Sin City

Over the top yes! Cliche dialogue yes! Two dimensional characters yes! But this is what graphic novels are! Sin City represents a gorgeous translation of static two dimensional panels into a living, breathing series of three dimensional representations on a two-dimensional surface using real actors not painted, drawn figures. It is just because perhaps the movie is so "bad" that it is so "good." One needs to evaluate this movie on the basis of its source material not on some theatrical performance directorial standard for Lord of the Rings or Batman.

While I can't say that Sin City was perfect and even the best, for it me it represents a significant and qualitative advancement in this graphic, cartoon genre.

I also don't believe that for film noir to work that the main flawed character operates essentially out of "reason and logic." Instead there is a more complex internal turmoil that involves principles, ethics, morals, passions, emotions. Reason and logic are for CSI junkies or even perhaps detective, mystery thrillers.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by stevetseitz

I'm not disparaging Frank Miller or his work. I loved his stuff as a kid, but film is a more sophisticated medium.

---

I really take offense to that. I hold all art forms in the same regard. Comics shouldn't be shunned simply because they have a pulp past or because they're supposedly geared towards kids. Sequential art is just as sophisticated as a painting or novel.

>>It's not about the actors<<

Hmmm. a film not being about the actors. Let's look at that statement. The main medium by which the plot is advanced and the "message" is disseminated is the actors. Saying this movie is a "classic" because of great visuals, despite the actors, is like going to a play for the saying the sets. Watch the deleted scene on "Get Shorty" for Gene Hackman's soliloquy on acting vs. direction.




>>It's blindingly original,<<

In what way is it original? Other comic films have done everything this movie has more successfully. Once again, different does not equal good. I can show you a hundred movies that are "different" that are simply awful.




>>Just think if James Cagney was in this film, or if Bogart played Hartigan. <<

They would have scoffed at the script.



>>Mickey Rourke is the best thing about this film<<

Ummmm, you just said Mickey Rourke was the best thing about this film. I rest my case.

Not quite:



>>Rodriguez directed Desperado and From Dusk Till Dawn, two of the baddest, sexiest films ever made.<<

"From Dusk Till Dawn" was crap. It was a B-movie with a budget and a cast. "Sin City" didn't even have the cast.

As for the film going "over my head" I doubt it. I have seen everything Tarkovsky, Kurosawa, Bunuel, and Fellini have directed along with scores of other films. I have also seem shocking films just as violent and horrific but when it is treated as pulp comic fodder it comes off as infantile and pointless.

I simply refuse to ignore poor writing, cheesy dialogue and lame attempts at humor.

If you want great film noir go watch "Out of the Past", "T-men" or even "Miller's Crossing".

This film is a just fanboy's dream: It totally objectifies women, it allows them to fantasize about violence they can't possibly imagine, it has no anchor in reality so any so-called "noir-ish" aspects are totally crippled.


This is a reponse to Horseradishtree:

>>I really take offense to that. I hold all art forms in the same regard. Comics shouldn't be shunned simply because they have a pulp past or because they're supposedly geared towards kids. Sequential art is just as sophisticated as a painting or novel.<<

You are serious? Archie and Jughead are as sophisticated as "The Brothers Karamozov"? Please.

I admit comics can be high art and every once in a while an artist or writer sublimates comics into a more important work. I loved "Kingdom Come" by Alex Ross and Walt Simonson's take on "Thor" for example. But to say that an average issue of "Power Man and Iron Fist" is as complex as Picasso's "Guernica" is a bit of a stretch.

One of my few complaints about Sin City was its somewhat distracting approach towards editing three different storylines together. The first storyline seemed way too short, unexpectedly so, so that the transition from one to another was curt and disjointed. As an alternative, I've been re-watching "2 Days in the Valley" (1996) where three disparate plots are eventually woven into a single whole very neatly regarding the murder of a wife's husband, two vice squad officers, a selfish young rich kid and his "servant," a pair of assassins, a nurse and a playwriter who is intent on suicide. The evolution and the sophisticated way this was accomplished if had been done with Sin City would have measurably improved the pacing and the transitions in the movie markedly I believe.

I love debating Steve.

Of course actors breathe life into the story, but in SIN FUCKING CITY they are not as important as the visuals, which is the MAIN MEDIUM IN COMIC BOOKS.
It stands to reason that a film version would place primacy on the storyboards, which you've already admitted were beautiful by Miller.

