The reviews are in — 15 percent on Rotten Tomatoes, a mere 6 percent among Top Critics — and the box office is in:
9. The Spirit (Lionsgate)
$2.1M Saturday… $6.5M 3-day weekend… $10.4M 4-day holiday
Not every comic book can become a hit movie. Movie analysts didn’t expect much life from this adaptation of Will Eisner’s graphic novels despite a flashy marketing campaign. Lionsgate shouldn’t have tried to brave the Christmas competition.
…and the verdict is…THE SPIRIT is a big flopperoo.
Before we go any further, at the risk of sounding like a namedropper, I consider Frank Miller a friend, so I’m not going to jump up and down or pile on. Call me biased or non-objective or whatever you want. I’m just being honest.
Is THE SPIRIT a good movie? No. Is it entertainingly and inventively bad? Yes. At the press junket, Samuel L. Jackson was at pains to point out that “the movie is not mean spirited”, which would seem to be an odd way of promoting a film, but it’s an accurate one. Supporters of the film have compared it to the parodic anarchy of ALL-STAR BATMAN AND ROBIN THE BOY WONDER, and I think that’s an apt comparison. For all its goofiness — some deliberate, some not — it’s a well-intentioned movie, with a kind heart…a lot like Frank, I think. As much as critics have ragged on the characterization, the film is fond of all the characters, even the villains. And it is visually inventive and imaginative. Plus, it has kitty cats. So…there’s a lot to look at.
Like I said, Frank is a friend, and I’m not going to write anything I wouldn’t say to his face (assuming I ever see him again). I will say that Lionsgate really shot everyone in the foot by thinking they could turn this cult movie into a Christmas film. It was originally set to be released on January 16th, in the wasteland of movie releases. At such a time, the film’s eye-poke awkwardness and weirdness might have been a welcome respite to winter doldrums and might have even made some money at the box office.
Instead, with a Christmas Day opening, it went up against a bevy of high-profile films by Oscar contenders, and just couldn’t make the grade.
Technorati Tags: Frank Miller
But there is a lot that’s odd about this film. It was shot by Bill Pope (THE MATRIX, SPIDER-MAN) who’s the best in the business at action and CGI. This veteran was paired with a rookie director and, perhaps crucially, a rookie editor, Gregory Nussbaum. Stronger editing would definitely have made this a better movie, although not having seen the original footage, that’s just a hopeful guess.
On the plus side, THE SPIRIT has provided an opportunity for some of the most amusing cinematic putdowns of the year, like this classic from Roger Ebert:
“The Spirit” is mannered to the point of madness. There is not a trace of human emotion in it. To call the characters cardboard is to insult a useful packing material.
Jason Anderson of the Toronto Star:
At which exact point The Spirit hits rock bottom is a matter of debate. Maybe it’s when we first see our eponymous hero scampering across rooftops in a fashion less appropriate to a movie superhero than to a cast member of Guys and Dolls.
Kyle Smith at the New York Post:
FRANK Miller on the big screen is like Scratchy or wasabi or a bass player – he doesn’t work on his own. He needs a partner, or some diluting ingredients, or maybe a restraining order.
Finally, there’s going to be a lot of blowback about this movie, and fanboy glee over its failure is everywhere. I will quote a comment from Peter David from Blog@ in full, some may call it defensive, but it is also well-intentioned and good hearted.
What has Frank Miller done that he warrants a “comeuppance?” Seriously. What the hell has he done that he somehow deserves to have a movie that he spent several years of his life crafting, about a subject that he obviously cares passionately about, wind up crashing and burning?
You, who stands so bravely behind his words that he has to hide behind cutesy fake names, feel the need to label Frank Miller with condescending nicknames? You know what? Ants don’t get to condescend to eagles.
Presuming you even saw the movie: Perhaps you feel you didn’t get your money’s worth. Y’know what? I feel the same way. I paid admission, same as you. Same as everybody. I could have gone to a free advance screening. I was invited. Instead I chose to wait so that I could support the producers, who are friends of mine. But there is absolutely no way that I feel that Frank somehow had it coming. Because all Frank Miller has ever done is try to produce the best stories he is capable of, and he signs his name to everything he writes, which is more than I can say for you.
