Sin City - Reviews

Excellent. Simply excellent.

I don't even know what to say. This movie ruled. It was pretty much turned out exactly how I hoped it would: a spot-on adaptation of the novels.

It seems like a lot of people had problems with the pacing. I thought it was well-done and served a purpose. Marv's story is fast-paced and rushed, but the book is too. It was just as it should be.

I can't wait to see it again.
 
I just want to say that I thought it was "The best movie I've ever seen" because I am a big fan of Cyberpunk computer games and the like and noir-style stuff. I like movies with style, and this was just oozing style.

That said, it should be noted for the record that I haven’t seen any Hitchcock stuff or much of any noir stuff besides Dark City.
 
Bradylama said:
I like how you try and discredit my opinions based on my political ideals. You're a credit to the force.

Yeah, like it wasn't all true!

Bradylama, you know that I appreciate you and enjoy your presence on this board not only because you are a regular poster, insightful, intelligently engaged but, in a bizarre contrast, your are almost mindlessly devoted to an idealized libertarian world which would be a nightmare for most people. Which is funny, and thus makes life enjoyable for the rest of us.

I went to see the movie with a friend and a lady friend of his, and she hated it. She said the plot made no sense and that it was degrading to women. I didn't think people even used the phrase "Degrading to Women" anymore.

This is probably not a chick flick. Let's be honest, there are guy flicks and there are chick flicks and sometimes they just don't match. My wife doesn't want to see this while a friend of mine, who enjoys foreign and "art" movies, definitely wants to.

I actually think that's perfectly fine. I just wish some folks could see past their gender for a change. We live in a pretty feminist world these days.
Also, reviewers are always full of shit. I'm amazed by that woman's inability to recognize context. Like "I'll cash her check in the morning" couldn't possibly be because he was hired to kill her, right? Of course not, it was for the Hell of it.

She's writing to her audience. Note that Ebert and Hunter are very kind to the movie. Also one of the most politically correct of movie reviewers, the guy from NPR, is also very keen on the movie. But of course, these are guys.

THe more movie reviews you read, the better you are at picking critics that you can agree with.

as for Citizen Kane vs. Sin City- not having seen Sin City yet, I am guessing this is like comparing apples and pineapples. Yes they are both fruit and have the word apple in them, but they are very different beasts.

I remember seeing Alien 2 in the theatre and getting a very strong thrill out of it, an adrenalin surge that lasted most of the days. Not many movies can do that- certainly not Once Upon a Time in Mexico. I think you need to think of both of these movies for what they are, and not what they are not. Citizen Kane makes stylistic choices that are remarkable, but the movie appeals more at an intellectual level than at the emotional. But from what I am reading, most people are finding that Sin City grabs you and drags you in. That's pretty cool for a thrill ride.
 
welsh said:
Whoops. My mistake. Thanks for pointing it out in pm KQX. Many apologies.

Thanks for understanding Welsh. Don't scare me like that again :D . Oh and Brady, i only quoted you because you were the only one to answer my question. I used to it to explain the reasoning behind the new thread. That whole thing when i said "Brady said i can" was just a joke, i assumed everyone read the previous pages from the older thread.

Ok, so i saw Sin City again last night, and my love for the movie only increased. But like Roeper (of Ebert and Roeper) pointed out, audiences are going to be divided. I wouldn't expect a lot of people to love the comic book, so naturally a lot of people will not like the movie. Some people were just too shocked by the amount and type of violence. This is what I think blinded some of the critics. They focused too much on the violence aspect they couldn't even begin to grasp the brilliance of the story and style.

Its actually pretty fun to read some of these bad reviews, especially those by yahoo users (if you want to call them “reviews”). Some of them are just hilarious:

DONT LET YOUR MAN SEE THIS

If you enjoyed this movie, I don't blame you. I blame society.

:rofl: Aawww, how adorable.

some Yahoo (L)user said:
There is no real character development and little to explain motivations.

I guess the character development aspect can be added to the fact that most people haven't read the books. That's why I think the movie was especially made for the readers to enjoy. There is a lot of char. development in them, especially with Dwight.

Bradylama said:
What the film suffered the most from, in my opinion, however, was the exclusion of A Dame to Kill For.

