Sin City

Roger Ebert gave it 4 stars.
Tarantino directs a sequence.
Frank Miller writes (and directs- he was on-set all the time according to Roger).

Gritty, pulpy noir? Bring it on Hombre!
Rodriguez is a hell of a director...

Can't wait to see this tommorrow.

Same here. Can't wait till tomorrow. I'll be there at the earliest show - 12:30pm. Will talk about it later.

The trailer looks good ...
that is why I will go watch too!!!
;)

Jesus H. Christ.

What a film. Stop the presses, who is that? Vicki Vale.

No it's SIN CITY- the best film of the year.


Yep, Robert Rodriguez has made a cinematic masterpiece.
And by God, I cannot believe how he did it.
The techniques for telling stories have made progress, kids.
And it's all evident on-screen in Frank Miller's cinematic revelation.

CGI is the "new way", droogies.
It's "the hostest with the mostest", little chillen'.

Damn I'm one bowled over movie-lover.
How can a written review do this film justice?
Lord help me.

Sin City is not only the best film of the year it's the best comic book adaptation ever lensed.
Bar none.
It's "Heaven on the Seventh Floor", "Le Freak, Chez Chic", "Fly Robin Fly" by the Silver Connection, and now, Number Five.

Holy Moses what a cinematic achievement.
Let that Champagne flow, Robby- you've got a masterpiece on your hands.

Sorry, but I'm on Cloud TEN folks, and I must retire now to my tents and my dreams.. I've just seen the best film of the year.

Mahalo.

Well I just saw the film, and it is damn good. I might not be as enthusiastic as Johann there, but there is some truth in the matter.

I am not a fan of CGI now or ever will be, but for the most part it was handled well here. I was able to buy into it because it was in the context of a comic book. I found that at times the all star cast was distracting, and everytime a new character was introduced I had to think of who it was and what other films I'd seen him/her in. I was stuck on Alexis Bledel, and then I remembered where I saw her before, my bedroom. Truth be told I have a friend that looks exactly, and I mean EXACTLY like her, I mean her own mother can't tell them apart.

In all though a fantastic movie, and a truly original (at least cinematically) film. It was very well made, and very well staged, and entertaining as all hell. Mickey Rourke is my hero, and so is Marv. I haven't read anything about the making of the film, but I wonder what sequence QT directed.

A definite masterpiece. This film sets a new standard for how comic movies ought to be made. Panel for panel, line for line, this movie was dead on with the graphic novels it was based on. While I won't call it the best film of the year just yet, I can surely say it's the best of the first quarter.

To add on to that, QT directed the sequence between Jackie Boy and Dwight in the car.

I'm with wpqx on this one. I will admit that this is the best comic book adaptation I have ever seen and it raises the level of qualitative comic adaptation far above anything I've seen. The movie was distracting, too many storylines going on for me (like Pulp Fiction but not as well balanced), it was too jumpy, confusing for me. I would have liked to see a linear portrayal of perhaps two threads of storylines. At a minimum, it would have been nice to have some disclosure that this movie was several in one. The first episode almost seemed over too quick, kind of like the Sunday newspaper version. I would also be interested to see how the movies deal with black and white vs. color because most of the comics I remember seeing were in color. "Dick Tracy" the movie had a rather comic book color scheme as I recall. Regardless how this movie plays out (and it will score rather big), it is one to be remembered this year and beyond.

This film is a hyper crown jewel.

I will post a longer, much much more detailed analysis later.

For now I will say that I sat in the theatre 30+ minutes before showtime, sipping my outrageously expensive coke which had half a mickey of Black Velvet in it. By the time I saw Josh Hartnett
I was buzzing like a hydro tower on a summer's day.

The movie rocketed by with such awesome velocity I could not believe it. I hated I was surrounded by those "people who laugh at all the wrong places", but I'll talk about them later- it's hard to avoid when it's opening day.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Johann
I hated I was surrounded by those "people who laugh at all the wrong places", but I'll talk about them later- it's hard to avoid when it's opening day.

---

Same problem here. It brings me back to the Kill Bill days of excessive laughter at gratuitous violence. Oh well, it didn't ruin the beauty of the film for me.

Talk me into watching it guys. I've seen the trailer and my question is....
Is there more to it than stylish sadistic violence? I've seen Kill Bill, and imo, it seems to foster "excessive laughter at gratuitous violence".