Even when Frank Miller falls, he falls from heights that most of us cannot hope to achieve, myself not excluded. If it’s too much to think that you should show at least a modicum of respect for someone who has devoted his life to this medium, then at least acknowledge that the reason you’re doing the happy dance over the failure of someone who has achieved more in his life thus far is than you likely ever will in the entirety of yours is because you’re unspeakably petty and ungrateful and ungracious.
I hate camp, even though, in the past, I’ve enjoyed it when it was done well.
Why do I hate it? Because it is fundamentally disrespectful of the comics medium. TV/film camp, ala the “Batman” TV show, originally spawned from the belief that the basic medium of comics is not really worthy of serious consideration.
Which is why I was so angry with Miller for taking a camp (or quasi-camp) approach for “The Spirit”
If the the films “Iron Man” and “Hellboy II” were steps forward for the comics-related film, “The Spirit” and “Batman & Robin” were huge steps backward.
What mystifies me is why Miller, allegedly a student of comics history, seemed to be so unaware of this when he opted for the camp approach with [i]The Spirit[/i].
“Did Miller really think he was honoring Eisner by doing just the opposite of what Miller himself wanted to happen with his own creations? Am I the only one who’s noticed how backwards that is?”
No … I pointed out the same thing, way back toward the beginning of the posts.
The way I see it there’s a large misunderstanding going around between the hollywood industry… that comic book fans will automatically flock to see whatever character is flavor of the month now. If anything, comic book fans (well, any fandom geek, really) tend to be more critic. If you’re basing a movie in well-known, succesful material, it’s not enough to just put on some matrixy cg effects, a bunch of lame on-liners, “badass poses” etc.
It doesn’t matter if the movie is based on a comic or comic book characters or whatever, simply make a good movie and people will see it. Good script, good casting, memorable scenes. I want to be entertained, goddammit, not to have an spiritual experience. I don’t even care who the hell is Frank Miller, and a very large percentage of movie-goers everywhere haven’t even heard his name. I mean, I’ve been making comics for 10 years now and I didn’t know his work until a couple of years ago.
I just returned from seeing “The Day the Earth Stood Still” and I’m still appalled at how fricking BAD this movie was, and dismayed at the thought that people are actually being paid to write that horrible.
Miller’s “The Spirit” was totally into some part of the atmospher I would not want to be in, but are we going to act like Will Eisner’s Spirit was something serious and without goofy moments? Come on, I read one comic where Ebony ends up with an African spear and shield in his hand.
I think my problem with this adaptation is that if Miller did this as a comic, I would be happy to know that most comics fans know something of the original Spirit. As a film adaptation, now people might walk away thinking “what was this Will Eisner guy thinking? He must have been on something.”
I don’t think that it makes people wonder about Eisner, wonder what they have missed by never hearing of “The Spirit.”
“I just returned from seeing “The Day the Earth Stood Still” and I’m still appalled at how fricking BAD this movie was”
I liked it. Needed more John Cleese, though.
“As a film adaptation, now people might walk away thinking “what was this Will Eisner guy thinking? He must have been on something.”
I don’t think that it makes people wonder about Eisner, wonder what they have missed by never hearing of “The Spirit.” ”
1. I think most people don’t care. How many people do you think knew that 300 was based on a graphic novel after watching the film despite “based on the graphic novel by Frank Miller” being plastered all over its marketing materials and in the credits? I’d say maybe 10% of the audience and of that 10% about 90% already knew before they watched it.
2. Then you should tell them what they missed by giving them some collections of The Spirit by Will Eisner. Will Eisner’s The Spirit is still safe and sound on the bookshelves, and the only way people will know anything about it is if it ends up in their hands for reading.
At least The Spirit did twice as much as Punisher War Zone. That’s fairly impressive to me. Punisher was a sequel with name recognition. The Spirit basically came out of nowhere. The grosses are not that bad, considering.
Lionsgate: Frank Miller to direct THE PUNISHER.
Simple fix, all is good with the world.
I think Miller would be awesome on a Punisher movie. At this point, anything would be better for the Punisher as a film franchise.
I can talk to people in my circle of friends, and people I know through the internet; but the stranger sitting in the same aisle as me who is confused by Sam Jackson chopping fat guys in half with a katana goes off and I don’t get to say “hey, if you didn’t like this, try this alternative.”
Speaking of Punisher, I think that Punisher has had three separate, very different adaptations and I think Spirit should get another one, maybe a half decade down the road. Blue suit, Ebony White, the whole classic thing.