You're absolutely right Brady. That's probably my favorite story. I mean, come on, Marv and Dwight join up for a fight!!! Teh Awesome!!!1! There's so much background to the other stories there: Manute's missing eye, more on Marv's “philosophy”, what Shellie meant when she talked about Dwight's “new face”, and most importantly Dwight's motivation for protecting the girls of Old Town. Apart from Dwight, Marv's and Hartigan's motivation in the movie couldn't be clearer or better conveyed. The women they ended their lives for were the only things that were real and true in their miserable lives.

some Yahoo (L)user said:
A few beautiful women in the movie are killed- all are badly used as “eye candy” in a misogynistic world of comic fiction…

Complete Bullshit. All the women had very important roles. Just because they were prostitutes doesn't mean the story is misogynistic.

(Yes I know I’m taking a very facile approach and contradicting opinions of a common yahoo user. I’ll look into the more professional reviews soon)

some Yahoo (L)user said:
poor Frodo gets things cut off

I love that comment

Malky said:
I don't even know what to say. This movie ruled.

Damn it, Malky. I was expecting at least 3 pages from you :D. Have a sit and say stuff! I'm sure you'll have a lot to add to the discussion (even though your memory of the comic books is probably all messed up, judging from our "order" debate in the other thread, heh heh).
 
Bradylama, you know that I appreciate you and enjoy your presence on this board not only because you are a regular poster, insightful, intelligently engaged but, in a bizarre contrast, your are almost mindlessly devoted to an idealized libertarian world which would be a nightmare for most people. Which is funny, and thus makes life enjoyable for the rest of us.

Which is true. It just seemed to be something silly to bring up. I'm not going to bring up something about a person's character in a discussion about, say, Star Wars by saying "What does a socialist know about lightsabre crystals."

I actually think that's perfectly fine. I just wish some folks could see past their gender for a change. We live in a pretty feminist world these days.

Too true. I think I've been lead into a false sense of gender-neutrality by the company I keep. Particularly since this girl didn't seem to fit the bill as the type to be offended by such a movie.

Your assesment of Sin City's appeal is spot-on as well. From the beginning the comics have dealt with familiar archetypes, not engaging stimulation.
 
I guess I'll chime in and say that this movie was awesome and everyone should see it.

And as far as the whole "feminist" thing goes - anyone who takes any set of artificial ideologies so seriously that they absolutely can not or will not see anything except in the context of them should be shunned like a leper. Although it is pretty funny to read "feminists" rant and rave about things like this movie using the same type of rhetoric that the "patriarchal oppressors" use, and very clearly having no clue that they're doing it.
 
Bradylama- You'd be amazed at what socialists would know about light sabre crystals. Remember, it's the capitalists who brought about the end of the old republic and the coming of the totalitarian empire. But that's another film. Ok, I was bad. I apologize, my wrong. Sorry.

A couple more of the yahoo reviews-

We went to see the sneak preview last Tuesday. I didn't know anything about the comic story or what to expect, so I went with a totally open mind. Although the violence was stylized and cartoonish, it was gory beyond belief and very, very disturbing. If you're a parent planning on taking a child to see it, or someone who throws up easily, think twice about going! Graphic violence includes... cannibalism... women's heads mounted on wall... woman still alive in room with mounted heads after being made to watch her own hand get eaten... cannibal being dismembered and eaten by his own dog.. near-drownings in unflushed toilets... fluorescent Predator-style blood splattering everywhere... a kidnapped child being taken to meet her would-be molester... then watching him, and her rescuer, get shot to pieces... a very graphic whipping... body parts everywhere... and an incredible amount of violence towards women. Well I think I've made my point. There is a lot of dark humor such as a talking head, and a good cameo by Rutger Hauer as the priest/crime kingpin father of the maniac cannibal Kevin. But I almost threw up and couldn't eat my popcorn. My 19-year-old son loved the movie and I'm sure a review by him would be totally different. But he agreed with me that's it not for anyone under 17.

That must have been fun. Still Rutger Hauer as a cameo, kind of cool.

Ok, so is the violence over-the-top? Is it necessary?

This is what a snuff film for general circulation would look like. If you like video games like "Grand Theft Auto", where you are trained to kill cops and everyone else, you will like this movie.

It is grotesquery passing as entertainment. There is no plot, not story, just unending cruelty and depravity. I enjoyed the Matrix, Desparados and El Mariachi. I even enjoyed "Scarface." Compared to this film, they were benign. This is just sick. If this movie is actually enjoyed by millions of Americans, it will be a damning indictment of everything that is wrong with our society.