The movie will likely entertain those who like comics, violence, or just the technicalities of movie making. ;) I am less certain that our parents or grandparents will like the violence depicted. hiaks hiaks ...

What I like?
-- My favorite scenes are unfortunately the beginning and end: with Josh Hartnett. It really looks cool. Simple, short, and effective.
-- Definitely the visual sequences. Yes, I like the art direction/choreography of some scenes: WOW!
-- In fact, it was wise to present the movie in black and white, with occasional color to accentuate certain items/messages. Besides being more faithful to the comic, the black and white also prevents it from coming across as too gross and bloody!
-- Now the plot ...
(i) the "story" or rather opening and ending scenes with Josh Hartnett is COOL ... ;) ... I like it
(ii) the story with Mickey Rourke is average ... it poses some questions about looks, sex and love, but the meaning (if any at all) is easily overlooked ...
(iii) the story with Bruce Willis, in my humble opinion, is the most meaningful, not without its violence and crudeness ...
(iv) the story with Clive Owen is average ... if you insist on finding a message ... it is about love, loyalty and betrayal ... to different groups of people
-- Overall, the entire cast is good! BOTH the men and women ...
-- The editing and pacing also help make the movie more compelling: the audience are not bored, and would be keen to know what happens next or at the end ...

While the following are NOT necessarily criticisms, some people may find it non ideal or problematic:
-- Some of the violence are indeed gross! It is really not for everyone. Sorry, but I would definitely NOT let my kids watch!!! oops ... please do NOT scold me if you are a teenager ... I am often lost ... ha ha ha
-- The movie comes across as a few separate stories, with some overlap of characters, as opposed to a well conceived connection.
-- The time sequence is not sequential, so at times, one may be puzzled.
-- How will a character die? It is unclear what some of their resistance or vulnerablities are (except for the character Marv). For the rest, at times, you think they have died or will die ... but they did not ... at other times, you think they will not die ... but they had just died ...
-- In order to be faithful to the comic, there is a lot of voice over (and narration), so that the audience understands the THOUGHTS of the characters. In a way, it simplifies the job of any director who tries to convert a written work to a movie ...

Minor notes about casting:
-- Before watching, I didn't know that Elijah Wood is in it. hee hee ... One would think that he will never get another role after Lord of the Rings (because of fixed mindset). His role in Eternal Sunshine of a Spotless Mind was okay. Yet, without needing to act (with little expression), he looked the part in Sin City.
-- Hmmm ... nothing against Bruce Willis ... But he always seem to play the dejected but self righteous person ... did he ask to be in the role?! ... ha ha ha ...


Should you watch it?
Hmmm ... just for "entertainment" ... oops ... what a choice of word ... but definitely for its technicalities ... hiaks hiaks ... if you try to find some meaning to the story ... hmmm ... well, there are if you want to think about it ... I have mentioned some above ... nonetheless, it could be easily overlooked with the excessive violence and sex ... hee hee
;)

This movie is more than a fantastic adaptation of a graphic novel into live action film, at its core it contains a strong macho ethic that includes a piercing belief in the respectability and dignity of women. The interplay between violence, revenge for a principle with a heart is hard at work here. For me, it's more than violence for violence sake.

You take an intriguing concept (a dark, original graphic novel) and some fantastic visuals and throw in some big names (Willis, Tarantino, Elijah Wood) and what do you get?

A great big piece of junk!

First off, anyone who claims to have enjoyed this film is lying through their teeth. It's one of those situations in which the critics are too scared to pan it because it's "different" and they don't want to be seen as passe.

The acting is over-the-top bad, the dialogue is corny and the delivery is pathetic. Powers Boothe, Mickey Rourke, Clive Owen? Come on! Can you have a LAMER cast? Owen couldn't even act in those BMW shorts.

I would laud the visuals and cinematography but the storyboards given on a silver platter. They were done by a legendary artist. All you have to do is translate the beautiful Frank Miller panels into a world of motion and you're done. Oh, you might want to get some decent actors and freshen the corny script up a bit.

The lack of understanding of what good film-noir is (by all involved) is truly mind boggling. The anti-hero of film noir is neither a superhuman comic book hero nor a sociopathic sicko. A true anti-hero of film noir is a flawed, vulnerable, tough as nails reflection of an everyman. He makes decisions based on reason and logic.