That’s not to say that Frank Miller’s decisions to change The Spirit were wrong. I think the black suit and the glowy sneakers were just fine. Also, most of the writing was spot-on. At times (when The Octopus wasn’t on screen) I felt like Miller was doing the Spirit right.
I think the Dolans were the best cast roles in the whole movie.
Thomas R. Hart said:
“In comparison, THE SPIRIT’s per screen average shows an attrition per day… just in its third and fourth day of release that is hard to ignore.
It suffered a 17 percent drop on Saturday (from Friday) and a whopping 21.8 percent on TOP of that, from Saturday to Sunday.”
Thomas, that’s true of almost all movies. 1st day is almost always much bigger than 2nd day, 2nd day is always bigger than 3rd day.
Dark Knight, as reported by Nikki Finke on deadlinehollywooddaily dot com, opened with 67.9 million on Friday, 48 million Saturday (down 29%), and 39.4 million on Sunday (down 18%).
High School Musical–16.9 million on FR, 15.3 on SA, 10 on SU.
Twilight–35.8 on FR, 21 on SA, 13.6 on SU.
I don’t know about you guys but I could watch a entire movie of Eva Mendes photocopying her ass.
Any hands for any one who stayed through the credits – to see Frank’s storyboards spersed through the credits?
I thought I’d never live see the day when the name “Jim Shooter” would show up listed as a movie credit.
Nice to see Bob Schreck and Diane Schutz’s name mentioned, though.
To be honest, I think one rush to the Frank Miller dogpile for me personally has to be the way he is so reveried by the right wing media because of last summer’s soundbytes having him comparing the Dark Knight movie to George W. Bush’s war on terrorism. I mean, local radio talk show host Larry Elder on KABC ( he’s now resigned from the station) once spent two hours on his show talking and analyzing about Frank Miller’s rallying behind Dubya’s war cry policies of torture and war profiteering ( although the soundbytes did originate from a NPR interview)
You would think that comic book creators would have a liberal view on these kind of things.
So, I saw this a couple of nights ago at the Rave – which is a all digital theater complex in the newly built Town Center just a few blocks from the Mandalay Bay on the Strip in Las Vegas. I was supposed to have a date accompany me from my myspace page.
Well, she flaked on me – and I suspect it was all due to Frank Miller’s assocation with the film.
So, Frank – I want to thank you for ruining my love life.
Plus – since she happened to be African American – I think the sight of Samuel J. Jackson parading around in a Nazi uniform probably would have been too much for her to handle.
….at least it was for me.
However- not having my date show up meant I could gourge out on a big plate of Nachos without feeling guilty. However Jackson popping out of that curtain garbed as a gestapo almost made me pull a George W choking on pretzel bit – EXCEPT when you’re choking down on a tortilla strip drenched in thick syrupy cheese- IT HURTS EVEN WORSE!
I also – like someone mentioned elsewhere – I too, checked out the Day the Earth Stood Still remake on the IMAX on the Palms – and my dad asked me which of the two movies did I enjoy more and I had to admit hands down that I was more easily entertained by The Spirit – because it was a ‘life and death’ struggle to get through.
~
Coat
Well, I’m rather glad that’s over. Maybe now Miller can go back to doing his own works as movies or, heaven forbid, go back to making goddamn comics. I love Miller’s work and what little I’ve seen of Eisner’s Spirit seems fantastic. I just don’t think these two great tastes went together well at all. Does anyone think The Spirit will ever get redeemed? Maybe Brad Bird or Darwyn Cooke can make an animated film someday. This seemed like a waste of a Spirit film. I’m not quite glad it bombed, but.. meh. I don’t know. It just didn’t seem right for a while and this seems like a logical conclusion.
Dark Knight, as reported by Nikki Finke on deadlinehollywooddaily dot com, opened with 67.9 million on Friday, 48 million Saturday (down 29%), and 39.4 million on Sunday (down 18%).
High School Musical–16.9 million on FR, 15.3 on SA, 10 on SU.
Twilight–35.8 on FR, 21 on SA, 13.6 on SU.