Apparently this guy didn't think so.

That said, there is also this comment, a bit more thoughtful, as to whether the film is really noir.

Having recently watched half a dozen Film Noir classics starring Robert Mitchum, Humphrey Bogart, Fred MacMurray and others, I caught “Frank Miller’s Sin City” today expecting lots of wry sarcasm and sophistication. I should have planned better, discovering too late that a visual sadist (Quentin Tarantino) was “guest director.”
A few humorous lines were well delivered, tongue in cheek, in the first half. Hard-boiled protagonists stung by a hail of bullets survived to jump unscathed from the roofs of tall apartment buildings.

At times the hyperbole was comical- mostly the movie was nauseating.
Brutality that some may find amusing will be considered sadistic and tasteless by others. My idea of sardonic sophistication does not involve a mind-numbing repetition of amputated stumps spurting blood (I lost count after nine gory amputations- my wife couldn’t help me because she left early).
A few beautiful women in the movie are killed- all are badly used as “eye candy” in a misogynistic world of comic fiction, written for immature males. Most though, it is excessive and gratuitous violence that lands this movie on my “must-avoid” list. This supposedly comic book fiction makes an important semi-documentary like “Saving Private Ryan” look tame by comparison. Sorry, kids, it rates an F in my book.

When I think of noir, I think of older films like the Maltese Falcon, the Big Sleep, Double Indemnity, Chinatown.

More modern films- Miller's Crossing, a Simple Plan, Dark City, Angel Heart, Blue Velvet, Memento, LA Confidential, Red Rock West, The Grifters.

Is Sin CIty really noir?
 
welsh said:
Is Sin CIty really noir?

Dictionary.com said:
film noir
n.
A movie characterized by low-key lighting, a bleak urban setting, and corrupt, cynical characters

That's pretty much what I think of when I hear the word "noir." Sin City is noir in it's purest sense, an old-school kind of noir. Lots of black and grey, gritty characters - none of which you'd like to meet in a back alley (except maybe Nancy), heroes that don't neccessarily fit society's definition of "hero," and villains that surpass society's definition of "villain." Sin City is ripe with voice overs, another staple of true film noir.

This is more related to Humphrey Bogart noir than it is to David Lynch noir.
 
Pretty minimal definition of noir, Malk, though I think Sin City probably picks that.

But I would think you need more than cynical characters, dark lighting, urban landscapes to work as a film noir. There are a lot of horror flicks that follow that description.

For more-
film noir's best

try-
The primary moods of classic film noir were melancholy, alienation, bleakness, disillusionment, disenchantment, pessimism, ambiguity, moral corruption, evil, guilt, desperation and paranoia. Heroes (or anti-heroes), corrupt characters and villains included down-and-out, conflicted hard-boiled detectives or private eyes, cops, gangsters, government agents, socio-paths, crooks, war veterans, petty criminals, and murderers. These protagonists were often morally-ambiguous low-lifes from the dark and gloomy underworld of violent crime and corruption. Distinctively, they were cynical, tarnished, obsessive (sexual or otherwise), brooding, menacing, sinister, sardonic, disillusioned, frightened and insecure loners (usually men), struggling to survive - and in the end, ultimately losing.

The females in film noir were either of two types - dutiful, reliable, trustworthy and loving women; or femme fatales - mysterious, duplicitous, double-crossing, gorgeous, unloving, predatory, tough-sweet, unreliable, irresponsible, manipulative and desperate women. Usually, the male protagonist in film noir wished to elude his mysterious past, and had to choose what path to take (or have the fateful choice made for him). Invariably, the choice would be an overly ambitious one. Often, it would be to follow the goadings of a traitorous femme fatale who destructively would lead the struggling hero into committing murder or some other crime of passion. When the major character was a detective or private eye, he would become embroiled and trapped in an increasingly-complex, convoluted case that would lead to fatalistic, suffocating evidences of corruption and death.

Film noir films (mostly shot in gloomy grays, blacks and whites) showed the dark and inhumane side of human nature with cynicism and doomed love, and they emphasized the brutal, unhealthy, seamy, shadowy, dark and sadistic sides of the human experience. An oppressive atmosphere of menace, pessimism, anxiety, suspicion that anything can go wrong, dingy realism, futility, fatalism, defeat and entrapment were stylized characteristics of film noir. The protagonists in film noir were normally driven by their past or by human weakness to repeat former mistakes.

