SIN CITY AND MACHETE WILL DRIVE THEIR GIMMICKS INTO THE GROUND AGAIN

To be fair, Sin City's script is ripped right off the page. Aside from some tweaks, not a whole lot of work needs to go into the writing portion of that. The devil's in the direction.

Also, the greatest gift home media ever gave that flick was the ability to watch that film separated by story. I haven't I've watched the theatrical cut all the way through in years. But I've watched Hard Goodbye dozens of times since, and Big Fat Kill maybe a few times less. That film's become pure, satisfying, fast food grindhouse. I'm rather okay with that.

Sin City was decent but never felt like it needed a sequel. Machete even less so.

Supposedly 2 will only feature one segment from a comic, and two new segments from Miller. I'm not holding out for a ton of quality from this one. We'll see. Machete can go fuck itself.

Wasn't there talk of #2 being entirely based off A Dame To Kill For, with the new Miller sections being bookends (like Customer Is Always Right)? Because I was down for that far more than I am anything Frank Miller writes in the 21st Century.

That was what I always heard the plan was, Justin. To be honest, I loved the first one so much when I saw it in the cinema as a teenager that I went out and got A Dame... so I'd be well up on the sequel. But it feels like this has perennially been on the cusp of happening for about 5 years and I'm not nearly as excited for it as I once was. I'd still be interested, granted, but the wait hasn't done this any favours.

I feel like the only geek in the world who never got Sin City. The film just did nothing for me, aside from being vaguely visually interesting, and the more I tried to connect with it the more the gaudy Frank Millerness of it all defeated me. I should probably give the film another go, and do it story by story, as I'm pretty sure Michael Madsen's insanely terrible performance at the start is what kicked off the downward spiral.

RR said at comic con that it'd be called A Dame To Kill For, and would be two new stories and one from that gn.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spike Marshall 

I feel like the only geek in the world who never got Sin City. The film just did nothing for me, aside from being vaguely visually interesting, and the more I tried to connect with it the more the gaudy Frank Millerness of it all defeated me. I should probably give the film another go, and do it story by story, as I'm pretty sure Michael Madsen's insanely terrible performance at the start is what kicked off the downward spiral.

Aw, I kinda loved that performance. In the same way Stana Katic was fun in The Spirit. The way Madsen, off-handed, spits "yer pushin' sixty with a bum TICK-ER" at Hartigan feels like the pulpy nature of the thing distilled into one line. It may not be for everyone, but that's a sign that, if you do like that sort of thing, you're in for a time.

I guess this is just a long, roundabout way of saying "I like gaudy." 

The real tragedy is Brittany Murphy being dead. That was a nothing role in the books. She catapulted that far into brilliantly damaged. I was looking forward to more of that.

I thought Machete limped to the finish a  bit, but I'd still call it a solid 3 or so and I'd be down for another round providing they learned from their mistakes. Oh, and it's gonna need some pretty epic stunt casting to one-up pregnant Steven Seagal.

The window for a Sin City sequel closed a few years ago, I think.  The iron isn't hot anymore.

There's goodness to be mined from Machete, but time isn't and won't be kind to that film. The fact that Hobo With A Shotgun shames it in every single damn way doesn't help.

You're right Justin, there's a whole lot of fun to be mined from Machete, but I honestly can't imagine we'd get a better film than what we've already got. Honestly we'd probably be better off with them making trailers for various fictional Machete movies. That's really the whole problem with modern films aping the whole "grindhouse" style, despite fun and ludicrous concepts most of them just weren't very good movies and, as such, work better when edited down to a minute and a half.

Why would they say, We're doing a second one, and in the third one, he's going to space? I wanna see him in space, goddamnit!

Anyway, the better Trejo grindhouse movie from 2010 was easily MODUS OPERANDI. Make a sequel to THAT, Danny.

SIN CITY and MACHETE were ok and all (some great moments here and there), but I'd rather have a PLANET TERROR sequel personally.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spike Marshall 

I feel like the only geek in the world who never got Sin City. The film just did nothing for me, aside from being vaguely visually interesting, and the more I tried to connect with it the more the gaudy Frank Millerness of it all defeated me. I should probably give the film another go, and do it story by story, as I'm pretty sure Michael Madsen's insanely terrible performance at the start is what kicked off the downward spiral.

This is me outside of Marv's story. I remain surprised to this day how amazing Mickey Rourke is in that role. The film does nothing for me outside of his work in it.

I'm down for Sin City and Machete sequels, though I will still be surprised if the former ever gets made.  If it does, God only knows how long it will take him to make the third, as RR always spoke of doing a Sin City trilogy with Johnny Depp starring in the third one as Wallace in "To Hell & Back".

Honestly though, of all the projects he spoke of at Comic-Con, I am FAR more interested in his proposed remake of Fire & Ice that will be basically be done as a living Frazetta painting (shot Sin City-style).

I have no interest in these sequels.  Sin City, which I caught on DVD, was an empty experience whenever Mickey Rourke or Clive Owen disappeared from the screen.  Machete had its moments, but should have stayed a fake trailer.  Outside of Planet Terror and chunks of his other flicks, I find Rodriguez to be an over-rated ego-trip windbag.  

