PDA

View Full Version : DID anyone NOT like Sin City?



Tyeron
04-04-2005, 06:20 AM
Cause i didn't dig it

i mean seriously
i fought off sleep like twice in the theatre
i just didn't think the switch of mediums.. with hardly any changes between the comic to the movie...i think the film suffered mostly because of this.

i was bored, i didn't care about any of these characters.. except marv.. i just wanted to like marv.. but ya know.. even after all that.. i still couldn't fully enjoy marv as the ass kicker i know him as...

i love the books, i've read them and searched out lil one shots that came for like christmas and stuff, i love sin city stuff.. but man.. sin city the movie.. short of some small nifty things ... i just thought the film was lacking in alot of areas.. don't want to go into too many details.. i don't want to spoil anything for people that will see it.. and i know people really dig this flick.. i'm just having a hard time understanding why..

i think my favorite part was the bit Tarantino did, i felt that i could tell there was a genuine change in the feel .. and i dunno if it was just that the dialog lent itself to being a scene that tarantino could really pull out.. but after seeing the cardboard performance of say Michael Madsen, or the lines that felt that someone was typing them as they said them i just had a hard time going on.. i wanted the movie to end.. and i felt like i had a reprieve several times only to see that hartigan is still going, marv is still tickin', dwight never really got hurt.. feh...

did anyone have a same experience?
I'm just confused... everyone else seemed to really dig it
:(

WAKKAJAWAKKA
04-04-2005, 06:24 AM
I Dunno. I Liked It, But I Thought Alot Of The Stuff Looked Kinda Goofy In Motion, And Some Of The Lines, They Just Didn't Seem To Work As Well For Some Reason. Like The Movie Was Taking Itself Real Seriously, But It Wasn't A Serious Movie.

Everyone In The Theater I Saw It In Laughed Through The Whole Thing.

Wayno.

Brian Defferding
04-04-2005, 06:28 AM
I Dunno. I Liked It, But I Thought Alot Of The Stuff Looked Kinda Goofy In Motion, And Some Of The Lines, They Just Didn't Seem To Work As Well For Some Reason. Like The Movie Was Taking Itself Real Seriously, But It Wasn't A Serious Movie.

Everyone In The Theater I Saw It In Laughed Through The Whole Thing.

Wayno.

See I didn't take it as a movie trying to take itself seriously. The melodramatic dialogue and over-the-top action kinda gave it away that a viewer isn't supposed to look at it like it's something real; but more that it's an escapist fantasy.

Tyeron
04-04-2005, 06:30 AM
I Dunno. I Liked It, But I Thought Alot Of The Stuff Looked Kinda Goofy In Motion, And Some Of The Lines, They Just Didn't Seem To Work As Well For Some Reason. Like The Movie Was Taking Itself Real Seriously, But It Wasn't A Serious Movie.

Everyone In The Theater I Saw It In Laughed Through The Whole Thing.

Wayno.


ya know there was some laughter around us too
and i admit i had a few embaressed giggles.. at a few shots
there's one of marv driving with wendy (not goldie, unless she's feeling extra nice) and the two of them in the car looks like an old stop motion saturday night live skit.. i was just looking at it like.. DAMN Marv's head is friggin huge
i dunno.. well that makes me feel a lil better..

JABSEN
04-04-2005, 06:31 AM
Iwent with six people.One of them thought it was Gawd-Awful.If that makes you feel better.

Jew Mafia
04-04-2005, 06:32 AM
I liked it, but certainly don't love it like a lot of people have said they do. Madsen was terrible, especially at the beginning. The stories seemed to be really rushed too. I know they had to get them all in to make it at 2 hours, but while each individual story seemed rush, the movie it self seemed to run to long.

Tyeron
04-04-2005, 06:33 AM
See I didn't take it as a movie trying to take itself seriously. The melodramatic dialogue and over-the-top action kinda gave it away that a viewer isn't supposed to look at it like it's something real; but more that it's an escapist fantasy.

yeah i was trying to not take it seriously.. but there were some times where i think they could have pulled it back.. i mean there's lots of people watching this for the first time.. and they were laughing at the spots that weren't intended to be funny.. that's not a good sign.. they weren't laughing out of joy it was ridicule.. it was an "oh my gawd what the hell are they trying to fool us with here" kind of laugh..

i guess we'll really see what happens to it this next weekend

Parker
04-04-2005, 06:33 AM
I mean I liked it but it felt a bit disconnected to me...like three separate short stories in Sin City and then a brief connection at the end with Hartigan which I felt was forced...

