|
Decided to read the books first before seeing it. I think that helped me enjoy it better. Fantastic movie. My only complaint was Brittany Murphy's acting. Thought it was pretty weak at times. But, I can't let that spoil the rest of this great film. 5/5
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2005 20:43
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 28, 2024 22:04 |
|
|
The cinematography is perfect. Every scene is absolutely beautiful. You could take capture ANY frame, blow it up and hang it on your wall with pride. It's that beautiful. Bottom Line: Best movie of 2005 so far 5/5
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2005 20:43
|
|
|
This is by far one of the most amazing films I have seen in a long long time. I was watching the entire thing with my mouth open. It brought the comic to the screen in a way that I never thought possible. The visuals were breathtaking, the special effects were amazing, the stories were intruiging, the characters were captivaying. I'm going to see this again tonight. Even if you have not read the graphic novel, see it anyway. It will be worth it. 5/5
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2005 21:54
|
|
|
If I were to judge this movie based solely on style, it would get a 5.5. The visuals were stunning the whole way through, and the soundtrack was appropriately moody and cool. The actors all looked great, and being a fan of the comics, I really appreciated how well it matched up to the original drawings. That being said, I was not quite as impressed with other aspects of the film. The actors sometimes seemed uncomfortable, and the awkwardness was likely brought on by the fact that they were acting in front of a green screen. In general I thought everyone did a good job, but there were a few moments that seemed sort of awful to me. The only specific moment I can remember right now is the conversation between Hartigan and his partner near the beginning of the movie. I thought the pacing was awful. The whole movie felt very rushed, and the transitions between stories were... not there. I think should've picked only two of the stories for the movie and expanded them. I thought "The Big Fat Kill" was the best part of the movie, and I wished it was longer. Marv's story was very rushed, and I think they could've added another 5 minutes or so of character development to make it better. In fact, the whole movie would benefit from a little more development. The action was fantastic, but the audience wasn't given the chance to get to know and like the characters before they started killing people. The beautiful visuals almost make up for the problems in pacing, but not quite. This could have been a great film instead of just a good one. 4/5
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2005 23:38
|
|
|
As someone said before, visually and such it was incredible. However, the pacing was completely ridiculous. Your thrust into Marv's story so quickly that if you haven't read the books it might seem kind of bizarre, and then suddenly after that you get the Big Fat Kill, which is incredibly slow and drawn out in comparison. And then, when the intensity of that has culminated into the final huge shootout, things slow down to a crawl again with Hartigan's story. Overall good, but too rushed in parts. It would've been better to let some scenes linger (I know they went by the comic book, but in the books the lingering is implied, or brought on by the lengthy monologues, which seemed very trimmed down for the movie.) 4/5
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2005 00:07
|
|
|
.
exp0n fucked around with this message at 01:46 on Jan 1, 2014 |
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2005 00:47
|
|
|
I've never read the comic, but I loved the film. As someone else mentioned above, the only downside of the entire movie was Britney Murphy's acting. Other than Drew Barrymore she is the worst actress in Hollywood, and I have no clue how she continues to get work. That wasn't enough to take anything away from the movie though, as it was one of the most enjoyable films I've seen in quite a while. 5/5
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2005 00:51
|
|
|
The most stylish and violent movie I've ever seen. Rodriguez makes the best pulp ever made. 5/5
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2005 01:42
|
|
|
I just got back from seeing this, and I was completely blown away. This was the best movie I've seen all year, and I probably won't see a better movie this year. This may be going out on a limb, but I think this just might have jumped into my top 10 favorite movies of all time list. It was that drat good. "loving awesome" doesn't quite do Sin City justice; it was simply amazing. Not having read the books or even heard about the movie until December, the film had that much more impact one me. The experience kind of reminded me of watching Pulp Fiction for the first time, just for the originality and all star cast and the not knowing what to expect. A well-deserved 5.5. Oh, and one problem that new movies nowadays seem to be having is finding the right line to use as the closing line of dialogue. Sin City didn't have this problem; I thought that last line was perfect. "...anything."