Other comic films have done it more sucessfully?
I've seen 'em all bubba, and I strongly disagree.

Raimi? Talk about formulaic!
I agree Donner's Superman is a masterpiece, but you can't compare it to something like Sin City. Apples and watermelons...

Duh, of course it has no base in reality- it's pulp fiction genius!

Try a little suspension of belief: it helps stop the movie from going over your head.

I am overwhelmingly convinced your reaction is knee-jerk. You haven't given the film a chance in my opinion.
I know you'll see this film one late night in the future and say
"holy shit this is genius. What the hell was I thinking?"

Best comic book adaptation to date.

And I'm not even a fan of the graphic novels- I much prefer Batman and Superman.
The technical achievement cannot be understated.

Another thing: Poor writing? cheesy? lame?

What the hell did you expect from this film before you went in?
Had you heard of Sin City?
Had you read the novels?

And to say you're not disparaging Frank Miller while saying "poor writing" is an unforgivable contradicting insult.

He wrote it, boss- so you ARE disparaging Mr. Miller and his work.
No way out of that one Steve. You owe Frank a massive apology.
You loved him as a kid. Film is a sophisticated medium.
What a crock of shit.
So you're saying Frank Miller has no business dealing with celluloid. "Stick to the funny books Frank".

I think he'd unload on you if he heard that.

And your mind-reading, presumptuous, arrogant comments about Cagney & Bogie are laughably trite and lowbrow.
Cagney always took risks and this film could have been one if he lived in another time..

>>Other comic films have done it more sucessfully?
I've seen 'em all bubba, and I strongly disagree.<<

I think Tim Burton's "Batman" better walked the tightrope of reality and camp. The emphasis on dark art deco with a fantastic cast puts it over the top.

I liked both "Spider Man" films. I think Raimi did a great job. I bet most of the posters here would agree that they were good films.



>>Try a little suspension of belief: it helps stop the movie from going over your head.<<

Suspension of disbelief is a two way street. It's partly the job of the viewer and partly the job of the auteur. They have to give you something to hold on to. I didn't care about any of the characters in the film. They didn't inspire any emotion. To me it was cold and mathematical and very boring.


>> Another thing: Poor writing? cheesy? lame?<<

Without a doubt.

>>What the hell did you expect from this film before you went in?
Had you heard of Sin City?
Had you read the novels?<<

Yeah, and somehow I was expecting the dialogue to work. Maybe it was poor delivery. It didn't work. You seem desperate to make this film out to be a "masterpiece". It wasn't.

The voice-over narration didn't work either. In fact, Harrison Ford's voice-over narration in "Bladerunner" was better and the director's cut ditched that. That shows how tricky it is to get it right.

>>And to say you're not disparaging Frank Miller while saying "poor writing" is an unforgivable contradicting insult.<<

It's a different medium and the movie would have worked better without the cheesy, film-noir wanna-be writing style.


>>So you're saying Frank Miller has no business dealing with celluloid.<<

There are a LOT of people who have no business dealing with celluloid. It doesn't mean you aren't a great artist. Ever see any of Andy Warhol's films? John Steinbeck was a great novelist but that doesn't automatically make him a great film director. Wynton Marsalis is a great musician but I don't know that he could write a graphic novel.

>>"Stick to the funny books Frank".<<

You got it.



>>Cagney always took risks and this film could have been one if he lived in another time<<

Cagney was a great actor and wouldn't have pissed on this script to put it out if it were on fire.

Oh, and did you just admit in another post that you were sloshed when you saw this movie?

That explains a lot! ;)


In the future, if you want to truly critique a film, I suggest you maintain control of all your faculties and not get hammered while waiting for it to start.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by stevetseitz

You are serious? Archie and Jughead are as sophisticated as "The Brothers Karamozov"? Please.

I admit comics can be high art and every once in a while an artist or writer sublimates comics into a more important work. I loved "Kingdom Come" by Alex Ross and Walt Simonson's take on "Thor" for example. But to say that an average issue of "Power Man and Iron Fist" is as complex as Picasso's "Guernica" is a bit of a stretch.