Even as a "comic-book" film it's a failure. Viewers were far better served by Tim Burton, Sam Raimi, Richard Donner. (O.K. so their source material was better.) I'm not disparaging Frank Miller or his work. I loved his stuff as a kid, but film is a more sophisticated medium.
As Harrison Ford chided George Lucas at one point "You can write that shit, but you can't actually SAY that shit!"

This film is inept on almost all levels including sub par editing, directing, acting, and writing.

Without any sense of realism, there is no grittiness or real pain. The lame adolescent attempts at humor only accentuate this. Instead of having the stones to go completely over the top a la early Peter Jackson or Sam Raimi we get something Ed Wood might have made in the era of CG. Instead of a legitimate adaptation of the graphic novel we get is a slickly repackaged "Dick Tracy" meets "Dark City".

This film has gone over Steve's head. (surprise surprise)
It's not about the actors and I sense that you resent this film for some unknown reason. Perhaps it's because you haven't recognized & deciphered it's code.

It's an unmitigated instant classic and fathoms away from a "failure".

It's more than merely different. It's blindingly original, and if you cannot see it and drop a knee, then that's your game.

Fantastic visuals, eh? Wow you can at least admit that.

To say that the filmmakers don't know what film noir is is the highest insult I can think of. Steve is quite the self-appointed judge.

Not only do they know it, they've taken that colossal awareness & respect and turned it into something that is better than noir:
other-worldly noir. A new phrase can be coined now: SIN CITY NOIR.

Just think if James Cagney was in this film, or if Bogart played Hartigan. Mickey Rourke is the best thing about this film, and anyone who claims that these filmmakers don't have "stones" are lying thru their teeth.

Rodriguez directed Desperado and From Dusk Till Dawn, two of the baddest, sexiest films ever made. He and QT are a dynamic duo. But with Miller as a teammate they are absolutely unstoppable. A force to be reckoned with, and people like Steve are always at the ready with hurtful comments about things they know squat about.
Give me a 50- page essay on film noir- you're an expert it seems.
No wait, don't. I know your talking out your ass.

These filmmakers have stones to GIVE AWAY.

This movie is a ballistic missile saturated with everything from iron-clad intensity to poetic pump-action Pulp Fiction.

If you can't see it then you suffer from something called
Mentalia Crippilia

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.

[These comments refer chiefly to the Steve Seitz/Johann exchanges.]

I'm confused by some of these posts. If comic book fans are sweaty immature misfits, but anyone who fails to appreciate Sin City as a masterpiece is a total moron, where do the rest of us -- who wash, are reasonably intelligent, but are underwhelmed by the movie -- where do we fit in? Johann brooks no criticism, and Mr. Seitz starts off by saying the result of Miller's and Rodriguez's collaboration is a "piece of junk."

A little more moderation on both the pro and con sides would have made this Sin City discussion a bit more accessible for those who haven't yet seen the movie or don't have such a violent opinion about it. A thread that descends into invective is out of control and benefits nobody.

I saw the movie in NYC Tuesday. I agree with a lot of the things said in praise of it. The visuals, anybody will agree, are powerful and stylistically unified, and Rodriguez has done a remarkable job of tranferrring Miller's imagery into a movie using real human actors. This may be Rodriguez's best work to date. That means less when I say it than it may when some others do, though, because I have not been a big fan of his up to now. But in a lot of ways this is an accomplished piece of work.

But unfortunately there is a lack of nuance in Sin City that seems related to the fact that, though Rodriguez was blending together three Miller comic book stories, he was pretty slavish in following individual page-by page sequences and dialogue. The violence of a film with three-dimensional imagery and live actors has a different effect in a film from things that were originally conceived as lines on a page. One has the feeling of being bludgeoned over and over, and the story line, which again works well in a comic book, tends to seem exceptionally simple on film. Consequently overall it seems to be a somewhat misguided effort.

Movies and comics are two separate mediums, each valid in its own right, each having qualities the other lacks. Above all the experience of reading a comic book and watching a movie are different, mentally and physically. I think there are in fact certain key elements in Miller's drawings that Rodriguez has failed to capture. He has used too many closeups and not enough of those distant, sharply angular images so typical of the comic book vision.

I should add that although I rarely read "adult" comic books today, as a child I read comics so intensely at times I got sick. I learned a lot about evil from comics, and also a lot about the classics. And I have perused the Sin City comic books and read through individual sequences to compare them with the movie.

O.K. I'll buy the moderation viewpoint.

I have already conceded to Tabuno that I felt the film would have been, in my estimation, a better film if it had a better cast. I think that would have been a sort of "cure-all".