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2005 05:29
|
|
|
This is one of those movies you come away from laughing. Not because of anything horrible, but simply because you cannot believe you are that impressed with something. Marv absolutely dominates this film, utter badass to the end. The style cannot have enough said about it. Everything about this movie, from start to finish, was perfect. Ultra violence so violent it even parodies itself is hard to pull off without being in the awful catagory or cheesy catagory. It's a fine line between one bad spectrum or the other. This movie took that line and made an 8 lane superhighway out of it. Incredible. 5.5
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2005 06:55
|
|
|
I guess I'm going to have to break from the pack here... a good film, but I don't really have any desire to see it a second time, so that loses points for me. That being said, the film pretty much does everything it sets out to do. It has a stark visual style, pulp dialogue, and stereotype comic book tough guys. I'll give it credit for being quite literally a book translation; I've been wondering for years why no one had done that yet, since the material is already written for you. I've read one of the stories presented (the one with Marv) and I remember specific frames and dialogue pulled verbatim from the comic. Characters are two-dimensional, but again it feels like it's SUPPOSED to be that way. Women are vixens, and men are tough guys who can survive a hail of bullets. Revenge is the dish of the day. There's really not much more to be said. And that's what makes it lose points for me- for all its style, it feels lacking. Is it because I've never really been a fan of Frank Miller's work? I know it's heresy to say so, but in my case it's true. Also, with the way everyone was talking, I was expecting a little bit of the ultra-violence, but it didn't seem that bad to me. Perhaps the grayscale factor does come into play there. In any case, I don't really feel compelled to watch it again, so.... about a 3.75/5
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2005 07:10
|
|
|
I really can't say what others havent already said. This was the most fantastic cinematography I've ever seen, it's not an amazing movie based of a comic. It's an amazing movie period. You're life isn't complete until you've seen this movie. 5.5/5 P.S.: Elija Wood is a creepy motherfucker.
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2005 07:59
|
|
|
While i havent read the comic book, i do read comics. I am going against the grain here and giving this a negative reveiw. The Positives You get to see some cool actors and hot chicks in neat situations (Bruce Willis, Jessica Alba). Visually stunning. Negatives. Acting was bad. Mailed in Hammy acting. Alba cannot act, Brit Murphy was shite, Jaimie King cannot act, neither can Josh Hartnett. Thats a big % of your film right there. I assume it was supposed to be funny, because half of my audience was laughing at the fact it took 20 bullets to put Bruce out for a little while. He will be ok after a few surgeries. This is the actual act of putting a comic book on screen, people do "cool" superhuman stuff and need to be cut to pieces and eaten by wolves to die. It is ridiculous and dumb. I like reading this poo poo in comics, it seems to work there, here it looks pathetic. A previous poster was right, this is a movie made for people who are in this new generation of 20+ who still collect toys, play gameboys, and generally act like they are 11. PoolTrout fucked around with this message at 02:21 on Feb 21, 2015 |
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2005 12:09
|
|
|
Saw it for my second viewing tonight. I really wish I would have had more time to let my initial viewing sink in so I could articulate my thoughts a little better. Alas, I'd already made plans for another trip to the theater. Seeing it the following night after the initial shock, yes, it's rather sensory-overloading. I wasn't sure if I'd survive a second showing, but the shock value from it has been distilled, so it generally comes off a lot weaker. Here are the few (and minor) qualms I had with it: -It was paced a bit TOO fast. Every time I tried to catch a breath and really grasp the insanity I was seeing on screen, someone else got stabbed in the crotch, sometimes for no apparent reason. Sometimes you feel like there's just too much action, if you know what I mean. It could have used more tension to build up certain events, as well. -The ending with Josh Hartnett as the hitman confronting Becky was extremely anticlimactic. I didn't even know what the hell happened until I got home and discovered it online, which I guess was my fault. Seeing it a second time and realizing what was happening didn't help very much. I think it'd have been much more appropriate to end when Hartigan killed himself. I think that could have been accepted, too, because from what you guys are saying the ending with Hartnett wasn't a part of the graphic novels. I really hated to see such a dynamic, visceral, unforgiving film end on such a tame moment. -The violence loses its desired effect after a while. I'm not saying I got bored with it, but an hour in, it all just seems to blend together and lose the "holy poo poo" shock value. It became just another number to add to the death toll for me. Besides that, I thought it was loving great. I could list everything I enjoyed, but it's basically everything that I didn't just mention. I personally thought everyone did a fantastic job, and have no idea why people think Madsen was bad. His dialogue and the way he delivered his lines was very film-noir style, and I thought it was perfect for his character. It's different, but still good. Anyway, there was NOT ONE weak performance in the film. No, seriously; there wasn't. There are