Sin City - movie

gonzo13 said:
I have about as much information about this movie as the rest here. i.e.... commercials and fucking commercials..... because that is all that is available to us, you moron. I don't care whether they call them trailers, or press releases, or even interviews with the actors, or any of the crap on the internet (which I have browsed).... they are ALL commercials for the fucking movie.

Hello? Did you read anything in this thread? If you had, you would know that this movie is based, shot for shot, frame for frame, line for line, on a series of graphic novels by Frank Miller, who shares a directing credit with Rodriguez.

The majority of people in this thread have read the books, and we do indeed know what we're talking about.

Maybe you should read a thread before you decide to open your mouth and "contribute."

Practically every other post in the "The Obligatory "What are you listening to" Thread" is you.[ I don't give a shit what you are listening to, and I don't give a shit what you have to say after I post this.

Don't read the thread?

I don't like the way you talk to others, this is not the first time you have insulted me for no good damned reason, and I no longer feel you are worthy of any sort of notice. Flame every post I make, you no longer exist.

PM me when you grow a brain cell, you pathetic amoeba.

To everyone else I apologize for being rude.

Says the guy with 50 posts to his name...
 
@gonzo13:
NMA_post_explode.gif


Seriously guy, he calls you one name, then you proceed to write an 80 line post insulting him 10x worse, all the while not bothering to read the thread. I can understand if this thread was 28 pages, but on a 4 page thread that’s just being a jackass.
 
I notice that Spider-Man and X-Men aren't on your list there, gonzo. Wasn't that just Hollywood fatcats trying to milk a succesful pop culture franchise?
 
Yeah, actually Gonzo does have a few good points, and Malk, you did start it.

You kids. Didn't you ever learn how to play nice.

X-Man wasn't very good, though I have to admit I liked X-Men 2 (at least as sequels go)

Jurrasic Park- the book was better.

Spiderman- ok, but really enough comic book movies.

Since I have already mentioned how frustrating it is that just about every big Hollywood movie is either-
(a) a sequel
(b) a comic book
(c) based on a bad TV show.
(d) based on a video game.

It's no wonder much of the movie watching audience gets bored.

And Malky, come on, Once upon a time in Mexico was just a crappy remake of Desperado, which was a crappy remake of El Mariachi- so I think Rodriquez does have something to prove.
 
welsh said:
Yeah, actually Gonzo does have a few good points, and Malk, you did start it.

The difference between the movies Gonzo listed and Sin City, were obviously in details that Gonzo didn't bother to nor seems to care educating themselves about. Which, ironically, was just the fact that Malkavian brought up. Other than the typical paragraph bemoaning action movies, Gonzo's original post was the general tripe you'll find around IMDB.com even though the facts are on the same damn page. The further list of movies is simply a series of straw man arguments and as a whole, has added nothing remotely worthwhile to the topic. In fact, IMDB.com's forum on the movie has far more intelligent appraisals than Gonzo cared to share, and that is remarkable for a "licensed" movie (I can't really say licensed as a whole, because look at who is making it).

He cared to mention the history rapes (forgot one, Troy), those that have wu xia directors for comic titles, the typical Hollywood "disaster of the week" cloned set of script rips (this time involving a meteor hitting the earth), and rehashed concept rapes, but apparently feels those equate to those where the original creator of the property has an intimate hand in the creation of the movie.

The crack about originality is amusing as well. It is not meant to be original, it is meant to be Sin City. Yes, it does help to have read the comics to understand a style comparison. Gee, I wonder why many people who enjoyed the comic like the looks of the movie, and with Miller as the writer, director, producer, the intent and feel of the comic can be more faithfully brought to the screen.

Care was, and has been obviously taken to bring this film to life. Hell, the series' creator plays a much more major role in the production and direction than Stan Lee did for Spider-Man. Save your derision for those who really do deserve it. Like Uwe Bowel, who only grabs onto a game license to pop out another turd for a quick buck.

That doesn't mean that this movie will be particularly good. To pre-emptively sell this movie short based on assumptive ignorance and the overhyping of other titles in the genre for the sake of being in the same genre (and no thought given as to exactly how much or little care was taken with those movies in turn), is just completely asinine and does not belong in intelligent discourse.

