Damn thats harsh

I'm thinking I should skip this flick.

I just saw this movie, and though the story didn't have any depth to it, nor the characters any realism, the movie won me over almost solely with the casting of Samuel L. Jackson as The Octopus. His bombastic, eclectic performance and dialogue make this movie more of a comedy than an action/fantasy movie. Seeing Jackson, who has played usually more serious roles, take on most of the comic relief of the film is refreshing for younger audiences to see this distinguished actor portraying such a different role. Also, the roles featuring several of Hollywood's most attractive females (Scarlett Johansson, Eva Mendes, Paz Vega) kept me wowed through the otherwise drier parts. While this review is accurate, and maybe Frank Miller is not so good at directing, these to me seem moot points because the movie should be viewed in a different setting or light.

It's not only unduly harsh, it's inaccurate in a major detail as Ellen (Sarah Paulson) is never a damsel in distress but a doctor who is his confidante. The laissez-faire attitude of the review (which is a mask to cover laziness) may blame the movie for not creating details he cares about (see laziness) but it's never a good sign in a review. The subhead "It's amateur hour at the movies" is ironic because that could also be a way to describe this reviewer.

As for the movie, itself, it's…bizarre. Not all the elements work, for instance, high camp and silliness that conflicts with the noir-style and the grandeur of a hero piece, so its biggest flaw is its inconsistency tone. But at the time same time, it is interesting in a weird way (like Jackson and Johannson in a full Nazi regalia). While Miller may be out of his depth as a director, the movie does have appeal.

In a time of unoriginal remakes, and no new ideas…I agree, way too harsh. I love everything about this movie and maybe I am bias for a few reasons. To the reviewer, speaking from a mass-media perspective I can see your reasoning, but it is after all, a matter of an opinion or taste. An Instant cult classic is more like it! What Miller does with 'the Spirit' is what you want to see out of the Eisner-comic book, in a movie. Besides, Miller had such an in depth relationship with the original creator, it was meant to be. So I feel it naturally represents those elements in a more modern setting. The thing is that Sam J's performance is so good that it reflects Miller's over-ambitiousness (not amateur), which will get better through time; it is his first film. Ultimately, a crowning achievement for a stunningly talented breakthrough director who paved the way for many 'dark knight' stories alike, along with his own, and to see in its pure raw-form is foreign to the average audience member. Give it time. Love it or Hate it, Miller is here to stay and is ruler of the reborn underground of the cult-modern retro-classic!! Remember this is the guy who gave us '300' and 'Sin City', we need people like him; they set the standards like Martin Scorsese! But like all true artists, they are never appreciated in their time…

I saw it last night. And I was really happy with it as a fan of the books, as a movie patron, a lot of what the original reviewer says is true. Miller as a director is just rehashing what he did in Sin City, and why is that bad? Most people liked Sin City, and are looking forward to number 2 (should it actually come out). Trashing Mr. Miller for this would be like trashing Bryan Singer for how he directed Superman Begins. He directed and shot it in much the same manner as his x-men flicks. Superman didnt work because the story stunk. Here we have a simular problem. Frank Miller wrote a great Spirit story, from the 1940's. He served up a story that looks like it could have been stolen from the legendary Eisner's files of uncompleted Spirit ideas, and given my opinion that Miller is one of comicdom's most uneven writers, constantly jumping between brillance and utter crap, it probably is stolen. But in that lies where the movie fails, a 1940's comic book story. Take a minute, read those old Superman/Batman or anything from the mid 1960's, I will wait…. ok, so it was fun, depending on what you read and the attempt made to use the popular slang of the day, a little painful. You got enough to know the main characters but not so much that you drown in backstory. Exactly what you get here, and like those classic pages, thrown away by most and treasured by a select few. To the original reviewer I say this, if this is "amateur", it is out of love for a story and a man that Mr. Miller knew and respect. Perhaps, if this is going to be your trade, you should learn to research, just a little, before so open handly dismissing a movie because it is not going to be considered for an oscar.

Finally, Mr. Millar, I doubt you read this but, no matter how many times you change his costume, we never should see the true face of the Octupus (I did kind of like the save at the end on that though). No matter how much I enjoyed this as a fan of The Spirit, you still owe me $25 for Dark Knight 2.

This movie is terrible, is trash, i can't bear it.

I agree that I never want to think about it, but I'm not sure this stinker was "over before I knew it".

I was so bored from beginning to end, even when I was trying to catch up with its very strange/stupid beginning.
My two cents..http://thescorecardreview.com/film-reviews/2008/12/27/the-spirit/2039

Destined for cult status in the same vein as "Plan Nine From Outer Space". Plays like a bad student film directed by a ham handed director on acid. Really, I have only two good things to say about this movie, one, the theater was close to my house and ,two, the tickets were comps.