two that stand out in my mind, though: best performance definitely goes to Mickey Rourke as Marv. He stole the loving show, period. It seems like he was born to play Marv, or that Marv was made for Rourke, either or. Benicio Del Toro as Jack Rafferty or "Jackie Boy" was probably runner-up. Interesting thing: I really liked the Jack Rafferty character. It seemed like Miller and Rodriguez REALLY wanted you to hate this guy for all he's worth, which was next to nothing. He was a huge degenerate piece of poo poo, a real dirtbag with no redeeming qualities whatsoever. He was a misogynist, a crooked cop, a drunk, etc. BUT, he was such an rear end in a top hat that I couldn't help but love him. I may be a bit biased since Benicio is one of my favorite actors, but I thought the character was loving great. It's also probably the most violent, sadistic, dark, hosed up film I've ever seen. The only thing I can think of that contends with it is Ichi the Killer, which doesn't count if you consider it a snuff flick. I really am surprised that this made it past the MPAA with a hard R rating, even if it is all in black & white. If it was in color, there'd be no way in hell it'd get an R. I'm glad Rodriguez didn't compromise any of the source material just to appease to some loving review system. This is the man that quit the Director's Guild of America to get Miller a director credit, after all. I lost count of the amount of OHHHHHs, UUUUGGGHHHHs, and sadistic laughs that this film elicited from the audience. It easily eclipsed all of my theater experiences with Kill Bill Vol. 1. I normally hate this type of poo poo, but I thought it was very appropriate, given the context of the film. Really, hearing the audience react to it made it even more enjoyable to me, believe it or not. Oh, yeah, people left during both showings I went to, heh. It's very unforgiving, to say the least. All the CGI and digitally rendered backgrounds worked wonderfully. I had a small problem with that because it struck the purist in me on how a film like this shouldn't be handled with CGI, but it was great. It all looked very authentic, and while I never read the graphic novels, I have thumbed through them and seen many panels and pages. I thought they did the source material justice, and gave the vibe the film needed. The only real weak part of it I can think of that lasted for more than a few seconds was the hunt for Jackie Boy's head. It just seemed really loving unnecessary. It didn't intertwine with The Big Fat Kill at all and could be viewed as filler. Thankfully, it only lasts a few minutes, and it's recovered from quickly. Overall, I loved it. Hell, to have agreed to see such a potent film within two days, I MUST have loved it. I've never quite seen a film like this, and it really is more like a comic book come to life than an adaptation. I don't think it's the BEST FILM EVER THAT WILL REVOLUTIONIZE HOLLYWOOD, and amazingly enough I wasn't really blown away, but I was thoroughly impressed. I definitely got my money's worth, that's for sure. I'm torn between giving it a 9 or a 10 as of now. Best comic book adaptation ever? That's not saying much, but yeah, by a loving mile. Oh yeah, one more thing: stop comparing this to Kill Bill, fuckers. KB Vol. 1 and 2 as one singular picture is my all-time favorite film, but the only thing they had in common with Sin City was their amount of insane violence and bloodshed. And really, they were two completely different brands of violence. QT and Rodriguez have similar styles, that doesn't mean their films are the same; deal with it. 5/5
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2005 12:27
|
|
|
Based on the graphic novels by Frank Miller, Sin City is the most faithful comic-based movie ever created. The reason this is true is because the movie never forgets that it's a comic, and it has no shame about it. This may sound confusing, but it really isn't; director Robert Rodriguez manages to capture both the look and style of the black and white world created by Frank Miller. Rest assured, there are no "BIFF"s and "POW"s showing up on the screen. Instead we are given a world of black and white, with very few colors added for emphasis. Sin City even manages to feel like and old movie(even with the soundtrack and its use in the film), but with better camera work, more creative shots, and an insane amount of violence. I have to state that this is one of the most violent movies I've seen in my life, and I enjoyed every minute of it. Rodriguez gets away with a lot in this movie, mainly beacuse of the stylized nature of the violence. Blood is rarely red, and for some reason this makes things more palatable(I honestly don't go for hardcore violence). The blood and gore isn't there to shock, it simply sets the tone of Sin City: a brutal world where the men are grizzled supermonsters and the women are hyper-sexualized femmes fatales. I don't see many good movies(the last one was ruined by a talking baby), but this film was excellent. 5/5
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2005 17:13
|
|
|
Pros: -Visuals -Mickey Rourke, Clive Owen, Bruce Willis, Rosario Dawson, Carla Gugino, Michael Clarke Duncan, Rutger Hauer, Elijah Wood, and whoever played Mr. Schlubb (or Klump...the one that spoke) -Nice sense of humour -Brutal violence -Hot chicks on display (especially Carla Gugino, holy christ!) Cons: -Michael Madsen, Jessica Alba -Really short action scenes, I think Robert Rodriguez could have added a bit of filler between panels -The score is indifferent 4/5
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2005 19:14
|
|
|
