arsaib4
04-11-2005, 09:20 PM
In Sin City, director Robert Rodriguez - with the help of his creative partner, Frank Miller - has primarily incorporated three of Miller’s stories, “The Hard Goodbye,” ”The Big Fat Kill,” and “That Yellow Bastard,” into a Pulp Fiction-type narrative, but unlike the model, it never becomes cohesive nor does it ever come alive enough to be cared for. Who would’ve thought that Rodriguez’s biggest sin would his faithfulness to the source material?!
The third story arc of the graphic novel, “That Yellow Bastard,” is featured first in the film as we see Detective John Hartigan (Bruce Willis), a burnt-out cop with a bum ticker on the brink of retirement take down a child molester (Nick Stahl) - son of a high-class official (Powers Boothe) - as he’s about to rape an 11-year old Nancy (Makenzie Vega). However, he is deceived by a friend (Michael Madsen) along the way and gets framed for various other crimes including the kidnapping of the little girl. We later find him rotting away in prison with the only ray of light being the weekly letters from Nancy who knows the truth.
The famous first arc which started it all, “The Hard Goodbye,” was originally published in 1991 as part of the Dark Horse anthologies and is presented next as a hideous tough guy named Marv (Mickey Rourke) spends the night with a kind hooker (Jaime King) and later finds her dead body laying next to him. Much like Hartigan, he’s also blamed for the act but he fights his way out and makes his mind about avenging the woman in hysteria. “There is no settling down! This is blood for blood and by the gallons,” and he isn’t kidding! What he finds is that this murder is linked with the highest of places and in his way is a silent killer (Elijah Wood).
As most of you have seen or heard by now, Sin City is as visually striking as any film ever made. And as I mentioned earlier, it’s faithful to a fault. One simply can’t take a graphic novel (a friend claims that "calling a bunch of comic books a graphic novel is akin to comparing rock ‘n’ roll to Barry Manilow. Why dress up a bastard child?" This is hard to argue even though I kind of disagree) and put it on the screen with all of its content intact. I hate to be so obvious, but on paper, the characters themselves aren’t judged by their dialogue and actions; it’s a freeze-frame and rest is up to your imagination. In Sin City the constant voice-over narration by both Willis and Rourke - while they’re walking around causing mayhem, constantly getting stabbed, shot, run-over by cars etc., then getting up and circling again - becomes tedious after a while and at various points I wasn’t sure whether to laugh to not. I don’t think the intention was there from Rodriguez to initially present these characters as humorous, but they needed to be fleshed out, with substance and weight. And whose brilliant idea was to cast Willis and Rourke? Yes, they do look like the character in the comics but once again, this is a film and it requires the participants to contribute. I’m sure Willis has acted in a few films in front of a blue screen (or is it green?) but it seemed like he wasn’t sure whether to give a professional performance or ham it up. Same goes for his partner Michael Madsen in the initial reel. As for Rourke, a friend said that she would rather watch a colored screen, and I don’t blame her, although he did try.
Take, for example, Miller’s dark and brooding Daredevil, (made out to look like your average PG 13-ish comic-book adaptation of the month) in which a non-actor like Ben Affleck was thoroughly outclassed by the villain played by Colin Farrell. And even though I don’t care for Spider-Man and/or Tobey Maguire, and a lot of people weren’t happy initially upon his selection, but he isn’t only a minimalist when it comes to his own performance but he has the same effect on his outlandish surroundings. Same can’t be said for the two I talked about earlier.
In Sin City, things do start falling in place once its labyrinthine third part is introduced with Dwight McCarthy (Clive Owen). And when we find Jackie Boy (Benicio Del Toro) and his band of brothers outside the apartment of a local barmaid, Shelly (Brittany Murphy), the film gets a jolt of subversive charge it was looking all along for. (Dwight comes from “The Big Fat Kill,” even though in the novel, he was first introduced in “A Dame To Kill For,” the second story arc of the novel which isn’t given priority here and that’s a mistake because Dwight’s background and his exploits were key part of it and the film could’ve used a bit more focus earlier on although all isn’t lost with this pick.) One wouldn’t mistake Jackie Boy and his thugs belonging to any place else other than the “City of Sin,” but apparently Dwight got his haircut from one of its suburbs. Anyway, the barmaid’s preference, Dwight, ends up making Jackie Boy taste his own medicine (you’ll see what I mean or you already do) and then follows him and his friends as they make their way toward an area controlled by woman who offer their “services” independently. Led by Gail (Rosario Dawson in a bewitching outfit), who shares a past with Dwight, they prefer to stay out of trouble but when Jackie Boy sets his eyes on a young one (Alexis Bledel), Dwight and Gail’s gang join to help not realizing what might be the consequences
Not only this story is the most complex, with an amalgam of issues including, territory, loyalty, jealousy, misidentification, corruption etc., but here the noir element also properly surfaces as there’s an unknown outside threat looming large if certain acts aren’t atoned for and love triangles are omnipresent. Also, right about at this stage one could also hear Tarantino breathing over the shoulders of the director duo as the violence, now mostly off-screen, is given perspective with a surreal comic-tone; whether it’s the Asian silent killer Miho (Devon Aoki) cutting down bodies so they can properly fit in the trunk or Dwight and a rather fucked-up Jackie Boy having a conversation. The voice-over narration is also more controlled, but most importantly, and unlike the previous segments, these actors make their lines work; the same ones that looked so out of place earlier.