Overall I thought it was fun....I mean there were parts where people in the theatre were laughing when I don't think that was the intent

Donal DeLay
04-04-2005, 06:33 AM
I had issues with it. It was a COOL ASS movie stylistically, and visually, but the dialogue from the comic didn't alltogether translate well into film. Specifically Micheal Madsen. Normally, I love him in badass roles, or underhanded roles, but the scen with him and Willis - before Willis decks him - was just too wooden. It sounded like a table reading.

It felt like they all knew they were doing a pulp crime noir movie and wanted to ACT accordingly, instead of just ACT the characters. Other things that irked me about it was because it was in front of a green screen, and they had to imagine what was in front of them, sometimes it showed.

What I don't get, though, is Rodriguez and Miller keep going on about how they had to do three stories to fill the film time. Um ... then why were scenes, cool ass scenes that show Marv's level of determination, cut out?

Climbing the wall to escape the cops. Going to his mom's house tog get his guns. Jumping into the steel door to break free.

Was it just me and my memory, but I could've SWORE Mr. Schlubb was fat, not built. I'm too lazy to go back and look in my trades.

Still an awesome movie, and it's going into my top 5.

Gregory
04-04-2005, 06:34 AM
I was ready for the film to end at the close of Big Fat Kill. It felt like a great note to close on. The slow pace getting us back into the Hartigan story had me yawning, but I thought this was the story that made the most of the stark contrast (like when Hartigan leaves the jail) and color placement. My gal hadn't read the Yellow Bastard issues yet and practically demanded to see them when we got home. She also hasn't read To Hell and Back yet.

I'm convinced that I wasn't as eagerly fawning over it because it's so faithful an adaptation. I have these books. I know these stories (and where's the scene with Marv's mom, anyway?). I was watching the production more than the tales. I enjoyed it. I did. Just without the novel thrill newcomers will have.

yeamon
04-04-2005, 06:36 AM
People Magazine gave it two stars. I know this because my wife reads People Magazine. I find it appropriate that People Magazine would pan 'Sin City' because I don't think their readership is the target audience for this film. My wife loves that trashy magazine, but I know for a fact she would absolutely hate 'Sin City'.

Cth
04-04-2005, 06:36 AM
I had a similar reaction. Of course, I was being a film/CGI geek and not just relaxing and enjoying the film.

I didn't hate it, but I wasn't overly excited. I'll see if that changes by seeing it a second time.

I thought the CGI stuff looked really bad in some spots, but in others unbelievable. The transition between the two at times was jarring. Specifically, when he'd do an overhead shot and the character was gray and black on white, but when they zoomed to a close up, the character suddenly became darker hued with less shadows, etc.

Of course, I went into the film having not read the series since the early nineties.. went back, dug up the old issues and was impressed by how literally it was shot for shot on screen.

The Tarantino scene stood out to me which put me out of the film again.

Still, beautiful looking film, decent cast, etc.. Next time should be better when I'm not analyzing the thing to death.

Cth
04-04-2005, 06:39 AM
I was ready for the film to end at the close of Big Fat Kill. It felt like a great note to close on. The slow pace getting us back into the Hartigan story had me yawning, but I thought this was the story that made the most of the stark contrast (like when Hartigan leaves the jail) and color placement. My gal hadn't read the Yellow Bastard issues yet and practically demanded to see them when we got home. She also hasn't read To Hell and Back yet.

I'm convinced that I wasn't as eagerly fawning over it because it's so faithful an adaptation. I have these books. I know these stories (and where's the scene with Marv's mom, anyway?). I was watching the production more than the tales. I enjoyed it. I did. Just without the novel thrill newcomers will have.

Ok, this summed it up perfectly.

My wife was begging to see the original issues after seeing the film. She was surprised I wasn't as excited as she was. I think you nailed it on the head why that's the case.

dEnny!
04-04-2005, 06:48 AM
.. but after seeing the cardboard performance of say Michael Madsen

Michael Madsen's performance SUCKED! I'm stunned none of the directors or even Bruce Willis allowed that crap to get on screen.