The visuals were utterly outstanding, and Rodriguez nailed the gritty and ominous feeling of Basin City. My favorite moments were always shots of various cars driving up the highway with the city looming in the background. Mickey Rourke was great, as were Clive Owen, Carla Gugino and Rosario Dawson. Despite his performance, whenever Elijah Wood was onscreen I was always muttering "No Frodo... what are you doing?" Benecio Del Toro is such a goddamn mutterer which, despite working in previous films, doesn't work here, since I always anticipated Jackie Boy being a lot more volatile, not subdued and brooding. Devon Aoki has a fat head. Bruce Willis does not look 60. Performances aside, the major reasons why I'm not voting this film a 5 is because Rodriguez chose to keep some of the wrong moments and exclude some of the right ones. A lot of the sequences could've been shot and edited together better (Marv nearly gouging out the guard's eyes, and Dwight diving into the manhole cover to go after the Irish bomber are a few examples) and the pacing for many of these shots was off. Some sequences went by way too quickly while others lingered simply because a) Rodriguez didn't care/doesn't know about pacing or b) he needed to fill up some screen time. And though I acknowledge that Nancy Callahan is more than tits on legs (and henceforth, wasn't required to appear nude in every frame, unlike the comic) I really wouldn't have minded seeing the body that's supposed to enchant every person who gazes upon it. 3.5/5
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2005 20:12
|
|
|
As someone who spends a lot of time wishing there were more stylized Film Noir movies out there, I was fairly surprised to find that this one so utterly lost track of itself and its genre, if it had one. I really wanted to love this movie, but it just felt like a big mess. Very awkward. EDIT: I should probably point out right here that yes, I had read the source material beforehand and enjoyed it quite a bit. The visuals, I will freely admit, were excellent, and perfectly fused with the live action elements to give us a very pretty image every frame of the way. However, rather than give us the comic's gritty, often sexy portrayal of a festering city and the broken denizens who dwell there, the film seems to exaggerate the flow and feel into something out of a seriously screwed up bugs bunny cartoon. I'll try not to linger too much on the acting except to say that some of it was exceptionally bad, and it seemed like Clive Owen was the only primary actor to have actually thought about how to approach his narration before he went in to record it. A better director could have gotten a lot more out of these actors. The music on its own is excellent, but throughout the entire movie I couldn't help but feeling that it was being edited into every ounce of the movie with no justification or reason for why it should be linked to a certain shot or moment, as if the filmmaker was so enthralled with the sound of it that he didn't take the time to actually get it orchestrated to what we actually see onscreen. Though true to the distinctness of each story in the comics, I feel that as a film Sin City was lacking a sense of narrative or purpose, and could have greatly benefited from some liberal editing to let the stories mix and intertwine more freely, rather than finishing off one individual tale and then reversing time so we can watch another like some kind of television marathon. Overall, the directors were too enthusiastic about the material to take the time to wonder if they were presenting it well. And yet despite the their obvious appreciation of the source (especially considering Miller's having created it), the movie never for more than a second took itself seriously. Sometimes thats a blessing, here it was just a shame. Hartigan's story nearly broke my heart in the comic, but the film chose to take away the emotional core and leave us with a dialed-in display of poor timing and lackluster purpose. Its possible this will be one of those movies that grows on me, because it did have a few redeeming moments and although it wasn't very true to the feel of the comics, it certainly mimicked the look and pacing accurately. I will say again that the film looks beautiful. All I can do for now is say that it seemed a very high brand of mediocrity. 2.5/5 King Abe fucked around with this message at 21:15 on Apr 3, 2005 |
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2005 21:01
|
|
|
Rodriguez is one amazing producer. Probably the best there is working right now. Just by understanding and embracing technology he can make movies that look very expensive for cheap, and can make them fast. I don't think his directing has peaked just yet though, he's still got room to grow. From what I can tell from his documentaries and various interviews he's very very good at making actors feel at ease and comfortable doing their jobs but to me it feels like he just hasn't yet figured out how to coax exactly the right performance he wants out of them. I think sometimes this really works because an actor can bring a lot to the table (Johnny Depp in OUATIM, Mickey Rourke for Marv), but I'd be willing the bet RR has a really hard time telling actors "no that was wrong, I need it like this". Right now I'd call him a real pioneer of the new digital way of making movies and probably the most creative director working right now, but he's not quite a great one yet. Sin City is without a doubt his best work yet though, you'll never ever see more love for original source material than with this movie. And the source material is very very good. There's no doubt in my mind that the movie I just saw yesterday WAS Sin City in movie form. Only certain performances dropped it short of being a 5 out of 5 for me. Cinematography was not only solid, but adventurous. Editing was very transperant (I'm very suprised about that since Rodriguez's normal style tends to lean more towards rapid cutting and more flashiness). 4.5/5 I'll change my score to a 7 out of 5 if this leads Miller to do more directing.