Unfortunately, whatever momentum Sin City had gathered at this point dissipates when it revisits the shallow, meandering tale of John Hartigan, still suffering in prison, thinking of the little girl Nancy who he refers to as his daughter and what might have happened to her in the meantime. He eventually finds his way out of prison to look for her and ends up finding her working as dancer (Jessica Alba) in a local bar (same one where Shelley and Dwight first locked eyes). The senator’s son also resurfaces, now as “The Yellow Bastard” (an excellent Nick Stahl, once again) still chasing after the girl. The girl’s intentions and perhaps the fact that she now has a fine looking body, Hartigan becomes a little confused whether to hug her or fuck her. This morally bankrupt storyline perhaps ends on a right note, unlike the other recent release, Old Boy. That film not only romanticized its incest-laden relationships but offered us such grand statements as if one spoke out against it, they’ll badly suffer which they can correct by practicing hypnosis. What a disgrace! But may be I’m too old fashioned and we’ll soon see the subject being part of a “must-see” comedy on NBC.
While Sin City will never be mistaken for a monument of moral righteousness, it doesn’t exactly wallow in mud either. There’s a streak of integrity which runs through many of the characters and justice does prevail – in most cases. But once again, Rodriguez is simply borrowing from the graphic novels of his co-director. Rodriguez is an honorable filmmaker and there is nothing in his oeuvre that would lead him toward such crassness (after all, he has also directed the Spy Kids trilogy). As some of us know, in graphic novels, these situations are heightened and the damsel-in-distress factor is very high to provide a certain experience for their (younger) male readers which doesn’t need an explanation. As for objectification of women, well, one look at Carla Gugino and you’ll forget what that means.
Using a Sony HFC-950 digital camera, Rodriguez shot the film himself. This IS the most faithful comic-book to screen adaptation we’ve seen yet. Shot-by-Shot the images ring true, but Rodriguez’s City behind its inhabitants gets ignored. The bare and shadowy artificial background is even more convincing than what Kerry Conrad did in Sky Captain and the World of Tomorrow but it still required a sense of juxtaposed reality from the characters, but instead most of them simply end up chewing the scenery around them (Jim Hoberman is right in his assertion that Sin City lacks the human interest that Pulp Fiction had in abundance).
More scope for his visuals was needed but, once again, being true to the source was Rodriguez’s mantra. Sin City also features the novel’s trademark black and white style - with the occasional splashes of color. Watching this film I thought of Road to Perdition, also based on a graphic novel, but one that fleshed out its narrative and its characters while making every bullet count. The film had its own problems, but it created a world which was more easily identifiable and that ended up creating a sense of drama. Rodriquez accomplished half the task w/out every needing someone like the late great Conrad Hall but his own stubbornness cost him in the end. (He even resigned from DGA so Miller can share the credit was him as a director.)
“Sin City is one of the most original films ever made.” One way or the other this line is being repeated by most of our critics and the fan boys. While that isn’t exactly false, it also doesn’t mean that this is a great film. Only few of them, you all know who they are as their names are often mentioned here, have decided to “review” the film while the rest have only used the opportunity to comment on how it looks. Good writers aren’t necessarily good critics and a lot of us make that mistake after reading well-written analysis, but I’m sure no one has made that mistake here if you’ve gotten this far reading this piece of shit.;)
There’s a strong rumor floating around that Sin City will be at Cannes next month. I have nothing against that but there are also indications that it will be presented IN-COMPETITION. If that occurs, there’s a strong possibility that it will take away from another, more deserving film so I’m hoping that doesn’t happen. History indicates that Rodriguez’s will follow this up eventually with another similar film and I have no doubt that he is capable of making a masterpiece using the graphic imagery he has invented, but we’ll have to wait for that one.