I was disappointed in the lack of the cool music found in the trailer.

The Marv story I feel suffered from a lack of good transitions; it didn't flow. Movies and comics flow differently; I think the Hartigan and Dwight stories though were great. Loved the 2nd and 3rd acts, first act was a little eh, which sucks because I dig Marv's story. I liked the prologue and epilogue's though.

Matt Jay
04-04-2005, 06:53 AM
I loved the movie, but I never read the comics so I can't compare.

I thought that Madsen sucked at first, but as the movie went on I noticed that lots of the non-main character acting was melodramatic or hammy on purpose. Could it be that Madsen was supposed to come across as sucky? That's how I see it now. The shitty acting being done just as an homage/mocking gesture to old movies (not necessarily film noir).

Jonny Z
04-04-2005, 06:54 AM
i had a lot of problems with pacing, but otherwised i loved it.

and from what ive heard, the DVD will be packed with extras, INCLUDING a separate disc with the ability to watch the individual stories with even more scenes included- where im sure theyll throw in more with marv and his mom for example. i think thats gonna be even better than the actual film thats in theaters now (unforutnately its almost impossible to release shorter films like yellow bastard or big fat kill would be on their own)

Balthazar
04-04-2005, 06:56 AM
I was dissapointed. I thought the music was lacking, Madsen was especially horrible, and I would have liked to see a less iteral translation of the books. I would have liked a more realistic take, less fantastic. i don't think Marv or Dwight or Hartigen needed to be seen as superhuman for this to work. I didn't dislike it, I just wasn;t as happy with it as I thought I was going to be.

WAKKAJAWAKKA
04-04-2005, 06:57 AM
I was dissapointed. I thought the music was lacking, Madsen was especially horrible, and I would have liked to see a less iteral translation of the books. I would have liked a more realistic take, less fantastic. i don't think Marv or Dwight or Hartigen needed to be seen as superhuman for this to work. I didn't dislike it, I just wasn;t as happy with it as I thought I was going to be.

Word.

Wayno.

Jason_BANNED
04-04-2005, 06:58 AM
DID anyone NOT like Sin City?

The Drudge Report hated it, but then again, that's not really saying much.


# 1 MOVIE IN USA WEEKEND POPE DIES 'SIN CITY' FEATURES A CARDINAL AS CANNIBAL, IN LEAGUE WITH A SERIAL KILLER WHO READS THE BIBLE, A CROSS IN JUST ABOUT EVERY SCENE... MOVIE FEATURES BRUCE WILLIS RIPPING A MAN'S PENIS OFF... (http://www.drudgereport.com/)


Jason

dEnny!
04-04-2005, 07:02 AM
The Drudge Report hated it, but then again, that's not really saying much.




Jason

Why are you "drudging" THIS up again? :D

SteveZegers
04-04-2005, 07:07 AM
The only thing that bugged me was Marv's "Never get wet hair". Loved everything else.

dEnny!
04-04-2005, 07:09 AM
The only thing that bugged me was Marv's "Never get wet hair". Loved everything else.

Actually what bugged me more about that was how the blood disappeared on him. He'd be bloody in a scene the camera would change angles and it'd be wiped away, no mark. And if you are going to put band aids over your eyes, at least have a gash there.

Jonny Z
04-04-2005, 07:10 AM
oh and the only performance i wanted to erase from my memory was brittany murphy as shelley... jesus christ- over the top

WAKKAJAWAKKA
04-04-2005, 07:13 AM
Actually what bugged me more about that was how the blood disappeared on him. He'd be bloody in a scene the camera would change angles and it'd be wiped away, no mark. And if you are going to put band aids over your eyes, at least have a gash there.

Yeah, That Blood Thing Was Weak. When Wendy Had Him Tied Up That Was Goin On Alot.

Wayno.

Balthazar
04-04-2005, 07:14 AM
I think part of my problem is that having read the Sin City books so much, I had already given voices to these characters and seen them move in my head. Trying to compare to that is going to come up short.

dEnny!
04-04-2005, 07:16 AM
Yeah, That Blood Thing Was Weak. When Wendy Had Him Tied Up That Was Goin On Alot.

Wayno.

Those were some very weak looking blows she handed out to Marv.

