out that people are rightful to enjoy supporting your reviews and similar (I just said, a couple hours ago, “…people here admire this reviewer ((with good reason)) and so they stick around here.”). I don’t know where you get this impression from. I dislike that yourself and others seem to be passive-aggressive (you above or in those cases where you take a comment plainly addressed to and within the context of something said to others as a personal slight against you) when addressing someone who raises a concern about a specific element of your review – and that many have struggled to address that concern while behaving as though the mention of it is an insult of some sort.

Your demands to get an explanation that meets your rigorous requirements are now officially over the line into obnoxious.

I have addressed your concerns as much as I am going to. Let it drop.

I don’t visit Star Wars forums (and I doubt I ever will). This doesn’t happen to me very often, either. It does happen on occasion (let’s say, once per every 400 originating comments on my end), particularly when I take issue with something which seems to be the localized dogma. As in, “We stand by this!” and I go, “Why?” and people don’t actually answer it. They just repeat and cling to “the party line.” It’s a relatively easy mentality to slip into regarding any grouping.

Seemingly, people here admire this reviewer (with good reason) and so they stick around here. So when somebody goes, “I don’t think this part of the review is that clear or necessarily ‘good.'” in some regard, it’s easier to go, “OH YEAH? You just don’t get it.” than it is to do the work that some here have recently started doing (such as Bluejay) where one says, “Maybe this will help you see what we’re saying?” or “Have you considered this?”

That’s what actual discussion is about.

Thanks for the advice. I’m not really looking to read more reviews of this film at this point (maybe down the line). I’ve given up on them for now in relation to this film for a variety of reasons. Not least of which is that the comments I’ve often seen thus far on reviews for this film are full of an absurd, “Why don’t you love this movie?!” and, “The movie sucks because it’s morally repugnant!”-type of dichotomy (and if you’re not in one of those relative groups with what you express, they seem to hate you even more – or try to force you into one of them). Given that, little expressed is of note or substance…

And the reviews themselves have sometimes leaned toward one of those as well (although I’ve seen a few that I felt nailed fully-conveying their sense of the film). In many cases, it’s like this film is a Rorschach test and everyone else is to blame for not seeing the exact same thing whoever commented last (or reviewed) saw (or expects to see). It’s ridiculous.

Nice one, Dr. R.

Whoops, cross-posted with you, Danielm80. Sorry.

Well, with probably a million civilian deaths in Iraq, genocide in Darfur, appalling numbers of dead in Mexican drug wars (and all that just for starters), I think the early 21st century is giving the early 20th a run for its money so far.