First of all, happy new year, Alan
As for your argument, in itself, that argument is hard to counter. Unfortunately, though, the examples you are giving, provide no statistical comparsion to a movie like THE SPIRIT, especially since TWILIGHT and HSM 3 were what are called front-loaders, with an extraordinary interest by a quantifiable group that advance ordered the tickets to be there on opening night. The same can also be said of DARK KNIGHT, which – due to numerous parameters – had become the most anticipated movie of the year up until that point (and one can argue, even after)
A rather large drop-off on a daily basis, even up to 40 percent, is well within the realm of calculation there.
In order to give such a statistical argument some validity, one must find a similarly marketed movie with a similar target audience and similarly obscure material that has what one could call “geek recognition”, but is by and large unknown to a wider audience.
Thankfully, the year provided us with such a movie, which – while not completely 1:1 in all of its parameters, can well serve for such a comparison.
The movie? MAX PAYNE.
Now, I am saying the parameters are not 1:1, mainly because that movie opened in 1,000 theatres more and had the benefit of being relatively lonely there on its opening weekend. But it is close enough.
MAX PAYNE
FR: Average per screen / $2,086
SAT:AvS/ $1,928 (= -7.6 %)
SUN: AvS/ $1,211 (= -37.2%)
In conclusion, one could very well call THE SPIRIT a miniature front-loader with an incredibly tiny range of appeal in the first place, which in itself is something that relieves Miller somewhat of his responsibility and shifts it towards Lionsgate and Michael Uslan for choosing a property that had no reason to be in the theatres in the first place, from a commercial point of view.
Then again, one could also very well say that of a little-known vampire hunter named BLADE in 1998, dumped in the wastelands of the end of August (where movies like BABYLON AD are dumped today), same property value, same target audience, and if we extrapolate Snipes’ value as a movie star based on 1998 figures, it’s not quite Gabriel Macht/Sam Jackson/Eva Mendez/Scarlett Johannsen… but it is kind of close enough.
Unfortunately, I can’t obtain the direct daily figures at the moment, but the opening weekend at a 2,322 screen run equals an Average per Screen of $ 7,353 …
(ah, numbers
we can play this all day, I swear we can)
Hollywood has only two rules. 1) make me money, lots of it OR 2) win me awards, lots of them. Michael Bay and Brett Ratner have careers because of rule no. 1, the Coen Brothers because of rule no. 2 (and no, awards are more than just the Academy kind)
What Miller has achieved, and that is no small feat… he has made a movie that both failed critically AND commercially on a level that – and please let me point out again that I do not have anything against him personally, I don’t know the man, he is probably a nice chap – has left an enormous commercial and creative crater that will be seen for a long time and from quite a distance.
What makes this so significant? And why are people harping on so much about it? It’s not, I believe, because it was a bad comic book adaptation… there have been many of those and even more bad novel adaptations, it is because of the man who did this.
If it had been, e.g., Brett Ratner screwing up Conan (he might, who know?), the level of anger would have been, “eh, that’s Hollywood, they don’t know what they are doing anyway”, which was kind of the reaction that followed the adaptations of FROM HELL, V FOR VENDETTA and LOEG.
It’s the fact that one of the most prestigious, most commercially valid comic book writer & artist – for the first time, I believe (please somebody correct me, if I am wrong) had unprecedented control over the movie-making proccess. Let me re-iterate. He wrote it. He directed it. And unless Lionsgate took the final cut away, he was in control of the editing booth.
And he made it a creative, critical AND commercial failure.
I wish him all the best, personally, I really do, but he does have the face a serious problem now, even in his core audience. In other words: if the reaction of “man, this is the guy who did DKR” is replaced by the joke “I am the goddamn XYZ”… you’re in trouble.
It’s the fact that one of the most prestigious, most commercially valid comic book writer & artist – for the first time, I believe (please somebody correct me, if I am wrong) had unprecedented control over the movie-making proccess. Let me re-iterate. He wrote it. He directed it. And unless Lionsgate took the final cut away, he was in control of the editing booth.
Actually, I can correct myself. In 2004, very renowned (and one of the bestselling) European writer/artists Enki Bilal did a 23 million Euro version (in 2004 dollars, that would be 29.9 million) of his own graphic novels “La Foire aux immortels” and “La Femme piège” called IMMORTEL. As far as I know he had also a huge chunk of control over the product, having adapted it himself and directed it completely against green screen.
Commercially speaking, it was a huge disaster, as the movie grossed in Europe approximately 4 million Euros (about 6 million 2004 US dollars). Critically speaking, it met a similar fate as THE SPIRIT, and the review by Tasha Robinson at the Onion AV Club… could pretty much be the same as one for Miller’s movie.