GelfXIII
04-04-2005, 07:16 AM
I'm sorry, but you dude's are all tapped.

Sin City was fabulous, awesome, and splendiferous. Gorgeous too.

You all should turn in your comic geek union cards if you can't get behind this one.

Just the way I feel about it. :D

Gregory
04-04-2005, 07:16 AM
Actually what bugged me more about that was how the blood disappeared on him. He'd be bloody in a scene the camera would change angles and it'd be wiped away, no mark. And if you are going to put band aids over your eyes, at least have a gash there.

I thought she fit in with the style of the film. She was just as much of a caricature as Jackie, Marv and Yellow Bastard.

davisturn
04-04-2005, 07:16 AM
I thought visually it was a good adaptation, but the stories seemed a bit repetitive in theme: thug/ex-con/ex-cop must save/avenge stripper/hooker(s) - where as with "Pulp Fiction" you had a star-crossed love story, an inadvertant tale of family honor, and one where a character is at a crossroads in his life.

Mickey Rourke does make a good Marv, though.

Brian Defferding
04-04-2005, 07:22 AM
oh and the only performance i wanted to erase from my memory was brittany murphy as shelley... jesus christ- over the top

I thought Brittney Murphy wasn't bad...it's Michael Madsen's performance was God awful. I used to like him as an actor, but Jesus I wanted to shoot the screen when I heard him say those lines.

Other than that - I loved the movie and is now one of my all-time favorites. :D

WAKKAJAWAKKA
04-04-2005, 07:24 AM
Those were some very weak looking blows she handed out to Marv.

I Was Thinking Goofy.

Wayno.

dEnny!
04-04-2005, 07:26 AM
I'm sorry, but you dude's are all tapped.

Sin City was fabulous, awesome, and splendiferous. Gorgeous too.

You all should turn in your comic geek union cards if you can't get behind this one.

Just the way I feel about it. :D

I enjoyed the movie so much I feel free to nitpick, but I think we all can agree on Madsen's cardboard performance.

Fourthman
04-04-2005, 07:31 AM
I was disappointed. And the least of my problems with the film was that bass-y score that sounded like the first 5 seconds of "Baby Got Back". Couldn't they have given Mix a cameo?

GelfXIII
04-04-2005, 07:35 AM
I enjoyed the movie so much I feel free to nitpick, but I think we all can agree on Madsen's cardboard performance.

Granted. And my nit-pick would be the third repitition of "Prove you're worth something, old man."

But still. To a comic book fan like me, this is an all-time great flick. can't wait to see it again.

Raphael J
04-04-2005, 07:36 AM
I liked it, but it definitely didn't live up to the hype. Dwight's story was very weak and looked redunandant in comparison to what happened in Marv's. I loved Jackie Boy, Shelly, and Dwight, but I felt that the movie took an absurd town once they got stuck in O Town. Similarly, the scene where the ladies are getting rid of their problem looked cheap and idiotic. Hartigan's story was great though.

And in all honesty, I do believe the movie was mysoginistic. Lucille standing around, naked in front of Marv just felt odd, as well as ninja prostitutes (who were still very enjoyable). The nazi imagery, which may have been intended as Buddhist/Hindu imagery, made me question Miller. Why would Miho use a throwing star in the form of something that represented peace, luck, and joy to kill people? We then later see another guy with a swastika on his forehead, so it made me wonder what kind of comparison Frank Miller was asking us to make with the two.

Like I said, it was good, but others have done it better. It had huge hype and I just feel that certain parts of Marv's story and most of Dwight's story were not that great.

Fourthman
04-04-2005, 07:38 AM
Like I said, it was good, but others have done it better. It had huge hype and I just feel that certain parts of Marv's story and most of Dwight's story were not that great.

Bound comes to mind as a good movie version of Sin City. The Wachowskis said they read the first one "a thousand times" before shooting the film.

Lab-Rat
04-04-2005, 07:48 AM
I loved it. In all honesty I was happy with the movie apon first viewing. I thought it was great. I had a few problems with a few scenes, but I still loved it and thought it was better than most of the movies I've seen in the last 2 years....and that's saying alot because alot of good movies came out druing that period. Is it the best movie to come out in a long time? maybe not the best...but it was up there with the best, definatly.