Gonzo13 said:
I have about as much information about this movie as the rest here. i.e.... commercials and fucking commercials..... because that is all that is available to us, you moron.

No, you obviously do not. Some of us actually know about the property and how it has been treated, and to use the straw man examples of shitty action flicks like you have is the real mark of idiocy. Commercials are not the only thing we have to go by - stop making excuses and stacking up more straw man arguments upon your assumptions.

I didn't insult you, and my opinion of the movie was meant to be over the top, half sarcastic, and delivered in good humor.... I thought the last line was obvious enough, but I guess you have to have an IQ ranging above your shoe size to get it.

And people would indeed have to have an IQ lower than your shoe size to fall for that lie. Your previous post had nothing of what you're trying to reinvent into what you have already said. In fact, further in the same post, you reinforce the obvious original intent of your initial post. Damn, you can't even keep your lies straight.
 
Leave it to Rosh to verbally murder another noob. :D

I suppose we all have to wait until Friday to really discuss more on the movie.
 
Looks like Ebert was pleased-

There are a million stories in "Sin City," and this is several of them.

Sin City

BY ROGER EBERT / March 31, 2005

If film noir was not a genre, but a hard man on mean streets with a lost lovely in his heart and a gat in his gut, his nightmares would look like "Sin City." The new movie by Robert Rodriguez and Frank Miller plays like a convention at the movie museum in Quentin Tarantino's subconscious. A-list action stars rub shoulders with snaky villains and sexy wenches, in a city where the streets are always wet, the cars are ragtops and everybody smokes. It's a black-and-white world, except for blood, which is red, eyes which are green, hair which is blond, and the Yellow Bastard.

This isn't an adaptation of a comic book, it's like a comic book brought to life and pumped with steroids. It contains characters who occupy stories, but to describe the characters and summarize the stories would be like replacing the weather with a weather map.

The movie is not about narrative but about style. It internalizes the harsh world of the Frank Miller "Sin City" comic books and processes it through computer effects, grotesque makeup, lurid costumes and dialogue that chops at the language of noir. The actors are mined for the archetypes they contain; Bruce Willis, Mickey Rourke, Jessica Alba, Rosario Dawson, Benicio Del Toro, Clive Owen and the others are rotated into a hyperdimension. We get not so much their presence as their essence; the movie is not about what the characters say or what they do, but about who they are in our wildest dreams.

On the movie's Web site, there's a slide show juxtaposing the original drawings of Frank Miller with the actors playing the characters, and then with the actors transported by effects into the visual world of graphic novels. Some of the stills from the film look so much like frames of the comic book as to make no difference. And there's a narration that plays like the captions at the top of the frame, setting the stage and expressing a stark existential world view.

Rodriguez has been aiming toward "Sin City" for years. I remember him leaping out of his chair and bouncing around a hotel room, pantomiming himself filming "Spy Kids 2" with a digital camera and editing it on a computer. The future! he told me. This is the future! You don't wait six hours for a scene to be lighted. You want a light over here, you grab a light and put it over here. You want a nuclear submarine, you make one out of thin air and put your characters into it.

I held back, wondering if perhaps the Spy Kids would have been better served if the films had not been such a manic demonstration of his method. But never mind; the first two "Spy Kids" were exuberant fun ("Spy Kids 3-D" sucked, in great part because of the 3-D). Then came his "Once Upon a Time in Mexico" (2003), and I wrote it was "more interested in the moment, in great shots, in surprises and ironic reversals and closeups of sweaty faces, than in a coherent story." Yes, but it worked.

And now Rodriguez has found narrative discipline in the last place you might expect, by choosing to follow the Miller comic books almost literally. A graphic artist has no time or room for drifting. Every frame contributes, and the story marches from page to page in vivid action snapshots. "Sin City" could easily have looked as good as it does and still been a mess, if it were not for the energy of Miller's storytelling, which is not the standard chronological account of events, but more like a tabloid murder illuminated by flashbulbs.