Immortal, the third film written and directed by French/Yugoslavian comic-book artist Enki Bilal, falls into the usual traps of a highly visually innovative cinematic technological experiment: It’s stunning from start to finish, with every calculated frame a poster-perfect image, but it’s also busy, cold, and soulless, with a story that doesn’t unfold so much as it mechanically lines up grungy-gorgeous sequences for perusal like paintings in a museum exhibit.
http://www.avclub.com/content/node/25462
… but perhaps it wasn’t on everybody’s radar in the US, the favourable rating giving on Rottentomatoes was 43 percent (as I stated earlier, I am not really comfortable with the RT system as a basis of argumentation, but will use it here as to work from the same base level)
http://uk.rottentomatoes.com/m/1144306-immortel/
Marjane Satrapi, Persepolis.
I walked out after 30 minutes. A movie without life or charm, it is like a movie under the veil of 40mg of Valium.
“Seriously. What the hell has he done that he somehow deserves to have a movie that he spent several years of his life crafting, about a subject that he obviously cares passionately about, wind up crashing and burning?”
Made a terrible movie?
You’re welcome.
All Frank Miller needed for this movie was an editor, someone to tell him that you don’t have to cram all this insanity in this movie. He said in an interview that he believes that Eisner would have liked what he did with The Spirit. The man certainly knew Eisner better than any of us, but I don’t see how this was completely in step with what Eisner did.
Here’s a nice antidote/counterpoint to David’s hero-worship:
‘Miller is the highly lauded writer/artist behind such graphic novels as “Batman: The Dark Knight Returns” and “Sin City.” To many nerds, his work is considered groundbreaking, and I suppose that’s true in the sense that Miller single-handedly made comics even dumber. Unlike Alan Moore, whose work was targeted at actual adults, Miller’s collection of growling, swearing, constantly bleeding, big-titted badasses were aimed squarely at perpetual adolescents. Allowing Miller to re-imagine Will Eisner’s quiet, understated comic book is like allowing Jeff Dunham and his hateful, one-note puppets to star in a remake of “Dr. Strangelove.”’
http://www.theweekender.com/movies/In_the__lsquo_Spirit_rsquo__of_cinematic_crap_12-30-2008.html
Uhm…that “antidote” mostly says that anyone who liked “Dark Knight Returns” or “Sin City” is kind of a moron. That’s some definition of “nice” with which I was previously unaware if you happen to be a comic fan, but okay, if you take pleasure in it…
PAD
How many comics has Miller scripted, with the art done by someone else, besides issues of DAREDEVIL? If he was generally the writer and penciler on his books, the combination could partially explain his focus on cinematic effects in movies.
SRS
Peter David wrote:
‘Uhm…that “antidote” mostly says that anyone who liked “Dark Knight Returns” or “Sin City” is kind of a moron.’
Um, that’s not really what he wrote, and I’m a little surprised that a professional writer can’t tell the difference between saying “XYZ certainly inspired a lot of dumb comics in its wake” and “Anyone who likes XYZ is a moron”. But then again, I’m just an “ant”, so what do I know?
‘That’s some definition of “nice” with which I was previously unaware if you happen to be a comic fan, but okay, if you take pleasure in it…’
Well, what if you’re a comic fan who prefers not to have his intelligence insulted on every page?
What if you’re a comic fan who doesn’t think “dark and violent” == “sophisticated realism”?
What if you’re a comic fan who actually knows what “film noir” means?
What if you’re a comic fan who’s just sick of one-dimensional characters, unfunny sledgehammer “satire” and juvenile attitudes towards sex?
Just take a look at the IMDB message boards for the new Spirit movie. Here’s what the *fans* of this movie are saying:
-> “Of course it’s bad, it’s supposed to be bad.”
-> “It’s supposed to be stupid, it’s a comic book.”
-> “It’s supposed to be cheesy, it’s a comic book.”
-> “It’s supposed to be campy, it’s a comic book.”
There’s your Frank Miller Legacy right there. The next time you try to convince a layman that comic books are not universally stupid, cheesy, campy or intentionally bad, you’ll have Frank Miller to thank for your trouble.