Film noir was marked by expressionistic lighting, deep-focus camera work, disorienting visual schemes, jarring editing or juxtaposition of elements, skewed camera angles (usually vertical or diagonal rather than horizontal), circling cigarette smoke, existential sensibilities, and unbalanced compositions. Settings were often interiors with low-key lighting, venetian-blinded windows and rooms, and dark, claustrophobic, gloomy appearances. Exteriors were often urban night scenes with deep shadows, wet asphalt, dark alleyways, rain-slicked or mean streets, flashing neon lights, and low key lighting. Story locations were often in murky and dark streets, dimly-lit apartments and hotel rooms of big cities, or abandoned warehouses. [Often-times, war-time scarcities were the reason for the reduced budgets and shadowy, stark sets of B-pictures and film noirs.]

Narratives were frequently complex, maze-like and convoluted, and typically told with foreboding background music, flashbacks (or a series of flashbacks), witty, razor-sharp and acerbic dialogue, and/or reflective and confessional, first-person voice-over narration. Amnesia suffered by the protagonist was a common plot device, as was the downfall of an innocent Everyman who fell victim to temptation or was framed. Revelations regarding the hero were made to explain/justify the hero's own cynical perspective on life. Some of the most prominent directors of film noir included Orson Welles, John Huston, Billy Wilder, Edgar Ulmer, Robert Siodmak, Fritz Lang, Otto Preminger, and Howard Hawks
 
welsh said:
Pretty minimal definition of noir, Malk, though I think Sin City probably picks that.

Exactly. It's a very basic, textbook style of noir. The movie/comic doesn't try to be pretentious, it doesn't try to be something it's not. It's juyst plain old gritty, violent, and misanthropic.
 
calculon00 said:
I like movies with style, and this was just oozing style.

I actually thought it didn't have enough style. They should have focused on one story (Marv's) and drawn it out and slowed it down. Well, they probably could have put Hartigan's story in there, too, and just cut Dwight's altogether. Maybe put Dwight's and a few of the odds and ends left from the comics in another movie.

While I appreciate the faithfulness of the movie to the comic, they did cut one crucial scene. The one where Marv goes back home to his mother's house to get Gladys (his pistol for those who haven't read the books). This is what gave Marv another dimension, added backstory, and made the "threatened to kill my mom" line mean something.

I haven't read the books in years; I sold them awhile ago. But I'm sure they cut out a bunch of good narrative as well.

Like I said before, it's a very good movie. But it seems like they tried to cram too much substance and plot into a limited time allowance, and didn't allow enough of the style and timing of the comics to come through.

That's what true noir's all about: style. It's not something you can just Google to understand. That's like trying to describe what punk is.
 
satanisgreat9 said:
While I appreciate the faithfulness of the movie to the comic, they did cut one crucial scene. The one where Marv goes back home to his mother's house to get Gladys (his pistol for those who haven't read the books). This is what gave Marv another dimension, added backstory, and made the "threatened to kill my mom" line mean something.

They actually filmed it and cut it for time and pace reasons. It will be on the DVD, as well as a few other short scenes that were cut out.

SimpleMinded said:
I was curious if anyone could explain Josh Hartnetts role to me (he only has the scenes at the beginning and the end). If it's too much of a spoiler for this thread, can you pm an explanation of his character's role for me?

He's a serial killer.
 
I would like to bring another definition to the table.

FILM NOIR
(A guide for those people who think Star Wars is an old movie)

Technically, film noir means 'black film', but...
...look, you know what it has come to mean, even if you didn't know what it was called, because I doubt if there has ever been a movie style that can be so recognisably parodied. Film Noir is what you get when you stir together The Maltese Falcon, The Big Sleep, Casablanca, To Have and Have Not and several dozen other movies made in the 40s and 50s. The weather is bad, the lighting is low, the streets are mean, life is cheap and the women are tougher than nails and have shoulder pads on which a competent pilot could land a small jet. People tend to lie a lot and double-cross one another. It's the monochrome world of cynical detectives with their names spelled backwards on the glass doors of seedy offices and a bottle of rye in their desk drawer. And people smoked a lot, probably because of the stress of the lying, double-crossing, bad weather and walking into furniture in the low light. Technically, it died out in the mid-50s and the lightening of the post-war gloom, but surfaces in countless parodies (Dead Men Don't Wear Plaid) homages (Blade Runner) and references so ingrained in popular culture that you probably know exactly what I'm talking about even if you've never seen one of the movies.
Play it again, Sam.