The movie is based on three of the "Sin City" stories, each more or less self-contained. That's wise, because at this velocity, a two-hour, one-story narrative would begin to pant before it got to the finish line. One story involves Bruce Willis as a battered old cop at war with a pedophile (Nick Stahl). One has Mickey Rourke waking up next to a dead hooker (Jaime King). One has a good guy (Clive Owen) and a wacko cop (Benicio Del Toro) disturbing the delicate balance of power negotiated between the police and the leader of the city's hookers (Rosario Dawson), who, despite her profession, moonlights as Owen's lover. Underneath everything is a deeper layer of corruption, involving a senator (Powers Boothe) whose son is not only the pedophile but also the Yellow Bastard.

We know the Bastard is yellow because the movie paints him yellow, just as the comic book did; it was a masterstroke for Miller to find a compromise between the cost of full-color reproduction and the economy of two-color pages; red, green and blue also make their way into the frames. Actually, I can't even assume Miller went the two-color route for purposes of economy, because it's an effective artistic decision.

There are other vivid characters in the movie, which does not have leads so much as actors who dominate the foreground and then move on. In a movie that uses nudity as if the 1970s had survived, Rosario Dawson's stripper is a fierce dominatrix, Carla Gugino shows more skin than she could in Maxim, and Devon Aoki employs a flying guillotine that was borrowed no doubt from a circa-1970 Hong Kong exploiter.

Frank Miller and Quentin Tarantino are credited as co-directors, Miller because his comic books essentially act as storyboards which Rodriguez follows with ferocity, and because he was on the set every day, interacting with the actors; Tarantino because he directed one brief scene on a day when Rodriquez was determined to wean him away from celluloid and lure him over the dark side of digital. (It's the scene in the car with Owen and Del Toro, who has a pistol stuck in his head.) Tarantino also contributed something to the culture of the film, which follows his influential "Pulp Fiction" in its recycling of pop archetypes and its circular story structure. The language of the film, both dialogue and narration, owes much to the hard-boiled pulp novelists of the 1950s.

Which brings us, finally, to the question of the movie's period. Skylines suggest the movie is set today. The cars range from the late 1930s to the 1950s. The costumes are from the trench coat and G-string era. I don't think "Sin City" really has a period, because it doesn't really tell a story set in time and space. It's a visualization of the pulp noir imagination, uncompromising and extreme. Yes, and brilliant.

For those interested, here's an hour interview with Frank Miller and Robert Rodriquez on Sin City.

'Sin City': Guiding a Comic to the Silver Screen
'Sin City': Guiding a Comic to the Silver Screen

Directors Robert Rodriguez, left, and Frank Miller collaborate on the set of Sin City. Dimension Films

Morning Edition, April 1, 2005 · The dark and violent comic Sin City is now a movie. Director Robert Rodriguez says that even on the page, artist Frank Miller's stories had a cinematic quality. To learn more, NPR asked director Kevin Smith to speak with Rodriguez and Miller.

Sin City relates life in a hard-boiled town full of self-interested citizens and tough-talking cops. In the film as in the graphic novels, everyone has an angle, from crooks to femme fatales. The movie also shares the stark, yet evocative, mostly black and white palette of its print counterpart.

Rodriguez and Miller collaborated closely on the film adaptation, sharing director and producer credits. In addition, Rodriguez served as the movie's cinematographer and editor, while Miller wrote the screenplay.

Frank Miller has been linked to several large-scale film franchises, from Robocop and Batman to Daredevil. He has had roles in several movies he helped create; in Sin City, he appears as a priest.

Director Robert Rodriguez's films range from 1992's El Mariachi to Spy Kids in 2001 and Once Upon a Time in Mexico in 2003.

another review? Also for NPR which normally condemns cartoon flicks and action flicks that glorify violence.
Miller, Rodriguez Stylize Violence in 'Sin City'
 
I just saw it and I can say with 100% accuracy that it was the best movie I have ever had the enjoyment of seeing. It's a welcoming refreshment from the ocean of turds that Hollywood usually puts out.
 
Just got back from seeing it. Go see it. Spectacular. Now I have to go find the novels and play catch-up. Which adds to my list of things to read. dammit.
 
Ok i'm starting a new thread for reviews....Bradylama said i can, damn it!! :D

So get on over there and speak of your opinions.
 
Bradylama said:
I said you can? I'm no authority, here, I just made a suggestion.

First a person is a lurker, then a poster, than a regular, than a community member, then a moderator.....

Resistance is futile. All will be assimiliated into the Borg.
 
Back
Top