Uh, no, that really IS what he wrote. He didn’t merely attack the comics; he attacked the people who liked the comics in language that–if I used it–would get me pilloried. Some excerpts:
“Unfortunately, I do know better to realize that Frank Miller isn’t a pen name. For those unfamiliar with the world of comic books (and therefore aren’t filled with a combination of self-loathing and Cheetos),”
Comic book fans in general hate themselves and eat junkfood. Nice.
“To many nerds,”
Comic book fans who liked “DKR” or “Sin City” are nerds.
” Unlike Alan Moore, whose work was targeted at actual adults, Miller’s collection of growling, swearing, constantly bleeding, big-titted badasses were aimed squarely at perpetual adolescents.”
Comic book fans who liked “DKR” or “Sin City” are perpetual adolescents.
Self-loathing, junk-food eating, immature nerds. I think “kind of morons” pretty much distills it to its essence. He basically launched an ad hominem attack on anyone who liked “DKR” or “Sin City,” which naturally he’s entitled to do. But for someone who seized upon my “ants” comment with such fervor, it’s rather astounding that you make excuses for someone who indisputably despises fans of Miller’s earlier work.
PAD
Feel free to continue focusing on his stylistic flourishes rather than the actual question of whether Miller’s work and the imitations it has inspired has been beneficial or not for comic books as an art form in the long run.
PS: Isn’t this Frank Miller we’re discussing? The guy who writes his contempt for his fans into his scripts?
“Detail her bra; it’ll drive them crazy, Jim.”
“She knows what she’s got. Make them drool.”
“Ok, Jim. I’m Shameless. Let’s go with an ASS SHOT [his caps, not mine]”
“Stylistic flourishes?” He attacked anyone who liked “Dark Knight Returns” or “Sin City.” Bottom line, Frank Miller made a movie that didn’t work and bombed. Lots of people have made movies that didn’t work and bombed, including people who went on to win Oscars. It happens. Just as I was moved to wonder what Frank did to deserve such personal animosity and reveling in his failure, I am now moved to wonder what comic fans did to deserve such hostility simply for liking some comic books. Hostility that you clearly will bend over backwards to excuse while simultaneously obsessing about my own “stylistic flourish” of ants and eagles.
I’m going to continue focusing on the point I brought up in the first place. You, on the other hand, are free to complain that I’m not focusing on what YOU want to focus on. If that’s all you have, then I’m done with you.
PAD
I just have to say that a lot of the reviews and talk of The Spirit failing as a result from not following the long-established ‘rules’ of successful film creation reminds me of the narrow-minded approach to judging the merit of a poem that was rightly criticised by John Keating in Dead Poets Society.
I detest the opinion that this movie is proof comic books and films should never cross paths. Film and all artforms are forever evolving and branching out whether you like it or not.
I believe we forget films are just another form of art, and that at the end of the day each film wont appeal to everyone, just like a Picasso isn’t everyone’s cup of tea.
A bad movie is just another way of saying that the film didn’t appeal to your interests or your individual perception of films in general. That’s the reason why some people’s all time favourite film is Schindler’s List, while other people place Terminator 2 at the top of their personal top 10 list. Everyone has their own personal definiton of what a bad film is.
For example, a lot of people will disagree with me but all the James Bond films prior to Daniel Craig did not appeal to me at all. For me they were bad films according to my taste. The latest two I love. But I still respect the fact that people like the older films and understand the reasons why they like them.
Theres no right or wrong opinion. Even if the majority of people think a movie is bad, it’s only ever going to be a bad film to them and them only, so there’s not much point arguing too much.
In terms of The Spirit. I loved it for the campyness and one-liners and the over-the-top plotline and controversial art style. Other people hated it for that. Think about that for a second.
Now, I’d seriously get bored if all comic book movies took The Dark Knight approach. I love realism and drama, but if that’s all that existed I’d be craving for fun, humours, outrageous rides like The Spirit a lot more. Brings me back to the days of Dick Tracy and The Phantom. I’d certainly see less films if there were only serious adult dramas to see and not any action films, comedies, kids films or anything that mashes those 3 together.
It also may interest people that my 50+ year old mother loved and enjoyed The Spirit movie very much.
It’s also funny how people complain The Spirit looks too much like Sin City, when the majority of films photographically look pretty much like eachother; realistic and not stylised.
And Bladerunner was considered a bad film back in its day. Now it’s a masterpiece.