If you really must know, this is the introduction to the game Discworld Noir, written by Terry Pratchett.

I do think it touches on one issue of relevance, does Sin City have to be film noir, or can it be something different that has its origins in the film noir traditions? A homage/evolution/distillation, any term that you think best describes it.
 
satanisgreat9 said:
I actually thought it didn't have enough style. They should have focused on one story (Marv's) and drawn it out and slowed it down. Well, they probably could have put Hartigan's story in there, too, and just cut Dwight's altogether. Maybe put Dwight's and a few of the odds and ends left from the comics in another movie.

I think i disagree with pretty much everything above, heh heh. I really don't see how it didn't have enough style. The movie could have been OK with just Marv's story with a slower pace, but it is by far much better as it is now. I loved how it had 3 (or 4, 5) great endings. And then all of sudden, here we go again with another story, with the same great style only different characters. I loved that feeling when watching the movie, because you really ask for more after every story.

Marv's story is cool, but Dwight and Hartigan is what i liked most about the movie. In fact, as we said earlier, if the movie was going to focus on just one character, i would pick Dwight. Putting "A dame to Kill for" and "THe big fat kill" together in one movie would be so amazing. But, like you said, that could be material for a sequel.....wow a sequel with the other three big stories and some other short stories from "Booze Broads & Bullets".

satanisgreat9 said:
While I appreciate the faithfulness of the movie to the comic, they did cut one crucial scene. The one where Marv goes back home to his mother's house to get Gladys (his pistol for those who haven't read the books). This is what gave Marv another dimension, added backstory, and made the "threatened to kill my mom" line mean something.

Yep, i mentioned the same point in my first post. I don't understand why they cut it. It would have helped the pacing. Marv's story needed some balance like the other two had.

satanisgreat9 said:
I haven't read the books in years; I sold them awhile ago.

I'm sorry, but did you just say you sold your sin city books? Well i really hope it was for a very good reason, like paying off the Mob so they wouldn't wack you and your whole family. Otherwise.....what a horribly wrong thing to do. :)
 
Malkavian said:
SimpleMinded said:
I was curious if anyone could explain Josh Hartnetts role to me (he only has the scenes at the beginning and the end). If it's too much of a spoiler for this thread, can you pm an explanation of his character's role for me?

He's a serial killer.

Thought he was a hitman - that makes more sense but then i havent read the comics.
 
[PCE said:
el_Prez]
Malkavian said:
SimpleMinded said:
I was curious if anyone could explain Josh Hartnetts role to me (he only has the scenes at the beginning and the end). If it's too much of a spoiler for this thread, can you pm an explanation of his character's role for me?

He's a serial killer.

Thought he was a hitman - that makes more sense but then i havent read the comics.

I'm pretty sure he kills for sport. He's only in one short story, the one in the beginning of the film. The last line is "I'll cash her check in the morning," which gives the idea that he kills for fun and his own motives.
 
I have to say, from all the signs, he is a hitman (one hired by the people he kills, an easy death). After all, he is credited as "the Salesman," the short story he appears in is "The Customer Is Always Right," and the line "I'll cash her check in the morning" strongly indicates that she hired him.

It also makes sense at the ending, with Becky. She did not have much to look forward to, with the Old Towne girls still around.

It all seems to line up pretty well.
 
Nice addition Kotario. I think that's were the question falls. Film Noir is perhaps a past movement and what we have now is more "films done in the noir tradition." Take for instance Dark City or Strange Days, or even Chinatown.

The darkness, mood, cycnism, the idea that good does not win over evil or that good itself may lack definition, or that the world doesn't quite work the way it should and the melancholy fatalism of it all- but that's also a question of style or mood, a notion of the existential that isn't quite right.

In Blue Velvet you have that contrast between the a dark noir world and a more bright and idealistic world.

Sin City could just be pulp fiction and not noir, or it could be some new variation of noir.

I really don't know- got to check it out soon.
 
Back
Top