Movie Review: ‘The Spirit”
In the past, the holiday season is a time for at least one big box office hit, and while the period between 2001 and 2005 may have been taken over by Peter Jackson’s army of Orcs and giant gorillas, the pattern has been consistent. This year, however, you shouldn’t expect to be blown away, or even spend the money on admission with an adaptation of a literary or Hollywood classic, as Frank Miller and his motley crew try to pass off a remake of Will Eisner’s classic “middle-class crime fighter” comic. The film, as a whole, makes very little sense and will bring mostly heartache to fans of the source material, and on an original level, the movie jumps around both in mood, story, and even dialogue so much that it makes it feel like you’ve been watching [[[Sin City]]] fan film for over 90 minutes.
The movie should have simply been called a faux sequel to Sin City, because that is what it felt like. Gravely voices, over-the-top villains, and women in leather should just be what was written on the poster for this film, because those elements just about sum up what to expect. There are a few twists and turns, mostly in the tone of the film and how it jumps from a high-paced action film to a slapstick comedy around every turn. The inconsistency alone is enough to deter most of the audience, let alone the campy dialogue or ridiculous plot devices that would have Eisner spinning in the grave.
Those who were/are a fan of Eisner’s original story or even the later retellings know the basic story behind the hero: Denny Colt, a middle-class rookie cop in Central City is presumed killed, but actually goes into suspended animation, only to come back and create the identity of The Spirit, a man who is able to fight crime in a way local cops can’t, all while wearing a blue suit, red tie, domino mask, and a fedora. [[[The Spirit]]] never had super powers, but still had the same mystery as rival character Batman to the in-book villains. This new representation has The Spirit as a man who was killed, and brought back to life by a serum that gave him super powers, allowing him to recover from fatal wounds quickly and run across telephone lines. He now must take down The Octopus, his archrival who mysteriously has the same powers as our red-tied hero.
The worst part of the entire experience is that—deep down—there is a really great movie in here, a true testament to the original books which flees the screen about as fast as it enters with another piece of poignant dialogue like “I’m going to kill you all kinds of dead!” In between those lines, though, there are some truly warming moments, a few in particular between Gabriel Macht’s Spirit and Dan Lauria Commissioner Dolan. You will know the scene when you first see it, because it’s the only shot in the film which isn’t done in black and white and neither actor is hamming it up, which brings us to the film’s piece de résistance in the depressingly abysmal performance of Samuel L Jackson.
One of the biggest atonements to this film’s inevitable failure is the acting, mostly due to the complete misuse of the outstanding cast that Miller conjured up for the project. Sam Jackson alone should be enough to bring the film from the dirt to at least B-movie status, but Sam, along with the rest of the cast all seem to be acting in their own movies, without any real knowledge that there is an action-crime-drama being shot around them. Scarlett Johansson did a great job, if she was going for “I wish I wasn’t here”, while Gabriel Macht channeled Mickey Rourke, and Jackson went completely off the register.
Aside from the fact that each scene has The Octopus in a different ostentatious getup in every scene, from a Chinese robe to a German S.S. uniform, there are a few scenes where Jackson states that he was allowed to chew up as much scenery and go on rants that were all left in the film, wrongfully so, and all because Frank Miller was left the keys to the castle. Each other costar just felt like they were putting on a fashion show, like how the host of an award ceremony comes out in a different dress each time they address the crowd. Simply stated by Miller in a press conference, “the costumes play their own role.” You can also expect some award-winning cameos from the director himself and even comic patriarch Paul Levits stops by for some black-and-white action.
The fact that the dialogue and setting of the film are both conflicting and unsettling is an understatement. The original setting is set in the fictional Central City in the early 1920s, which fits the crime drama motif, while the film tries to go for the same feel, while there are blackberries and photocopiers high powered rifles. It would be fine to pawn off the cloning plot device as science fiction, but to bring in modern technology brought to us by Verizon just seems lazy. Also, there is an important line in the film that ends with “…and you’ll be dead like Star Trek” which should just confuse you as much as it did the rest of the world.
The special effects are just about on par with Sin City, and while there are a few nice moments where there are more colors in the pallet then red, black and white, those scenes are quickly snuffed by those same shots of white silhouettes on a black background that first got Miller to the position he’s in now 20 years ago. There are some pretty basic CG effects throughout the film, one of which involving some botched cloning that you won’t want to miss, but other than that and the aforementioned telephone-line-running acrobatics, the rest is pretty basic green-screen work.