When I went and saw it the first time I watched it simply as a movie. I loved it. The second time I went and saw it I payed more attention to the technical side of things. BEcause of this, I think I was able to enjoy the movie more than if I had actually looked at the movie for being the technical marvel that it is. I don't know...maybe it's just me. I thought it was great, and honestly can't wait for the DVD.

J. R. Scherer
04-04-2005, 07:55 AM
My only problem with it was that I felt Marv's story was a bit rushed.
It was my favorite and I wanted to savor it more.

As for the disappearing blood/cuts--it's exactly what happens in the comics. Rodriguez and Miller reproduced everything slavishly, even that.
Worked for me.

Fourthman
04-04-2005, 08:07 AM
My only problem with it was that I felt Marv's story was a bit rushed.
It was my favorite and I wanted to savor it more.

As for the disappearing blood/cuts--it's exactly what happens in the comics. Rodriguez and Miller reproduced everything slavishly, even that.
Worked for me.

You know, Sin City might be a better example of somene staying completely faitful to the source material to make the film. This is no slight against your preference, but I think that when the film is THIS faithful to the source material, you may have accuracy, but you've got half a film. It may work for some, if not most, of the fans and some people who'd be fans of the original work if they ever found out about it, but accurate is not necessarily good. When your source material is as strong as Sin City, there's a possibility that not enough translation will be done to make a good film. Too much of the grammar of comics and not enough of the grammar of film in the editing. Accuracy in adapatation should be measured in how well the film reproduces the spirit and nuance of the original work, not how well cast or visually representative it is. I felt like Sin City, the film was very silly - and that's a word I'd never have thought to apply to the comics.

Raphael J
04-04-2005, 08:09 AM
Bound comes to mind as a good movie version of Sin City. The Wachowskis said they read the first one "a thousand times" before shooting the film.

Well, not only that, but the noir genre as a whole. I just feel it was time to step their games up and maybe tweak (*gasp*, change something about the story?!?! Fanboys, Assemble!) some of the story to make it a little less silly.

But that's just me.

J. R. Scherer
04-04-2005, 08:10 AM
You know, Sin City might be a better example of somene staying completely faitful to the source material to make the film. This is no slight against your preference, but I think that when the film is THIS faithful to the source material, you may have accuracy, but you've got half a film. It may work for some, if not most, of the fans and some people who'd be fans of the original work if they ever found out about it, but accurate is not necessarily good. When your source material is as strong as Sin City, there's a possibility that not enough translation will be done to make a good film. Too much of the grammar of comics and not enough of the grammar of film in the editing. Accuracy in adapatation should be measured in how well the film reproduces the spirit and nuance of the original work, not how well cast or visually representative it is. I felt like Sin City, the film was very silly - and that's a word I'd never have thought to apply to the comics.

Sin City is one of those movies where pretty much every criticism is valid.

Really, it either works for you, or it doesn't, and I can totally understand when people say that it doesn't work for them.

Opus Croakus
04-04-2005, 08:13 AM
I too loved the movie but was bothered by Madsen.
He delivered his lines like he was starring in a bad SNL film noir parody.

Fourthman
04-04-2005, 08:20 AM
Well, not only that, but the noir genre as a whole. I just feel it was time to step their games up and maybe tweak (*gasp*, change something about the story?!?! Fanboys, Assemble!) some of the story to make it a little less silly.

But that's just me.

I agree with you, but Bound stands out as being a direct descendant of Sin City (the comic), whereas the rest of the genre is what made Sin City. Part of (what seems to be what we both think is) the problem is that Sin City the film is refracting the most extreme tropes and editing techniques of the genre through Miller's sense of irony (and his deconstruction of the entire genre to begin with - HE WAS TAKING FILM NOIR APART! This was never supposed to be filmed!) back onto the screen. I think the result is a silly mess. Whereas a film like Bound understands film better; a pause in dialogue is a real moment where worlds of information can be communicated, not an opportunity to show white rain, or where we put the color in this shot.
I'm done here - starting to get bitter.

Tyeron
04-04-2005, 08:43 AM
Oh

as a lil addendum

i liked Elijah wood as Kevin,
but .. as a back handed kind of compliment.. i think his character worked so well because he had no lines.. damn I tried to say something nice..
ohh well....

Brendan
04-04-2005, 08:51 AM
did anyone have a same experience?

