You are not logged in | | Sign Up

Related: SXSW: xx, Dancing and Public Urination, 2010: The New ‘85?, Sarah Palin Gets All ‘Jersey Shore’ on Reality TV, Ex-Lover and Ex-Producer Sues Lada Gaga, Kristen Stewart and Dakota Fanning Talk About ‘The Runaways’

Comments   (7)

Posted by Greg on Wed Mar 11, 2009 at 02.30 pm

#1

Meh. I already watched the sex scenes on the Internets. Not going to the theater…

Posted by Tony LaRocca on Wed Mar 11, 2009 at 02.39 pm

#2

“My only reason for seeing the movie now...”

What, you need your friends and reviews to tell you what you like?  See something because you want to!  If you like it, you like it.  If you don’t, you don’t.  Personally, I saw it and it was great.  You may not think so, but like everything in life, you should decide for yourself.  The reviews seem to be 50/50 love / hate - I don’t understand why the media is on a mission to focus on the haters.

Posted by Chris on Wed Mar 11, 2009 at 03.46 pm

#3

Violence… 300 and KillBill had more.  Rape-scene… non-existent really, more like a fight-scene as it was attempted before shortly interuppted by an angry mask.  Nudity… come on now, are we or are we not all adults. Even Titanic had a full frontal, besides if your eyes were focused on the bottom of the screen then maybe your maturity level is not upto par.

Go see it and judge for yourself!
Personally thought it was great as did my wife and she hated 300.

Posted by Nadeska Alexis on Wed Mar 11, 2009 at 04.32 pm

#4

“See something because you want to” is great advice when that garbage doesn’t cost $12.50. Buy two $5 foot longs for lunch this week instead. You’ll even have some left over after tax, it’s like $5.42. If i had to sit in that theater one second longer last night i would’ve cried. During the post-film discussion, there was a general consensus that the sex scene was the best part—oh, and the soundtrack was randomly awesome.

Posted by on Wed Mar 11, 2009 at 07.02 pm

#5

The film, while not living up to lofty expectations, was on the aggregate enjoyable. It is not, however, an easily approachable film. Then again, nor was the book. I continue to think that part of why people dubbed the book as being ‘unfilmable’ was a function of a number of things, not the least of which is the fact that it is just not a story and/or plot that is easily consumed and enjoyed by the vast majority of the movie going public.

Posted by Carl Redling on Tue Mar 17, 2009 at 10.53 am

#6

If you’ve read the book, you MUST see the movie. You will not be disappointed. However, I can see why people who havent read the graphic novel would be critical of the film.  Even with the torturous length, the story cant be fully fleshed out in a movie. Example: your photo for this article was a significant portion of the book explained in the excerpt from ‘Under the Hood’, in the movie it was a “flash cut” during the opening credits.  If you read the book, you got that.  If you didnt, it was just another flash cut that left you wondering.  Bottom line: go see it for the love of the tale.

Posted by Carl Redling on Tue Mar 17, 2009 at 11.02 am

#7

One more thing. Hurm...Rorschach ‘live’, worth admission.

Post a Comment

Anonymous comments are moderated. To comment instantly, register with BlackBook.

Notify me of follow-up comments?

  • Kiss & Fly Kiss & Fly
    409 W. 13th St.
    Hot dancers in t-shirts dance erotically,…
  • Tagine Dining Gallery Tagine Dining Gallery
    537 Ninth Ave.
    Succulent entrees and North African…
  • Casa la Femme Casa la Femme
    140 Charles St.
    South Egyptian restaurant and lounge…
  • The Box The Box
    189 Chrystie St.
    Nothing beats debaucheries, acrobatics,…
  • S.O.B.'s S.O.B.'s
    204 Varick St.
    Free live salsa, reggae, samba pop bands…