Great actors can find creative ways of delivering lines that can seem out of place when delivered by average actors.

Please also note that I wrote most of my review out prior to posting so I had not read any reviews (positive or negative) of the film.

My intention was not to be contradictory or confrontational. I spoke from the heart about a film that I had actually looked forward to seeing.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by stevetseitz

My intention was not to be contradictory or confrontational. I spoke from the heart about a film that I had actually looked forward to seeing.

---

That's funny, so did I.

And as I said before I have no problem being elite on this one.

This is one film where I will not be swayed in any way.
Any and all complaints are referred to the rotating file because as a person who appreciates and is crystal clear on what Rodriguez, QT and Miller have pulled off I simply cannot entertain any claims that they failed.

Whoever says they failed have not come to the film on it's own terms.
That's the bottom line.

It's genius. A cornicopia of genius.

If you did not "like" the film, if it did not fit into your mindset of what is good cinema or good comic book cinema, fine.

But to criticize the filmmakers, who've made something cooler than the Matrix imo, is just dumb.

I can buy not liking the movie, I can buy "it's not my style, not my thing". I can buy "overwhelming".

What I won't buy is "lame", "poor writing and poor acting" or "unoriginal". Anyone who says that has got severe perception deficits.

Sorry, but you gotta come to the film on it's own terms.
Only then can you criticize justifiably.

"Think of what a work of art demands of it's audience"
-Peter Greenaway

It would never be my intention, of course, to say that Sin City is "lame". Also "poor acting and poor directing" and "unoriginal" are simplistic, pointless criticisms. We can't have a discussion if we hurl epithets or are derogatory. I'm glad Mr. Seitz has 'bought the moderation viewpoint,' because he's my ally in this debate.

Johann writes, though: This is one film where I will not be swayed in any way.

That means there is no discussion. But you are the prime defender/advocate/eulogist of the movie, so it would be a shame if you could not bend enough to influence others. It's not effective, or interesting in a discussion, to keep repeating the same assertion over and over. As you know, a primary debating technique is to concede points to members of the opposition; that's how you win their confidence. I don't see how "cornucopia of genius" influences anybody. It's just an assertion; an effusion. Examples, specifics, are what we need. Let's get into the details. I know you know the details better than anybody else here, because you love this film and are ready to see it multiple times. I'm here to learn. If you pursuade me to love Sin City and teach me how to appreciate it more, then I'd count myself lucky and consider this thread a boon to me.

I am not out to demolish Sin City. The first words of my journal entry right after viewing it are: "This movie is beautiful, stylish, and ingenious..."

I wouldn't say "poor writing and poor acting" , so I don't agree that the casting is wrong and that different casting would have made the movie much better. First of all it's an impressive cast, and second, directing is obviously an equally essential element.

It is always my aim to come to a film on its own terms.

I'll write a review of the movie shortly and post it on this thread. I don't know if that will add anything to the debate, but it will put together my ideas and impressions, also "from the heart."

>>But to criticize the filmmakers, who've made something cooler than the Matrix imo, is just dumb.<<

What exactly does that mean, "cooler"? "The Matrix" was groundbreaking in many ways and set a new standard for the sci-fiction that was to come after it. Like "2001: A Space Odyssey", "Star Wars" and "Blade Runner". Audiences simply wouldn't accept inferior products anymore. "Sin City" does nothing of this magnitude and is appeals mainly to a fringe group. I wouldn't be surprised if the next Spider Man sequel is better (and does more at the box office)



>>I can buy not liking the movie, I can buy "it's not my style, not my thing". I can buy "overwhelming".<<

No, not overwhelming. UNDERwhelming. Like I said before good visuals, but that is only one element in the overall experience of a motion picture. A weak cast, cheesy dialogue and adolescent attempts at humor.

>>What I won't buy is "lame", "poor writing and poor acting" or "unoriginal". Anyone who says that has got severe perception deficits.<<

You seem to be convinced that your opinion is the only "right" one and, frankly, that is a very immature way to go through life. Subjective interpretation is something you'll have to deal with.

>>Sorry, but you gotta come to the film on it's own terms.
Only then can you criticize justifiably.<<

I'll criticize bad film-making any time I see it. If I expect more from a director, a writer, or the actors I'll always be vocal in my disapproval. Oh, and it's always "justified".

I would not evaluate the maturity level of anybody on this site. I was trying to make that suggestion earlier: let's avoid personal attacks in defending our positions pro or con, or in between, on this movie, please.