I haven't seen it, 'cause I think it looks goofy. I watch the previews and trailers and giggle. I'm still convinced this is a big April Fool's joke. ;)

I might give it a try on DVD.

BC at large!
04-04-2005, 09:35 AM
The elements of the film that weren't realistic enough, or the performances that weren't good...It's becuase this isn't supposed to be reality.

It's grounded in reality, but it's still very much a fantasy universe. It's obvious by the way that old fashioned cars and architecture and modern notes like cel phones exist on screen at the same time. Look at the way Marv was tossed around like a rag doll every time Goldie/Wendy slammed into him. Or how many times characters were shot, but kept on coming. It's not supposed to be ultra-realistic. It's a stylized crime noir piece, much like Sin City the comics are.

I'm just amazed at how much comics fans complain when so many liberties are taken when the books are made into movies, and now that we have an almost direct translation that's near-identical to the book, they're complaining about that!

J. R. Scherer
04-04-2005, 09:39 AM
The elements of the film that weren't realistic enough, or the performances that weren't good...It's becuase this isn't supposed to be reality.

It's grounded in reality, but it's still very much a fantasy universe. It's obvious by the way that old fashioned cars and architecture and modern notes like cel phones exist on screen at the same time. Look at the way Marv was tossed around like a rag doll every time Goldie/Wendy slammed into him. Or how many times characters were shot, but kept on coming. It's not supposed to be ultra-realistic. It's a stylized crime noir piece, much like Sin City the comics are.

I'm just amazed at how much comics fans complain when so many liberties are taken when the books are made into movies, and now that we have an almost direct translation that's near-identical to the book, they're complaining about that!

I get where you're coming from, but this movie is so different from anything else that's come before it that I can see why it doesn't work for some people.

The Human Target
04-04-2005, 09:42 AM
The elements of the film that weren't realistic enough, or the performances that weren't good...It's becuase this isn't supposed to be reality.

It's grounded in reality, but it's still very much a fantasy universe. It's obvious by the way that old fashioned cars and architecture and modern notes like cel phones exist on screen at the same time. Look at the way Marv was tossed around like a rag doll every time Goldie/Wendy slammed into him. Or how many times characters were shot, but kept on coming. It's not supposed to be ultra-realistic. It's a stylized crime noir piece, much like Sin City the comics are.

I'm just amazed at how much comics fans complain when so many liberties are taken when the books are made into movies, and now that we have an almost direct translation that's near-identical to the book, they're complaining about that!

I love it for what it is. I just wish the acting wouldn't have been all "noired" up and that the CGI was way toned down.

Fourthman
04-04-2005, 09:50 AM
I'm just amazed at how much comics fans complain when so many liberties are taken when the books are made into movies, and now that we have an almost direct translation that's near-identical to the book, they're complaining about that!

Bitterness has passed.

It's not like comics fans are one person who is hypocritical. If a film is good, I'll say so whether it's faithful or not. If a comic is good I'll say so as well. But quality doesn't translate with accuracy, it translates with adaptation. I think that bringing in Miller, an untested director to work with a veteran cast, shows in the quality of some of the performances. His presence on set and one assumes in the editing room, IMHO was something that blocked adaptation. It kept an inventive filmmaker like Rodriguez from expanding on the material and coming up with something that transcends the original work; something that worked more fluidly and perhaps better as a film.

Nick_Borelli
04-04-2005, 09:51 AM
I'm sorry, but you dude's are all tapped.

Sin City was fabulous, awesome, and splendiferous. Gorgeous too.

You all should turn in your comic geek union cards if you can't get behind this one.

Just the way I feel about it. :D

It's the way I feel as well.

We now have a live action comic book.

All I saw was love and understanding of our favorite medium expressed in another medium.

Fourthman
04-04-2005, 10:06 AM
All I saw was love and understanding of our favorite medium expressed in another medium.

As a serious question - does that sound like anything anyone would want to see? Because that's kind of my point about this film. But if we're going to use those terms I'd argue that American Splendor did a better job of the above.

Tyeron
04-04-2005, 10:29 AM
As a serious question - does that sound like anything anyone would want to see? Because that's kind of my point about this film. But if we're going to use those terms I'd argue that American Splendor did a better job of the above.