Overall, this film can definitely be checked off in the miss column, and will go down with such films as [[[Howard the Duck]]] and [[[The Phantom]]]. While there are a few decent aspects to the film, you can’t walk away from the theater agreeing that the picture was worth the money to make, and will probably hinder studios from ever attempting to do Eisner’s character any real justice. In the end, it’s probably best to wait at home until [[[Sin City 2]]] hits DVD shelves. OVERALL RATING: 3/10
I have to disagree with your easy dismissal of The Phantom.Aside from that, there's not a thing that surprises me or gives me any hope at all in this entire review.Minor point – i wonder where the idea that Denny Colt was a rookie cop has rien from, since every version of the origin story shows him in the same blue suit and fedora, and at least some versions refer to him as a "criminologist", apparently in the Ellery Queen vein.Picking at scabs, i have to ask which of the female characters gets degraded the most.
Yeah, that's what I was thinkin', too.Matt, I've been a Spirit fan since there was a band by that name, and when I heard Miller was adapting it, I thought, "Cool! He'll get it right!"What I forgot is that this is the same man who, in addition to "The Dark Knight Returns", also gave us "RoboCop 2". His creative output is pretty well all over the map, and while he's had some hits, he's also had some really bad misses. A lot of fanboys have seen this and had the same reaction. I've been waiting for Roger Ebert to post his review. The fact that he hasn't yet bodes ill. I'm just hoping that somebody else, maybe Sam Raimi, will come along and do this right. But I'll be surprised if they do.Will Eisner said that the 1987 tv movie was so bad it made his toes curl. Wonder what he'd think of this mishegoss?Miles
A lot of fanboys have seen this and had the same reaction. I've been waiting for Roger Ebert to post his review. The fact that he hasn't yet bodes ill.COnsidering that Ebert published comic and SF fanzines in his misspent youth, and considering his recent health problems, perhaps wise friends and family haven't let him see it.Meanwhile, Reuters is carefully avoiding saying anything definitive about the quality of the film, while making it soundas if they're saying it's great:Comic guru Miller captures 'The Spirit' in new film/a> By Matt DailyNEW YORK, Dec 22 (Reuters) – A maniacal villain seeking immortality, a bevy of deadly beauties and snowy streetscapes under the watchful eye of a shadowy, masked hero: this must be a job for — Frank Miller.Miller, 51, an icon of the comic book world credited with bringing the genre to a wider audience, has returned to the big screen with his cinematic adaptation of the 1940s serial comic "The Spirit," about a crime fighter who comes back from the grave to protect the city he loves."Credited with bringing the genre to a wider audience"? Hello? I guess, from some perspectives, you could say that, if you kind of squint in the dusk with thelight behind it…(Incidentally, the Reuters story is in the "Business and Finance" section… ???)
"I have to disagree with your easy dismissal of The Phantom."Damn skippy. The film had a lot of good points, not the least of which being Catererine Zeta-Jones in leather. I thought Treat Willims to be a little too broad (but to be fair, when is he not?) but the film is quite enjoyable.And if you don't think Billy Zane can be a good actor, seek out Tales of the Crypt: Demon Knight. Also one of Jada Pinkett's first films.
Ain't It Cool News has an extensive dissection at http://www.aintitcool.com/node/39450, which ends:I apologize if I got a little (or a lot, even) long-winded and rant-ish. I was inspired by the worst movie I’ve ever seen: “The Spirit”. Folks, this movie is that bad. I heartily recommend it if you have a strong stomach and an even stronger sense of Bad-Movie-Love. Otherwise, steer clear. God I want to see The Watchmen already.
haven't seen it yet, but this is about what I expected after seeing the first trailer. Sin City was great, and somehow, Robert Rodriguez's frank-miller-worshipping somehow greenlit this picture. Ugh. I know Frank's up in arms with comic fans citing "this is what Will would have wanted…" making an argument that "the Spirit" was somehow in ANY WAY about the "future of the medium". Bull, I say. The Spirit (especially the material Mike Gold mentioned in his earlier post) was about the enjoyment of the medium. The Spirit is as pulpy as orange juice, and could easily been made well, by a storyteller willing to pay true homage to the noir roots. Warren Beatty got it with Dick Tracy! Bold colors, bold characters, and a twisty tale are all you need. Not green screen schlacked together, ADHD approved action sequences.What saddens me is that Frank's good material was so beloved by Robert and Watchmen helmer Zach Snyder, that somehow the studios figured Frank still "had it"… but this about proves it to me… He did.. and he don't now.
Wait a minute. Denny Colt gets superpowers in this movie? Miller thinks that's what Will Eisner would want? Is he insane?
It's what Will Eisner would have wanted if he'd been as brilliant a Frank Miller.