I understood "overwhelming." I did find it "overwhelming," not in a positive sense. In fact I can't quite see "underwhelming." Sin City packs a wallop.

I guess when you have to define a term like "cool," then it loses any purpose. I can see that the Matrix is heavier-handed than Sin City, and in that sense less cool. But I still have problems with the movie which I am going to air more thoroughly when I get a good enough stretch of free time to write a review.

As far as Sin City packing a "wallop". It didn't do anything for me.

When it started I was really excited by the visuals and thought the intro was excellent. I was ready for a fantastic film. By the end, I was yawning and looking at my watch. There is only so many similar action scenes I can watch and characters I had no emotional connection with. The shock attempts weren't shocking and the acting, particularly by Clive Owen, was just plain bad. Talk about wooden. The gritting your teeth look only goes so far.

At least I got to see the Star Wars Episode III trailer.

ROBERT RODRIGUEZ, FRANK MILLER:
SIN CITY

A REVIEW

Nasty violence, with a 'cool' look

By Chris Knipp

Robert Rodriguez's Sin City (for which he gives graphic novelist Frank Miller co-director credit) is a beautiful, stylish, and ingenious adaptation, but even for a filmed comic book it's violent to the point of being brain-dead. One thinks longingly of the pleasing teenage romantic darkness of that brooding revenge fantasy, The Crow, both Alex Proyas' version and Tim Pope's sequel. There's revenge in both, but Sin City's revenge is so heavily laced with confused morality that it gives no satisfaction. If you want ingenious ultra-violence, try Kubrick's Clockwork Orange, where the violence is saved up and released so that it has a shocking elegance and a punch. If you want teenage adventure with the same look (at a time when such techniques seemed fresh and new) -- stylized black and white with touches of color -- try Coppola's Rumble Fish. Despite its nice look and its heavy overproduction using all the latest technical tricks, Sin City pales in comparison with all these.

In fact the only movies Sin City stands up well against, ultimately, are Rodriguez's other ones. This is his most complex and probably his best effort: here, he has bolstered his usually thin content by slavishly following Miller's cartoon books and linking up three of them so we've got a little cluster of characters and stories, although whether the stories are really interwoven or just stuck together is sometimes hard to say. Little is discernably added to the stories by Rodriguez; at times he follows dialogue and image as if the books were his storyboards. The effect is of a waxworks rather than a new permutation.

A comic book/graphic novel is one thing and a movie is another. This distinction seems to be more and more lost. But on the one hand, you can have an effect like the Superman, Batman, or Spiderman movies, where the cartoon images are fleshed out with (at best) good, live actors and special effects. But since the first Superman movie computer generated digital imaging has become so hypertrophied that the value of using human actors sometimes increasingly becomes questionable. Look at a movie like Polar Express in which humans are deliberately made over to look like mummified dolls. What's the point?

On the other hand, you have a movie that becomes a comic strip, like Richard Linklater's marvelous, twittering, Waking Life. Any imaginative animation may have this quality, though digital animation, with its glossy roundness, loses the pleasing flatness of real cartoons, which are hollow and two dimensional, and either made out of black lines or filled in with flat Ben Day dot color. (Waking Life has the quality of hand drawing in every frame, because Bob Sabiston designed all the images that way.)

Sin City exists in neither world but rather in some Neverland where the actors are made to seem unreal with prosthetics and costumes and CGI but the drawn quality also has been lost. The stress (as in The Crow) is on atmosphere and scene; but there isn't the deep brooding depressed longing, the angst-ridden adolescent resentful mood that distinguishes the Crow movies and makes their moodiness really involving and unified.

Part of the "fun" of the rather joyless horror fest that Sin City becomes when fleshed out as a movie, as opposed to the stylized and stylish black and white images of Miller's books, with their dry, artificial quality (in the books, there's plenty of white; in the movie, the prevailing color is a gloppy gray, characteristic of a very different kind of comic book drawing), is spotting the various well known actors. Typically, Bruce Willis (Hartigan) looks just like Bruce Willis (has he ever donned any disguise other than a small hairpiece?). Clive Owen as Dwight looks like Clive Owen too, only more handsome, and also sadly more ordinary without his English accent. It may take you a while to recognize Benicio del Toro in the very evil Jackie Boy, and he hardly has the lazy, teasing speech mannerisms of del Toro: but is that an improvement? Are these actors making comic book characters larger than life, or are they just disappearing into them? Unlike these is the Yellow Bastard, the final evil manifestation of the evil politician's depraved son (played by Nick Stahl, who always looks sallow and nasty), because he looks like the Golem--an animatron with a yellow head. Perhaps the only actor who really rises to the occasion is Mickey Rourke, who's no stranger to deep cover as an actor and whose pugilistically battered face has been completely made over.