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2005 21:48
|
|
|
I just saw Sin City. Now, a lot is getting written about its amazing visual style, and I feel I should sort of note here that without its amazing visual style, this probably would have been only an "okay" movie. A lot of the plot was just noir for the sake of noir, and a lot of the lines were badly written and badly acted. We're not talking Star Wars: Episode II levels of terrible writing here, but it was noticeable to me as, at times, being really cheesy. Things improved in time as the movie gained momentum, and I enjoyed the second half a good deal more than the first half even though it wasn't any better. I should also note that if you're by any chance a feminist, and are very watchful of the way women are portrayed in movies, you absolutely, positively, should not see this movie. Your head will just explode and your rage-pumped guts will be everywhere in the theater. G-d forbid someone's sitting next to you. 4.5/5
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2005 02:51
|
|
|
It's the first time in my life that I've seen a movie and have looked forward to seeing it again in theaters. Your life is not complete without this movie. 5.5/5
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2005 17:26
|
|
|
It was fun to watch but it just dragged on, also I asked myself too much... where is this going? 2.5/5
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2005 17:41
|
|
|
Awesome, amazing, brilliant. 5/5
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2005 02:11
|
|
|
The dialogue's a bit cheesy at times, but it works fairly well with the style of the film. Not much else I can say about it that hasn't been said before. Anyone know which section Quentin Tarantino directed? I'm assuming it was the Miho part where she slaughters Rafferty and his thugs. But I've seen some conflicting reports on other sites. EDIT: Nevermind. It wasn't that scene. 4/5 quote:Rourke: What would you know about it? Kithyen fucked around with this message at 20:57 on Apr 11, 2005 |
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2005 04:38
|
|
|
God this movie was noir out the rear end. I'm a huge fan of old film noir movies and this movie was along those lines, with over the top violence and action thrown in. I really liked the movie. I don't read comics, but I'll be damned if I don't want to go read all the Sin City comics. If they are half as good as the movie I'm going to have to pick some up at a comic store or whatever. Hell, I don't even know where you buy comics. Anyways, this movie was excellent, although I wish I read the comics before seeing it because I bet I would of liked it even more. The style was just amazing. I give it a 5
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2005 23:05
|
|
|
Short and sweet review - Most violent movie I have ever seen. Greatest movie I have ever seen. Do not see it if you're in the least bit squeamish, though...a ton of the poo poo in this movie is disgusting (BUT SO loving GREAT!) and you will throw up, especially when you see what Marv does to Kevin. 5.5 - if I could rate this thing 1 billion I would.
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2005 22:23
|
|
|
Now I never read the comics, hell I didnt even know it was originally a graphic novel until a friend mentioned it as we entered the theatre, but i really wasn't fond of this movie. The visual effects were pretty cool, although there seemed to have been inconsistencies in what they did choose to color, especially blood (I thought there was perhaps a deeper artistic meaning behind it, but a friend said it had to do with the amount of blood they were allowed to show in a R movie). But the story seemed to be lacking, and the action seemed to drag on monotonously (especially on that one guy's quest to avenge Goldie). The narration also didn't seem to always fit well with the visuals, and it also seemed labored and painfully drawn out. It seemed to me about 2/3 of the way through the movie that nothing really had really happened in plot or character other than people being killed/tortured/naked. I did find the Bruce Willis/Jessica Alba storyline slightly intriguing and enjoyable (maybe it was just Jessica Alba) and the end wasn't that bad, while slightly predictable and failing to tie together any of the other plotlines. Once again, I've never laid eyes upon the comic, and I'm positive that is part of the reason I didnt really like the movie. I voted 2.5, which might be generous (the friend I saw it with said she would have paid $9.50 to not see it).