SIN CITY (http://www.filmrot.com/images/sincity-comparisons/sincity.html) - Grade: C+
The third story arc of the graphic novel, “That Yellow Bastard,” is featured first in the film as we see Detective John Hartigan (Bruce Willis), a burnt-out cop with a bum ticker on the brink of retirement take down a child molester (Nick Stahl) - son of a high-class official (Powers Boothe) - as he’s about to rape an 11-year old Nancy (Makenzie Vega). However, he is deceived by a friend (Michael Madsen) along the way and gets framed for various other crimes including the kidnapping of the little girl. We later find him rotting away in prison with the only ray of light being the weekly letters from Nancy who knows the truth.
The famous first arc which started it all, “The Hard Goodbye,” was originally published in 1991 as part of the Dark Horse anthologies and is presented next as a hideous tough guy named Marv (Mickey Rourke) spends the night with a kind hooker (Jaime King) and later finds her dead body laying next to him. Much like Hartigan, he’s also blamed for the act but he fights his way out and makes his mind about avenging the woman in hysteria. “There is no settling down! This is blood for blood and by the gallons,” and he isn’t kidding! What he finds is that this murder is linked with the highest of places and in his way is a silent killer (Elijah Wood).
As most of you have seen or heard by now, Sin City is as visually striking as any film ever made. And as I mentioned earlier, it’s faithful to a fault. One simply can’t take a graphic novel (a friend claims that "calling a bunch of comic books a graphic novel is akin to comparing rock ‘n’ roll to Barry Manilow. Why dress up a bastard child?" This is hard to argue even though I kind of disagree) and put it on the screen with all of its content intact. I hate to be so obvious, but on paper, the characters themselves aren’t judged by their dialogue and actions; it’s a freeze-frame and rest is up to your imagination. In Sin City the constant voice-over narration by both Willis and Rourke - while they’re walking around causing mayhem, constantly getting stabbed, shot, run-over by cars etc., then getting up and circling again - becomes tedious after a while and at various points I wasn’t sure whether to laugh to not. I don’t think the intention was there from Rodriguez to initially present these characters as humorous, but they needed to be fleshed out, with substance and weight. And whose brilliant idea was to cast Willis and Rourke? Yes, they do look like the character in the comics but once again, this is a film and it requires the participants to contribute. I’m sure Willis has acted in a few films in front of a blue screen (or is it green?) but it seemed like he wasn’t sure whether to give a professional performance or ham it up. Same goes for his partner Michael Madsen in the initial reel. As for Rourke, a friend said that she would rather watch a colored screen, and I don’t blame her, although he did try.
Take, for example, Miller’s dark and brooding Daredevil, (made out to look like your average PG 13-ish comic-book adaptation of the month) in which a non-actor like Ben Affleck was thoroughly outclassed by the villain played by Colin Farrell. And even though I don’t care for Spider-Man and/or Tobey Maguire, and a lot of people weren’t happy initially upon his selection, but he isn’t only a minimalist when it comes to his own performance but he has the same effect on his outlandish surroundings. Same can’t be said for the two I talked about earlier.
In Sin City, things do start falling in place once its labyrinthine third part is introduced with Dwight McCarthy (Clive Owen). And when we find Jackie Boy (Benicio Del Toro) and his band of brothers outside the apartment of a local barmaid, Shelly (Brittany Murphy), the film gets a jolt of subversive charge it was looking all along for. (Dwight comes from “The Big Fat Kill,” even though in the novel, he was first introduced in “A Dame To Kill For,” the second story arc of the novel which isn’t given priority here and that’s a mistake because Dwight’s background and his exploits were key part of it and the film could’ve used a bit more focus earlier on although all isn’t lost with this pick.) One wouldn’t mistake Jackie Boy and his thugs belonging to any place else other than the “City of Sin,” but apparently Dwight got his haircut from one of its suburbs. Anyway, the barmaid’s preference, Dwight, ends up making Jackie Boy taste his own medicine (you’ll see what I mean or you already do) and then follows him and his friends as they make their way toward an area controlled by woman who offer their “services” independently. Led by Gail (Rosario Dawson in a bewitching outfit), who shares a past with Dwight, they prefer to stay out of trouble but when Jackie Boy sets his eyes on a young one (Alexis Bledel), Dwight and Gail’s gang join to help not realizing what might be the consequences
Not only this story is the most complex, with an amalgam of issues including, territory, loyalty, jealousy, misidentification, corruption etc., but here the noir element also properly surfaces as there’s an unknown outside threat looming large if certain acts aren’t atoned for and love triangles are omnipresent. Also, right about at this stage one could also hear Tarantino breathing over the shoulders of the director duo as the violence, now mostly off-screen, is given perspective with a surreal comic-tone; whether it’s the Asian silent killer Miho (Devon Aoki) cutting down bodies so they can properly fit in the trunk or Dwight and a rather fucked-up Jackie Boy having a conversation. The voice-over narration is also more controlled, but most importantly, and unlike the previous segments, these actors make their lines work; the same ones that looked so out of place earlier.