But what are all these people doing? I'd really rather not say, if you don't mind. Probably when I was twelve I would have loved this movie. One of my favorite things to watch in movies back then was torture, smashed thumbs, eyes gouged out, bodies broken on the rack: I loved all that, because it meant nothing to me; it wasn't real. Now I know that this kind of stuff really happens all the time, and I don't want to see it. But this is a movie for boys, because here, again, as for me at twelve, none of it means anything; none of it is real. There's some pain over a little girl who is threatened with nastiness, but for the rest whether a guy has a hammer in his back or a knife sticking out of his brow matters not at all.

The girls are the best part, for sure. They're as tough and macho as the guys, and a lot better looking. But whether a whore in skimpy leather packing heat is an example of woman's liberation is not something worth debating. Cool? Yes, very cool, if you're fifteen, or forty-five going on twelve.

As has been pointed out, Rodriguez's literal reconstitution of these graphic novels is hardly as original as the graphic novels themselves, despite the technical innovations, and those novels themselves had less originality than the film noir they grew out of. The images of Sin City remain striking and often beautiful, but I think there are in fact certain key elements in Miller's drawings that Rodriguez has failed to capture. He has used too many closeups and not enough of those wonderful distant, sharply angular images so typical of comic book vision. Did those themselves grow out of the work of people like Greg Toland, Orson Welles' cameraman for Citizen Kane? Probably.

When I think of violence on the movie screen, Sin City doesn't come to mind immediately. Instead, one of the more talked about prolonged scenes that comes to mind is the 30 or 45 minutes of the first part of Saving Private Ryan. What seemed to make this scene so compelling, so much an item of discussion was the apparent in your face killing, the body parts, the ocean turning red, the sound of bullets seeming to come out of the theater speakers. The plot and meaning of this scene? There wasn't any. This scene was based on the experience not the verbal language of the soldiers.

What comes to mind with Sin City was the transformation of a graphic, comic book novel into a virtual reality, coming to life with flesh and blood human being actors. The plot? Some critics have placed Alien as among the best movies of its science fiction genre. The plot? Very simple. The execution well done. So too with Sin City, the plot very simple. The execution competently if not well done (the various storylines were not well edited together). In the case of Alien, the dialogue, script, and acting was directed towards realism. In the case of Sin City, the dialogue, script, and was directed towards fantastic, imaginary world of 50s, gangster comics.

>> one of the more talked about prolonged scenes that comes to mind is the 30 or 45 minutes of the first part of Saving Private Ryan. What seemed to make this scene so compelling, so much an item of discussion was the apparent in your face killing, the body parts, the ocean turning red, the sound of bullets seeming to come out of the theater speakers. The plot and meaning of this scene? There wasn't any.<<

Anyone who has faced the business end of a german machine gun might disagree that there was "no meaning" to the taking of the beach during the Normandy invasion. It shouldn't take a WWII vet or a historian to know what the plot was. It was the liberation of France and it was the starting point for an invasion of the of the European continent to defeat the forces of evil that had taken over there.

Spielberg's genius in filming the scene "combat photographer style" complete with unbelievable directional sound effects and gut-wrenching visuals tapped into a primal fear any man has when faced with combat.

Just as powerful as "Saving Private Ryan", and a better overall film in my book, is "The Longest Day". I also recommend taking in the DVD version of "Band of Brothers" as a whole. It's a non-fiction companion piece that's every bit as powerful as either "Saving Private Ryan" or "The Longest Day".



That scene had me so tense in the theater that I had to be told to let go of the armrests.

Another similar scene (copied countless times since it first came out) was the first Strirling battle scene in "Braveheart". Again, those who viewed this scene were mesmerized and stunned. The violence felt real. The pain genuine. The sacrifices costly. Admittedly these scenes have the advantage of being based on true historical battles.

But let's take another violent scene. The final shootout in "Unforgiven", Clint Eastwood's western masterpiece. It is fictional and quite violent but it had authenticity because it's characters had been established and a sense of realism pervaded each scene preceding it.