I do hope you're flexing your sarcasm muscles. What you shoulda said was it was what Will would've wanted if he'd been as brilliant as Frank Miller thinks he is.Will worked in the superhero trade for a little while. He was the one that Victor Fox told to come up with somebody just like Superman, and when Fox got sued for plagiarism, Will told the truth.Read his biography. Will wasn't into superpowers, he was into story. The Spirit was well written and drawn, something I can't say for a lot of comics of the time, or even that much from just a few years ago. The superpowered Spirit is a cheat; what made the strip fun was him trying to solve crimes and dodge people that were trying to either kill or seduce him. What Miller has done is dumb the thing down, play to the lowest common denominator. Guillermo del Toro could do a far better job. Miles
Another vote fo The Phantom. I thought it was a pretty enjoyable, well-done film.
Another positive vote for "The Phantom" – I really enjoyed that film and I'm a big enough fan of the character that I've got most of the pulp novels that were published in the 70's and my own skull ring.Ok, geek/fan, tomato/tomahto
Same here. The Phantom did a pretty good job of capturing the character. I'm looking forward to the new movie.Miles
By the way, Ebert's review is out. It ain't pretty. He says that calling it cardboard is an insult to packing materials.Read for yourself.http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/arti…Miles
Well, yes.If you read my other comments on this subject – from about the time the first teaser trailer came out – i'd hope it was obvious.To slightly paraphrase my characterisations of the late Lewis Grizzard and of Dave Barry, Frank Miller is almost as brilliant as he thinks he is.
Huh. SOmehow that wound up hooked to the wrong comment. I was confirming that i was, indeed, being sarcastic.
13% at Rottentomatoes.com.
Jesus Christ on a Harley. Even the new Sandler thing, Bedtime Stories, got better than one star. And it looks stupid as hell.Miles
Well, I rarely pay attention to reviewers (especially Roger Ebert). However, I've also discovered in my over-long lifetime a correlation between smoke and fire. I have a feeling I'll be waiting for this in the bargain bins before I see this violation of Will Eisner's creative vision.P.S. Put me down for loving The Phantom too! ("Okay Brian, you dress funny too." — thought I'd beat you all to that one) ;)
On comics- or old-SF-related films, Ebert is pretty good – he's an old-time fan himself (used to publish fanzines, i believe) and he knows whereof he speaketh…
Mike, I agree that Ebert at least acknowledges the source of the "comic book movie." However, I've never seen him cut a comic book movie any slack simply because it's born from a funnybook (and really, he shouldn't). My problem with Ebert is that sometimes, his review is more about Roger Ebert watching a movie than it is about the movie itself. Also, he will reveal the ending of a movie which is kinda dirty pool. And my main complaint with Mr. Ebert, he, like far too many film critics, don't share my admittedly lowbrow tastes. :)
My problem with Ebert is that sometimes, his review is more about Roger Ebert watching a movie than it is about the movie itselfWell, nothing wrong with that, if you've calibrated your tastes against his.As to revealing the ending, i can only recall one really egregious case (and that was while Siskel was still alive), when they ran a clip from the film with the one line of Absolute Spoiler dialog from the whole film.I recall *Newsweek* doing a huge spread on a Major Film, and including a still of a major chcracter's mid-film death…
If I found Roger more interesting, maybe it wouldn't annoy me so much. ;) It has nothing to do with our respective tastes (and please note that I'm casting doubts on my own more often than not) so much as I want illumination about the movie and its participants. But that's why there are different reviewers at The Sun-Times, right? :)And to be fair, Ebert hits more often than he misses, review-wise, even if he doesn't agree with me consistently.As for Newsweek, sigh … ;)
See, that was Siskel for me.His review would always turn to the 'what they SHOULD have here done was…' part and I would holler at the TV 'but Gene, it's your job to review they MADE'!
Actually, that *is* a review of what they made – it's like someone – Pauline Kel, perhaps? – who said that, when she watched a bad film with a good basic idea, she would take her mind off how awful it was by mentally planning how she'd recut it – what she'd cut out.She went on to say that partway theough "Heaven's Gate" she realised she was trying to decide if there was anything she'd *keep in*…
Here's my review, which I posted elsewhere after seeing "The Spirit" on Friday:Oh, man. I just got back from seeing "The Spirit," and shopping. Believe it or not, the two are directly related (more on that later). The film was painful to watch. Extremely painful. It was as if Ed Wood was resurrected, handed a blank check by some financiers, and then asked to direct a big-budget film version of "The Spirit." The only thing missing was Tor Johnson. Wait… that's not fair to either Ed or Tor. The Spirit movie was a disjointed, schizophrenic, self-indulgent mess. A seasoned filmgoer, my wife turned to me before the film even started and whispered sarcastically, "I wonder how many people will walk out?" I gave her a "Yeah, right" eye roll — not realizing just how prescient her comment would soon be. There were 15 people at our Friday afternoon showing, and six walked out before the film was half over. When this celluloid train wreck ended, I sat there numbly as the credits rolled. After a few moments my wife turned to me and said, "You owe me. We're going shopping." When she's right, she's right…