Word

Gregory
04-04-2005, 10:35 AM
As a serious question - does that sound like anything anyone would want to see? Because that's kind of my point about this film. But if we're going to use those terms I'd argue that American Splendor did a better job of the above.

I'd answer yes, and I think this film did so. Cartoony physics, inhuman tolerance for pain, audible thought balloons (they surpassed simple internal monologues), grotesques and beauties and wild weaponsplay and an almost unhuman villainy. Hell yes this was an action comic book, and it's unabashedly so. We've had so many adaptations try to ground comic adaptations into reality or more credible situations, and this just gave us unabashed pulp comic material.

J. R. Scherer
04-04-2005, 10:35 AM
As a serious question - does that sound like anything anyone would want to see? Because that's kind of my point about this film. But if we're going to use those terms I'd argue that American Splendor did a better job of the above.

I would say, judging by the amount of positive reviews the movie is receiving, that the answer is yes, it certainly does sound like something people would like to see.

Sin City Reviews on Rotten Tomatoes (http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/sin_city/?beg=0&int=122&creamcrop_limit=34&page=all)

Adrian B AWESOME
04-04-2005, 10:36 AM
I loved it. Absolute. Everything was perfect: score, casting, special effects, make-up, everything.

Fuck the haters, this will be mimicked for years to come.

Adrian B AWESOME
04-04-2005, 10:39 AM
As well, I love how the reviewers who hated the film seem to all constantly site the castrations (heh heh) of Junior Rourke/Yellow Bastard as a sign of severe and disgusting violence.

Ummm....THE GUY IS A SADO-MASOCHIST-RAPIST-CHILD MOLESTER! HOW IS CASTRATING THIS GUY A BAD THING?!

Fourthman
04-04-2005, 10:45 AM
I would say, judging by the amount of positive reviews the movie is receiving, that the answer is yes, it certainly does sound like something people would like to see.

Sin City Reviews on Rotten Tomatoes (http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/sin_city/?beg=0&int=122&creamcrop_limit=34&page=all)

Look, I know people are seeing it, and loving it. But breaking it down to "love and understanding of our favorite medium expressed in another medium" is exactly what MY problem is with the film. I know there's an audience for "The Shield" comic books, and "Halo" novels, and "Spider Man" the movie - but those things, by and large, suck. And when they don't? It's because someone loves the story enough to make it into a good film. I know they were shooting for something different, bravo. But I think love of the medium eclipsed the love of the story (such as it is) here.

Adrian B AWESOME
04-04-2005, 10:46 AM
Here's my personal favorite negative review:

Sitting through the thing, watching scene after scene in which I was being asked to be entertained by the spectacle of helpless people being tortured, I kept thinking of those clean-cut young American guards at Abu Ghraib.That is exactly the mentality Rodriguez is celebrating here. "Sin City" is their movie.

Tyeron
04-04-2005, 10:52 AM
i'm not even thinking about the violence...
never entered the equation for me
i actually perked up when hartigan ripped off the bastards twig and berries...i'm not even sure any of us here have brought up that violence is the problem we have with this film..

the storytelling was bad, the effects detracted at times, the pacing lumbered horribly....


ya know what.. i think miller is at fault here... with the last Dark knight graphic novel he did, it was not so bueno right, seemed like it was just done to get it out there and make money? and he said he would never allow Sin City to be translated to a film, i think at one time, miller understood that it wouldn't translate well, and its entirely possible now that he just wants a paycheck.. but who knows... but the comic is waaaay better... man.. i really want to like this movie.. DAMNIT!

joespam
04-04-2005, 12:29 PM
My biggest beef with this film, maybe my only one, is the performances.

I would have liked it infinitely more if instead of shooting for camp, cliche, and over the top with the line delivery, Rodriguez had let or made the actors go emotionally real. That's what audiences respond to. The most preposterous of story elements and events can be forgiven if the audiences feel for the characters. Without that connection, you alienate a portion of your audience.

As it was, the film is a grand and noble experiment that for me succeeded in every way except the most important one.

RebootedCorpse
04-04-2005, 12:30 PM
My wife.
She said it gave her a stomach ache.
Lightweight.