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2005 05:09
|
|
|
quote:Undaine came out of the closet to say: The part where I just busted out laughing was when Miho shot the dude through the chest with an arrow and he just looks at it goes goes, "Heyyy. Haha, it's right through me! Guys, look at this! Its sticking straight through me!" The way the guy says "Hey" was just amazingly hilarious. Hell...all of the thugs in the movie were hilarious, like in "That Yellow Bastard" where the one thug is telling the other thug that their transport is perfectly small with no trunk, which is great for carrying a body.
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2005 06:02
|
|
|
I can't possibly describe how perfect this film was in portraying everything about the Sin City comics. I'm also not one to admit that I can't come up with something to say, but everything that I can possibly exalt this movie for has already been mentioned in the past two pages. This truly is the quintessential comic book film, while Spiderman and the like were simply action movies based on comics. Action, drama, all things present in the comics come into play on the silver screen beautifully and Rodriguez and Miller do an outstanding job of presenting it in the trademark gritty noir fashion of Sin City. I just wish more films this perfect would be made. Someone the other day told me that I look like Clive Owen as Dwight in this film. I took it as a compliment.  5.5/5
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2005 15:25
|
|
|
Best Comic book adaptation ever made. I loved the visual style and the ultra-Noir feel of the movie as previously mentioned. The pacing was a little choppy, but it can be forgiven, given how cool all the other aspects of the movie were. While the acting may appear to be a little hammy, it was perfect to fit the feel of the film. 5/5 Also I'll be the first person to say that Rosario Dawson is loving hot.
|
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2005 21:43
|
|
|
5.0. One of my all time favorite films. The part where Marv dragged the guy on the asphalt while driving the car was hilarious.
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2005 10:57
|
|
|
You know all the pros Cons: - Michael Madsen's horrible acting - Abysmal pacing, the movie moved WAY too fast - The lines sounded cornier in the film than in the book - Some plot holes due to scenes left out in the movie Hartigan gets out immediately after he signs a confession? That was explained in the book, but cut in the movie -Mediocre score 4/5
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2005 17:40
|
|
|
Saw this last night, an extremely entertaining movie with a lot of style. Marv's story was my favorite as well. 4.5/5 A better score would've bumped it up to 5 but it seriously wasn't great in the music department. Hopefully seeing it again tonight (I virtually never see movies twice in theaters but I simply have to this time).
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2005 22:23
|
|
|
Oddly enough, my favorite parts from the comic seemed underwhelming when staged in the movie, mostly because everything relt rushed. I blame Rodriguez and his fast-and-loose style, which is great for him but not so great for the story or his actors. The special effects are impressive at first, but when you get a good close look at them (as I had to, being crammed in the second row of the theatre) they start to look kind of janky. I think that such a slavish devotion to the comics actually started to work against the film. Though they make a good effort to cram in most of the framing from the comics, the acting feels constrained and the blocking is kind of uncreative. There were many things left to the imagination in between the frames of the comics, and no creativity was invested in placing them in the movie. For example, in the comic, Miho simply appears behind the guy she skewers in the sewers. In the film, should she have just walked up to him the way she does, or should she have perhaps risen from the water like a ninja? You may think I'm nitpicking, but consider how many little details it takes to make or break a character's coolness. Likewise, Kevin isn't as impressive in the film when we actually see him move- he was nice in the comics because he appeared completely weightless and contrasted nicely to Marv's hulking self. They should have gone out on a limb and been a bit more imaginative- it had me wondering if Rodriguez actually grasps what makes the book characters so appealing. Now that those kinds of things are out of the way, what works is actually really good. The lead actors are really well chosen: Marv is just right, but then again we all knew that. Bruce Willis is about ten years shy of the right age for Hartigan, and ironically looks more appropriate after the character leaves jail. But I can't fault him, and I really felt myself rooting for Hartigan as his story played out. Of the three male leads, Clive Owen most resembles a classic noir actor, and he deserves a bit more appreciation for pulling off Dwight just right- not to mention that at times he even seems to be channeling Robert Mitchum in 'Out of the Past'. The movie's really just kind of the sum of its parts, since it feels like all of the really cool moments are skipped by really fast. It adds up to a nice impression of the book, though, and you just know it'll make more people read the source material... so that pretty much makes the success of 'Sin City' my favorite feature of the movie. I'm gonna give it a 3.5/5. Ben Solo fucked around with this message at 10:04 on Apr 10, 2005 |