Unfortunately, whatever momentum Sin City had gathered at this point dissipates when it revisits the shallow, meandering tale of John Hartigan, still suffering in prison, thinking of the little girl Nancy who he refers to as his daughter and what might have happened to her in the meantime. He eventually finds his way out of prison to look for her and ends up finding her working as dancer (Jessica Alba) in a local bar (same one where Shelley and Dwight first locked eyes). The senator’s son also resurfaces, now as “The Yellow Bastard” (an excellent Nick Stahl, once again) still chasing after the girl. The girl’s intentions and perhaps the fact that she now has a fine looking body, Hartigan becomes a little confused whether to hug her or fuck her. This morally bankrupt storyline perhaps ends on a right note, unlike the other recent release, Old Boy. That film not only romanticized its incest-laden relationships but offered us such grand statements as if one spoke out against it, they’ll badly suffer which they can correct by practicing hypnosis. What a disgrace! But may be I’m too old fashioned and we’ll soon see the subject being part of a “must-see” comedy on NBC.
While Sin City will never be mistaken for a monument of moral righteousness, it doesn’t exactly wallow in mud either. There’s a streak of integrity which runs through many of the characters and justice does prevail – in most cases. But once again, Rodriguez is simply borrowing from the graphic novels of his co-director. Rodriguez is an honorable filmmaker and there is nothing in his oeuvre that would lead him toward such crassness (after all, he has also directed the Spy Kids trilogy). As some of us know, in graphic novels, these situations are heightened and the damsel-in-distress factor is very high to provide a certain experience for their (younger) male readers which doesn’t need an explanation. As for objectification of women, well, one look at Carla Gugino and you’ll forget what that means.
Using a Sony HFC-950 digital camera, Rodriguez shot the film himself. This IS the most faithful comic-book to screen adaptation we’ve seen yet. Shot-by-Shot the images ring true, but Rodriguez’s City behind its inhabitants gets ignored. The bare and shadowy artificial background is even more convincing than what Kerry Conrad did in Sky Captain and the World of Tomorrow but it still required a sense of juxtaposed reality from the characters, but instead most of them simply end up chewing the scenery around them (Jim Hoberman is right in his assertion that Sin City lacks the human interest that Pulp Fiction had in abundance).
More scope for his visuals was needed but, once again, being true to the source was Rodriguez’s mantra. Sin City also features the novel’s trademark black and white style - with the occasional splashes of color. Watching this film I thought of Road to Perdition, also based on a graphic novel, but one that fleshed out its narrative and its characters while making every bullet count. The film had its own problems, but it created a world which was more easily identifiable and that ended up creating a sense of drama. Rodriquez accomplished half the task w/out every needing someone like the late great Conrad Hall but his own stubbornness cost him in the end. (He even resigned from DGA so Miller can share the credit was him as a director.)
“Sin City is one of the most original films ever made.” One way or the other this line is being repeated by most of our critics and the fan boys. While that isn’t exactly false, it also doesn’t mean that this is a great film. Only few of them, you all know who they are as their names are often mentioned here, have decided to “review” the film while the rest have only used the opportunity to comment on how it looks. Good writers aren’t necessarily good critics and a lot of us make that mistake after reading well-written analysis, but I’m sure no one has made that mistake here if you’ve gotten this far reading this piece of shit.;)
There’s a strong rumor floating around that Sin City will be at Cannes next month. I have nothing against that but there are also indications that it will be presented IN-COMPETITION. If that occurs, there’s a strong possibility that it will take away from another, more deserving film so I’m hoping that doesn’t happen. History indicates that Rodriguez’s will follow this up eventually with another similar film and I have no doubt that he is capable of making a masterpiece using the graphic imagery he has invented, but we’ll have to wait for that one.
SIN CITY (http://www.filmrot.com/images/sincity-comparisons/sincity.html) - Grade: C+