---

That's so unfair. I wouldn't call Guernica an average piece. Compare the complexity of Watchmen to the painting, and then you've got a more fair competition.

stevetseitz

"I think Tim Burton's "Batman" better walked the tightrope of reality and camp. The emphasis on dark art deco with a fantastic cast puts it over the top."

tab: when I saw Sin City I was amazed at how I felt that I was experiencing a graphic novel come to life. There's a Star Trek: The New Generation episode where some of the crew is caught in some poor rendition of a poor pulp novel in a casino with all the campy language. With Sin City, instead of just trying to make the graphic novel become somewhat sanitized into human form, Sin City is content to retain the graphic novel form and draw the audience into its world not ours. By requiring Sin City the movie to submit to our reality is letting our standards our experiences become mundane. That camp of Sin City was what I wanted to experience not reality and I got it, felt it, saw it, heard it. Like Lost In Translation were are observers going for a ride in their world be it Japan or some made up world (Who Framed Roger Rabbit).

"I liked both "Spider Man" films. I think Raimi did a great job. I bet most of the posters here would agree that they were good films."

tab: I enjoyed both Spider Man films and in fact Spider Man 2 made my list of all time favorite movies.

"Try a little suspension of belief: it helps stop the movie from going over your head. Suspension of disbelief is a two way street. It's partly the job of the viewer and partly the job of the auteur. They have to give you something to hold on to. I didn't care about any of the characters in the film. They didn't inspire any emotion. To me it was cold and mathematical and very boring."

tab: I was truly captivated by Bruce Willis' performance and character, I was full of emotion as this strong man is risking his life on principle for a girl. In Japan, such actions are considered heroic and honorable. There was a campy emotional, over-acting that seemed to capture the graphic novel spirit and tone. For some the violence overshadowed character and sympathy but for me, the whole emphasis on strong women defending themselves againts the supposedly much more corrupt, power-seeking males, particularly hookers, and the men that sacrificed themselves for them really meant something to me.


"Yeah, and somehow I was expecting the dialogue to work. Maybe it was poor delivery. It didn't work. You seem desperate to make this film out to be a "masterpiece". It wasn't. The voice-over narration didn't work either. In fact, Harrison Ford's voice-over narration in "Bladerunner" was better and the director's cut ditched that. That shows how tricky it is to get it right. "

tab: I for one enjoyed Harrison Ford's voice-over narration in "Bladerunner" (preferred over the director's cut) because it offered the audience a mental backdrop that just can't be experienced visually. And with Sin City, the intellectual component, the explanation, the verbal setting is all important for me in film noir. I enjoyed the dialogue because it fit exactly what I expect from this graphic novel medium (to try to alter it would destroy the source material and make the movie into something it's not and wasn't supposed to be).


"It's a different medium and the movie would have worked better without the cheesy, film-noir wanna-be writing style."

tab: Perhaps we're talking about the differences between the transition that occurred in table tennis from hard rubber paddles to soft rubber rackets; perhaps the change from silent to talky movies, from black and white to color. Adaptation of a graphic novel to the movie medium requires the cheesy, film-noir to deny it would be to alter a fundamental component of this movie and make Sin City into a movie that's not an adaptation, a mainstream movie for the general public masses who expect another Spiderman or Batman movie. The movie works just because it is cheesy and film-noir. Bladerunner was film noir. Comics are sometimes cheesy. I assume some of the classic ones are also cheesy.

>>Compare the complexity of Watchmen to the painting, and then you've got a more fair competition.<<

O.K. but even the most respectful comic lover must admit adults who like comics are a small, fringe group. Movies are experienced by a far larger audience. Cinema is an art form that can combine all other art forms: Music, Dance, visual composition, literature, etc.

The graphic novel by comparison is much smaller in scope. It's not as if you can turn one into another and not have to fill in some blanks.

>>With Sin City, instead of just trying to make the graphic novel become somewhat sanitized into human form, Sin City is content to retain the graphic novel form and draw the audience into its world not ours.<<

Tab: This is the best argument I've heard in favor of the film and with a better cast I think it could have worked.

>>the whole emphasis on strong women defending themselves againts the supposedly much more corrupt, power-seeking males, particularly hookers, and the men that sacrificed themselves for them really meant something to me.<<

I hardly consider women who submit to men sexually for money "strong"? I was under the impression that they were being used and exploited (often in horrific fashion). The "women with guns" theme seems to be one of Tarantino's fetishes. I don't think the use of violence by the women in this film celebrates the strength of women by any stretch. In fact, it lowers them to the level of the animalistic males depicted by the movie. Also it's hardly complimentary when the women seem to be getting bailed constantly by the more proficient men.

