Sin City

[Kasonic]

(Old, but I couldn't find it with search!)

10.1/10.

Just watched the DVD, and I must say this is the best movie I've seen in the past year, and one of the my favorite ever. The style, execution, and character is just extraordinary. One of the few movies I'd say everyone should see, just because it takes the film noir genre and perfects it into artistic genius.

(Also - What's that song that plays on the DVD Menu?)

[Sabyn]

The song is called Cells by Servant.

[Faille]

I was going to order this from the US, its not even been out here in the cinema, but was disppointed with the last if extra's and features advirtised for the DVD. Were there any good one on it?

[Zanna'Dar]

Great movie...Frodo was so tricksy!1

[Millie]

I'll go out on a limb and say this movie was vastly overrated. Sure, it was stylistically inventive and visually stunning. But its plot was almost nonexsistent, and as a whole, the movie was little more than an overglorified excuse to show gratuitous violence and nudity. Not that I have anything against violence or nudity, per se. But there are plenty of moments in Sin City where you just think to yourself "Now WHY is that in there?"

[James]

Originally Posted by Millie

But there are plenty of moments in Sin City where you just think to yourself "Now WHY is that in there?"

Sets the tone, in my opinion. I thought the plot lines were great, personally, classic noir tales of love and revenge, filmed and told just the way it should have been. I dunno, maybe I liked Max Payne a little too much.

[Eomer]

I agree with Millie. I thought the movie was really well done visually and all that with good to great (Rourke) performances, but I just didn't see the point of it all. I really didn't give much of a shit about what was going to happen next and so on. Very little substance.

[Szlia]

I am not too sure about the inventivity part since it's an almost litteral panel to shot transfer from the comics. I guess it's original to use that kind of visual style in a movie though.

That said, there is probably an added value with the movie. By delivering multiple stories together and imbricate them somewhat, it really gives a choral feel to the movie. In way, it makes the depiction of the world that is Sin City more important than the adventures of the specific characters that live in it. That aspect is pretty well rounded up in my opinion.

[Vorph]

Originally Posted by Millie

I'll go out on a limb and say this movie was vastly overrated. Sure, it was stylistically inventive and visually stunning. But its plot was almost nonexsistent, and as a whole, the movie was little more than an overglorified excuse to show gratuitous violence and nudity. Not that I have anything against violence or nudity, per se. But there are plenty of moments in Sin City where you just think to yourself "Now WHY is that in there?"

Well, to fans of Frank Miller's work there were no moments at all like that. Sin City is the first comic-movie which actually respected the original work to the degree that ALL comic-movies should. People have been saying for years that comics make perfect storyboards and that it's really frustrating when some Hollywood hack writer thinks he knows better than a guy like Alan Moore how a story should be told. It's sad that Moore doesn't have the same ownership of his work that Miller does so that he too could've found a director like Robert Rodriguez who shares his vision.

So yea, I still consider it easily the best movie made this year so far (and there's nothing on the horizon that I think has a chance of topping it) and one of the best I've ever seen period.

[Eomer]

To me your definition of a good movie is goofy, then. It's a good movie because it follows the source material really faithfully, not because it's actually a good movie? That just doesn't make sense to me. I agree with your sentiment, that they often hack and slash away at the original source and leave behind a giant turd. But if the original story or plot is weak or shallow (which, let's face it, most comics are as they don't have to carry your full undivided attention for 2 or more hours) and the follow it faithfully you think that's good?

[Burf]

I can't help but think that if any other person would have posted what Millie did, they would have been flamed to hell and back.

That said, I thought it was very stylistic, but I just didn't "get it." For too long, I was wondering what the point of it all was.

[Vorph]

Originally Posted by Eomer

To me your definition of a good movie is goofy, then. It's a good movie because it follows the source material really faithfully, not because it's actually a good movie? That just doesn't make sense to me. I agree with your sentiment, that they often hack and slash away at the original source and leave behind a giant turd. But if the original story or plot is weak or shallow (which, let's face it, most comics are as they don't have to carry your full undivided attention for 2 or more hours) and the follow it faithfully you think that's good?

I thought it went without saying that I'm a huge fan of the original material. I'm not sure you can be a comic book fan and not like Frank Miller's work; the only stuff better than his is by Alan Moore or Neil Gaiman imo.

As for the last question, when I said all comic-movies should be like Sin City, I guess I should have clarified it to those based on comics that are already really good. Personally, I can't stand Spiderman, Fantastic Four, The Hulk, Superman, etc. so it doesn't matter to me how well they follow the originals when the originals weren't that great to begin with. It's stuff like From Hell, League of Extraordinary Gentlemen, V for Vendetta, The Watchmen (thankfully this project seems dead), Constantine, The Punisher, Spawn, and most of the Batman movies (as good as Batman Begins was, it would've been even better if they used Frank Miller's Batman Year One as the plot instead) that piss me off because they took great comics and turned them into shitty movies that barely even resembled the original. Well V for Vendetta could still be good, but given Hollywood's past treatment of Alan Moore's work there's nothing to make me optimistic about it.

Originally Posted by Burf

I can't help but think that if any other person would have posted what Millie did, they would have been flamed to hell and back.

You're probably right. I respect Millie's opinion though, even if I totally disagree and think he's nuts for calling Sin City overrated. ^^

[Eomer]

I guess my point is that something that's great in one medium is NOT guaranteed to be great in another medium, if it's simply "ported" from one to the other with no modification. Just because a movie is faithful to it's comic roots does not guarantee that it will be a good movie. I am NOT a comic buff, in fact I doubt I've ever even really bought a comic in my entire life (my brother bought some, and I read some friends from time to time), so I'm not too familiar with how good Sin City is in comic form. Perhaps it's total genius.

But that doesn't mean that faithfully recreating every detail and nuance in a screen adaptation will guarantee that it's a good movie.

A great example is LOTR. I straight up adaptation of the books into the movie would have made for very poor movies, for the vast majority of people. The series would have to be 6 or 7 movies long at least, there'd be a shitload of random elves bursting into song that nobody gives a shit about, and the pacing would be absolutely atrocious.

So I guess it boils down to this: Sin City may well be an extremely good adaptation of a comic book. But it's at best an average film with really interesting visuals and a couple of incredible performances. And seriously, I'm not even a movie snob like Millie!

[Arbitrary]

An average film.

The hell you say.

[Jait]

Remove Bruce Willis and Jessica Alba and you have a great film with good acting. They totally ruined it for me. Clive Owen was brilliant as was Mickey Rouke.