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2005 22:44
|
|
|
I can definitely see why people like this movie; I think the plot is interesting, and visually it's very interesting. But I'll be honest: I don't like comics and I do NOT like film noir. I still think that this was well-executed for the most part. I usually complain about the pacing in movies; here that wasn't really a problem. I think it was well-cast and the acting was quite good. I think my dislike of this movie really just goes back to my dislike of film noir. Sin City fits the genre perfectly, but I just don't like that sort of thing and after a while I just wanted the narrators to get to the point. So really, the problem here is me more than anything. I knew what I was getting into and knew I hated film noir but watched anyway. But, as I said, I can definitely see why others enjoyed it and I still think it's a pretty decent film. 3/5
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2005 00:47
|
|
|
^^^^^ [Sin city isn't true noir - real noir is much more subtle. What we see in this film is an over the top hyperstylized take on elements of noir.] Since people have been all too happy to go over the good points, let me go over the bad points: -Some weak or stilted acting here and there. -Some parts far too cheesy or faky-fake for their own good. (Note: Although NOT anything involving CG bodies getting tossed around, strangely enough...that was actually cool and fun.) -Some really awkward editing in a hamfisted attempt to stay too close to the comic. -Some poor choices of music in a couple scenes. -Trying to stay so close to the comic resulted in all the flaws of the stories being blown up larger than life along with the good points - particularly in dialogue, but also in Frank Miller's penchant for really strange plot-holes or hamfisted shortcutting. (Fortunately, it showed just how strong Marv's and the Little Yellow Bastard story are on their own merits as a result.) All in all though, it was a rather exciting and thoroughly entertaining movie. I would in fact, love to see more films done in a hyper-stylized fashion like this, for it worked REALLY REALLY REALLY well overall. I just wish it had managed to polish itself off *just* bit more in execution. Even so, it will thoroughly satisfy all Sin City fans, and recruit many more in the process. 4/5 DanSTC fucked around with this message at 08:30 on Apr 10, 2005 |
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2005 08:08
|
|
|
The opening segments of the movie, from the Josh Hartnett scene through to the end of Marv's story, I found to be exceedingly well done. The action was amazing (super ninja cannibal Elijah Wood owns). As has already been said, the film's art is spectacular. However, the Big Fat Kill I found really poor. It just lacked the gritty feel of the other two stories. I've read That Yellow Bastard and Sin City, but not this, so maybe that has somethign to do with it, but it didn't feel the same to me, and actually felt extremely hammy. Pacing was also poorly done, That Yellow Bastard in particular being painful to launch into. Running the stories parallel to each other would have been less jarring, if it could be done. Some of the acting also felt a bit painful to watch in how awkward it was. Expanding Marv and Hartigan's stories would have made for a better film, I don't believe the Big Fat Kill contributed much at all to the film. That being said, the art, the amazing action scenes in Marv's story and the gritty Sin City feel which was done successfully in two thirds of the movie make this a classic. 4.5/5.
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2005 13:17
|
|
|
This was one of the most brilliant movies I've ever seen, in style, acting, direction, everything. Then again, I've never read the comics, so this was a completely fresh concept to me when I saw it. I was impressed with the magnitude and depth of the story, and the depth of the characters. And the color thing was very awesome. Everything about this movie spells Masterpiece to me. 5.5/5
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2005 00:32
|
|
|
This is the movie I was saving my 5.5 rating for. A masterpiece. All of the complaints that I have heard I thought added to the atmosphere and fit the setting perfectly. I can't wait for the DVD. 5.5
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2005 03:33
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 28, 2024 22:04 |
|
|
Michael Madson and Jessica Alba are two of the worst actors I've ever seen on a screen before. Madsons lines with Willis are so loving bad that I was cringing. He almost ruined one of my favorite sections out of the entire Sin City series. Willis nails hartigan perfectly. Marv is ridiculously well done also. I wish the movie was paced slower, especially That Yellow bastard, everything flew by too loving fast and didn't allow the characters to gain enough emotion from the crowd. 4/5.
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2005 05:48
|
|