Hood
04-04-2005, 12:45 PM
it's funny how alot of people feel that the movie is misogynistic when it has such a high level of violence towards the penis. not only that but men getting shot multiple times and slashed and beaten horribly and hit by cars and blown up and decapitated amongst other things. but yeah the first time i saw the movie i was kind of disappointed, i guess because it didn't flow exactly the way i thought it was going to. then i saw it again and knowing what it was going to be i enjoyed it alot more. and yeah rodriguez said in an interview on dark horizons that the dvd will have a second disc containing each story seperately in it's complete form. oh yeah and michael madsen's performance was so bad it's good, been quoting his lines all day

CARSON
04-04-2005, 12:50 PM
I went and saw it with a bunch of my non-comic reading friends and they all loved it. I thought it was insanely cool (though I prefer the comics). I've only heard one person say he didn't like it and he was a major stoner so I don't think his opinion matters much. no offense to all you stoners.

glk
04-04-2005, 01:01 PM
I thought Brittney Murphy wasn't bad...it's Michael Madsen's performance was God awful. I used to like him as an actor, but Jesus I wanted to shoot the screen when I heard him say those lines.

Other than that - I loved the movie and is now one of my all-time favorites. :D

I didn't mind him, his cameo was so brief. But he was absolutely great in Kill Bill vol. 2. Among the best work he's ever done.

Kenneth I. Wolfe
04-04-2005, 01:05 PM
Obviously I didn't enjoy it either. I think two parts of my review is in the Sin City Mega Thread.

andyjoe
04-04-2005, 01:23 PM
liked the movie, becasuse I"m such a freak about the comics.

I think seeing it was seeing teh comics come to life, which was good, but I'm starting to think that it should have been changed more for a movie....damn it to all hell, I know it goes against my fanboy code of honor, but I think changes do need to happen when going from one medium to another.

AJ

BriRedfern
04-04-2005, 01:36 PM
I went and saw it with a bunch of my non-comic reading friends and they all loved it. I thought it was insanely cool (though I prefer the comics). I've only heard one person say he didn't like it and he was a major stoner so I don't think his opinion matters much. no offense to all you stoners.

Oh, we're taking offense. :mad:

Donal DeLay
04-04-2005, 02:03 PM
I really hated the fact that they seperated The Hard Goodbye and That Yellow Bastard to try and make it seem like one coherent story. It didn't work, and just confused matters.

They should have done Hartigan's story, then marv's story, full.

TheKraken
04-04-2005, 02:20 PM
I didn't, but I don't like the comics, either. It was a very faithful adaptation of a pointless, mean-spirited, shlocky comic where all the men are sociopaths and all the women are dirty whores. It's a handful of cliches in search of a movie. Not only that, but the acting was just laughable in alot of spots.

But I went anyway, because the trailers led me to believe there would at least be some really striking and innovative visuals. Colorizing select parts of a black & white film is not striking or innovative. The only visual gimmick I liked was the pure white silhouettes, and they only used that one twice.

This movie brings me down because so many people love it, including people I respect. It makes me feel like they got hoodwinked by a bunch of flash, and I'm more disappointed in them than I am in the movie. But, again, I feel the same way about the comic, so this is nothing new...

RebootedCorpse
04-04-2005, 02:23 PM
I do agree that Alba can't act for shit. She was the suckiest part of this movie (which I loved, btw). She's going to ruin FF.

Fourthman
04-04-2005, 02:25 PM
I do agree that Alba can't act for shit. She was the suckiest part of this movie (which I loved, btw). She's going to ruin FF.

You think so? Because I think FF's already got a whole lot not going for it.

TheKraken
04-04-2005, 02:30 PM
You think so? Because I think FF's already got a whole lot not going for it.

:lol: The odds are long on that one...

I've actually never seen anything with Jessica Alba in it before, but the mostly awful performance from Bruce Willis, Clive Owen fighting a losing battle to hide his accent, Carla Gugino's hilarious freak out scene... thos e really surprised me with how lame they were. Even Michael Madsen usually tries harder than this. I was laughing enough to bother people.

Los
04-05-2005, 10:19 AM
I loved the movie, but then again i love the comics. The performances were over the top and at times it dragged, but it was i think, what it was supposed to be. I don't think it glorified violence, i think it was so over the top that it was laughable. I don't think it portrayed women as whores, they were just women who embraced their sexuality and in a sense were more grounded than the men. I took the movie for what it was, a comic book and i enjoyed it.