>> And with Sin City, the intellectual component, the explanation, the verbal setting is all important for me in film noir. I enjoyed the dialogue because it fit exactly what I expect from this graphic novel medium (to try to alter it would destroy the source material and make the movie into something it's not and wasn't supposed to be).<<

Alteration is not always a bad thing. Many original scripts are re-written countless times before we see a final product on the screen. In a seperate example, look at Matheson's novel "I Am Legend". In the Boris Sagal film version "The Omega Man", the vampirism of the original novel is almost nonexistent replaced by infection by biological warfare. But the film still succeeds. The important thing isn't to be a slave to the original work when you are supposed to be creating a new work of art yourself. Many of Michelangelo's sculptures are derived from classic Greek pieces, but his innovation and "alteration" helped create and entirely new era of artistic achievement.

I'll just let everything Steve said stand on it's own.
It's priceless.

There's no need for me to get up in his grill anymore- he's as lost now as he was when he went in the theatre to see Sin City.

I've made my case for the film. Take it or leave it.

Chris is right: I'm not leaving any room for discussion.

The reason is simple. No one sees this film as I see it here on these boards.

I'll discuss the film when I read something from somebody with a solid understanding of what this film is all about.

It was executed with dynamic flourishes. It's a deeply manly movie. It makes no apologies for what it is, and neither do I.


P.S. Steve- don't be jealous that I can drink like a fish and still crank out bullseye remarks while you crank out paranoid verbal D. while sober.

Keep your own counsel and grant others theirs...
Who said that?!

>>he's as lost now as he was when he went in the theatre to see Sin City.<<

Yeah, you're right. Maybe I should have gotten hammered and I would have liked it better.

>>The reason is simple. No one sees this film as I see it here on these boards.<<


Ohhh! I see. It's a film above all our heads. Only your true genius can grasp it. Right. Oh, and the booze helps too right?

>> It's a deeply manly movie.<<


Ha ha ha ha ha ha! You realize that, for the most part, it's the goofy guys who don't shower and have never kissed a girl who are obsessed with comics. Anyone who thinks violence, killing and exploiting women is "manly" has no idea what a man is, son.

I don't mean to offend anyone (or imply that you are one of these insulated comic-nerds) but it's time to be honest and keep it real.

You liked it. I didn't. I can leave it at that and don't feel the need to cajole, coerce or try to convince you of my opinion.

stevetseitz "I hardly consider women who submit to men sexually for money "strong"? I was under the impression that they were being used and exploited (often in horrific fashion). The "women with guns" theme seems to be one of Tarantino's fetishes. I don't think the use of violence by the women in this film celebrates the strength of women by any stretch. In fact, it lowers them to the level of the animalistic males depicted by the movie. Also it's hardly complimentary when the women seem to be getting bailed constantly by the more proficient men."

tab: In Sin City, the women are not necessarily submitting to men for money, in fact it's actually the other way around (they have no pimps). It seems that the women are doing what they want to do and its the men submitting to the women using money in order to get some. If I recall the movie, the women in the end actually do the bailing out themselves. Finally, there is a good point here about women lowering themselves to animalistic males. Interesting, it's in Charlie's Angels (the movies) the audience is offered a good feminine version of male behavior without having to lower themselves. They don't have to resort to guns in order to do their stuff, instead they use skill, artistry, and talent not mindless male powerful weapons.


stevetseitz "Alteration is not always a bad thing. Many original scripts are re-written countless times before we see a final product on the screen. In a seperate example, look at Matheson's novel "I Am Legend". In the Boris Sagal film version "The Omega Man", the vampirism of the original novel is almost nonexistent replaced by infection by biological warfare. But the film still succeeds. The important thing isn't to be a slave to the original work when you are supposed to be creating a new work of art yourself. Many of Michelangelo's sculptures are derived from classic Greek pieces, but his innovation and "alteration" helped create and entirely new era of artistic achievement."

tab: My belief in voice-over in regards to both Sin City and Bladerunner remains and the particular alteration of elminating a voice-over from a film noir is like eliminating one of the fascinating elements that almost defines the genre. Instead of alteration one risks the possibility of eliminating the very essence making an adaptation into something that's unrecognizable, mutating it into something that it was purportedly not supposed to happen.