Machete? Didn't that make all of $2. It's like the Piranha sequel. If nobody saw the original, why would the they go ahead and make a sequel. These should be DTV.

Many of these films are so cheaply produced that they actually make a decent profit anyway.

Wait, when did people start hating on SIN CITY? The big flaw is RR's fidelity to Miller's excessive monologuing and maybe a few botched performances here and there, but by and large it's a lively twisted work.

I don't hate Sin City.  It was the coolest thing I'd seen for about a year after it came out.  Then I kinda developed a bit of a mild disdain for it when Rodriguez seemed to get sucked into that kind of moviemaking.  In general, I feel the same way about most movies produced that way (cough, except Speed Racer, cough) that desperately try to look 'cool.'

The difference between Sin City 2 and Machete 2 is the thing that he's doing SC2 mostly only for the money, and Machete 2 mostly for the fun of it.

Is he still in charge of producing another Predator... or is that scrapped?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pop Zeus 

Wait, when did people start hating on SIN CITY? The big flaw is RR's fidelity to Miller's excessive monologuing and maybe a few botched performances here and there, but by and large it's a lively twisted work.

I can only speak for myself but, I don't hate SIN CITY, I've just outgrown it. I don't think I've managed to watch the whole movie since I was 17. 

There's also the matter of Frank Miller's decline in popularity and esteem in the eyes' of a lot of comic nerds. Any perceived "backlash" against the movie probably has more to do with Miller than Rodriguez or the film itself.

Captain Sky & the World of Tomorrow and Sin City kicked off this trend of screen-saver movies. 

I don't like it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by S.D. Bob Plissken 
Honestly though, of all the projects he spoke of at Comic-Con, I am FAR more interested in his proposed remake of Fire & Ice that will be basically be done as a living Frazetta painting (shot Sin City-style).

Oh yeah, forgot that one. Now yer talking. Especially since JOHN CARTER ain't going that route...

Well, as long as it's not a slog like PREDATORS, RR.
 

Predators wasn't without its flaws, but it was too lean to be a slog. Maybe to some that felt like one of the flaws, but to me, it was a callback to the 80's action flicks that inspired it (like the original)... films that knew when enough was enough and how much to show, etc. Brody's laconic performance was as good an indicator of that as any.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chris Myers 
Is he still in charge of producing another Predator... or is that scrapped?

It's still a go, as apparently Fox & Co. are accepting pitches from screenwriters and directors.  I don't think they are going to rush one out, but I'll be shocked if we don't get a Predator IV in the next couple years.

As for why sequels to Machete and Piranha are happening?

- Machete had a budget of 10.5 million.  It pulled in almost 27 million domestically and totaled out at 44 million worldwide.  Between that and apparently solid home video sales, it is no wonder that he snagged financing for two sequels.

- Piranha cost 24 million and made only a million more than that domestically (83 million worldwide).  That said, as soon as it hit theaters, the Weinsteins started to publicly lament that they had pretty much dumped it with little marketing effort because they thought it wouldn't do well.  Once it started garnering good reviews and had extremely positive word of mouth, they immediately greenlit a sequel so that they could "rectify their mistake" (AKA actually make money second time 'round).  That and apparently it was another solid home video hit.  Personally though, I can't really see it fairing well as a Thanksgiving release..................but I've already been proved wrong once this year (Apes).  Either way, the fact that we are getting a sequels from the Feast crew is exciting as hell!

Predators may have looked like it was filmed in a backyard, but I'll take that over a green screen anytime these days. 

I know RR will get Owen, Alba, Willis (if needed), Duncan, Hartnett, Dawson, etc. back....................................but are we really sure Rourke will return?  I'm pretty sure the last interview I read with Mickey where the original and the prospect of a sequel came up, all he did was bitch about the make-up and implied that he really wasn't interested in doing it again.

Predators was a simple attempt to prove there was life left in that universe, and there's too much in that flick that works (Brody, Fishburne, Goggins, the Preds themselves) to really get up in arms about the stuff that's just kinda inert.

The movie doesn't work and had a terrible ending. Sure there was some good stuff in it but it didn't cross the finish line.

I appreciated the attempt though.

Robert Rodriguez has no bell curve going in a positive direction. Thats a shame because he has a lot of power and clout to get projects made.

Again the Mexico movies, Spy Kids and now Machete.

The guy couldn't get more stale if he tried. Oh and I liked Planet Terror.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Justin Clark 

Predators was a simple attempt to prove there was life left in that universe, and there's too much in that flick that works (Brody, Fishburne, Goggins, the Preds themselves) to really get up in arms about the stuff that's just kinda inert.

I'm a huge Fishbourne fan.

That was his worst performance. IMVAO

The only things that worked in PREDATORS (in my opinion) were the bits aped from the original. That's all I remember anyway. Everything else just faded away from my memory. Lacked the energy and originality that RobRod brought to other flicks in his body of work.