# Sin City



## Raven (Jun 7, 2005)

Watched this one the other night. Another lengthy opinion follows...

OK, the first thing to say is that you'll either love this film... or hate it. Loathe it. Despise it.

That's for two reasons, really. One is that this is the most faithful adaptation of a comic book that's ever been done, in my experience. The casting, the dialogue, the scenery, the makeup, everything is so faithful to the original that frame-by-frame comparison is possible at several points. Any changes made were _only_ those absolutely necessary. 

As the writing credits make clear, this is not a film made from a script based on the _Sin City _graphic novels: this is a film made directly from the GNs themselves. Its style, and tone, and dialogue are those of the GNs.

The second reason is linked to the first - this film really, really deserves the 18 certificate. It's bloody, violent and features some real nasty types, and those are the heroes. The villains are worse. Consider yourselves warned. 

So, bearing all this in mind, is the film actually any good?

It's a masterpiece.

Robert Rodriguez has his failings. Worst of them is a tendency, as writer/director, to let the plot wander and develop gaping holes. However, with Frank Miller by his side, and in sticking so closely to the source material, this problem disappears and we're left with Rodriguez' kinetic, frenetic, stylised direction, perfect for this material. Nobody else, with the possible exception of Tarantino (who directs a section) could have done this film. 

The greenscreening comes off amazingly well. I found it impossible to believe that Mickey Rourke and Elijah Wood never actually met during filming, despite having crucial scenes together. 

And the casting, and performances, are superb.

The film, as Miller fans will know, breaks down into three main stories, with a short intro story, and it's easiest to review it as such. 

We open with the first half of story 3: Bruce Willis as elderly cop Hartigan, saving the young Nancy. Willis is an actor I have never cared for, but he pulls this off brilliantly. He looks weary and abused, but under it all, hard as nails, the perfect Sin City cop. He does what's right, but in a brutal and uncompromising fashion perfectly suited to the milieu. Michael Madsen, for once not the toughest guy on screen, is terrific in support. 

After Hartigan has been blasted into oblivion (we come back to him later), we are introduced to the strongest story, and the strongest performance. Marv was a role that was always difficult: crucial to get right, but not a role many people could play. Mickey Rourke is one of those few who can. 

Like most successful Rourke roles, this is because it allows him to basically play himself - a guy who's maybe taken one too many heavy hits to the head, but who knows it: a guy who'll beat you to death or charm you, who has a ruthless streak a mile wide and yet a peculiar air of vulnerability.

The sight of Mickey/Marv taking his pills ('I got a condition, I get confused') while racing through town on the trail of the guys who killed his lover will live with me for a long time. Superb. From supremely contemptuous ('Modern cars - they all look like electric shavers'), to casually sadistic ('I like hitmen. You can do anything to 'em, and you don't feel bad'), to passionate ('These are the old days, the bad days, the all-or-nothing days. They're back!'), he's perfect. And never more so than when he's beeing ridiculously, absurdly tough. (Marv at his execution: 'Would you hurry it up? I haven't got all night.')

This strand is pretty much a one-man show, though, until Elijah Wood shows up. His performance as Kevin will make you look at Frodo in an entirely different light. Scary. All the more impressive for not having a single line, yet still making me shudder. 

Cameos from Frank Miller, enjoying himself enormously, and Rutger Hauer, as the villain of the piece, top this strand off. It's incredible.

The next strand, sadly, doesn't work quite so well. Clive Owen, perhaps because he appears to be struggling with the accent, hasn't the conviction in the role of Dwight that Rourke has as Marv. 

Still, this is more of an ensemble piece, and Ben del Toro gives a masterful display of bad-guy scenery-chewing as Jackie Boy. Add in another wordless but still effective performance from Devon Aoki as Miho, Rosario Dawson as Gail, and some of the funniest scenes in the film ('Guys, don't you think maybe somebody oughta call a doctor for me or something? This isn't the kind of thing you just ignore, guys.') and the whole comes off as a rollicking piece of sick fun, just the way it should.

Finally, we're back to Hartigan. Eight years later, and eleven-year-old Nancy has grown up into Jessica Alba, much to the delight of the male audience. Another great piece of casting, Alba is sexy as hell, yet innocent in her own way: she sees Hartigan as her white knight, to whom no other man can ever match up. But, this being Sin City, there are some little obstacles to be overcome first. Kidnapping, beating, shooting, that kind of thing. 

This is a much more intense strand than the Dwight story, and I worried about Willis' ability to carry it off. But he does it. And the ending is perfect.

Overall, this is about as good as it gets. Film noir for the 21st century may be a cliche, but it's true.


----------



## Leto (Jun 7, 2005)

So Frank Miller addicts must rush in, and others (like me) must rush out, that's right ?


----------



## Winters_Sorrow (Jun 7, 2005)

Good review.

I fell into the camp of "loved it", personally.
I feel that this movie has a visual style all of its own. Two parts film noir to one part violent action.
The dialogue could come straight out of a Sam Spade serial and should sound corny and cliched....and I suppose it would be if it wasn't delivered with impeccable timing and complete conviction.
For a movie shot entirely on Green-screen, all the locations & environments seemed 100% 'real' (are you watching, Mr Lucas?)
The multiple storylines are put together quite well in although I will admit that I do not like that method of film-making. I guess I was the only one who though Pulp Fiction was filmed like a series of short films in the same town rather than 1 coherent piece.

The character of Marv is superbly realised by Mickey Rourke and his scenes of the movie contain some of the sharpest dialogue and worst scenes of gore.

I give this movie 4.5 out of 5 and the missing .5 is only my dislike of the "short stories" approach QT likes so much.

For those who don't like the movie:
"I can only express puzzlement, bordering upon alarm"


----------



## Winters_Sorrow (Jun 7, 2005)

Leto said:
			
		

> So Frank Miller addicts must rush in, and others (like me) must rush out, that's right ?


 
It's a good movie, but it's probably definately more of a "boys" movie.
If your hubby drags you to see it, pay him back by making him watch The Princess Diaries 3 or something....


----------



## Leto (Jun 7, 2005)

Winters_Sorrow said:
			
		

> It's a good movie, but it's probably definately more of a "boys" movie.
> If your hubby drags you to see it, pay him back by making him watch The Princess Diaries 3 or something....



   

I'm the comic and gore movie addict, not him. And don't think I would have any problem with Sin City violence. It's just that I'm not a fan of Miller storytelling.


----------



## rune (Jun 7, 2005)

I watched a making of the movie the other day on T4.  It looked interesting, though I am unsure if it will appeal to me that much.  My hubby is interested in going to see it, so we'll probably go, and I dont mind a bit of all out violence either


----------



## Foxbat (Jun 7, 2005)

I've had this recomended to me by a few folk now and, after this review, it looks like I'll have to make the time to go and see this.A nice, informative piece. Good one Raven


----------



## Brian G Turner (Jun 7, 2005)

Been tempted by this one, but the idea of possible macho cliche was a little off-putting.

Frank Miller has certainly done some variable work - while his DC and MArvel stuff was generally quality, I can't get the otherwise gratuitous "Hard Boiled" out of my head...

Still, brilliant if the studio has actually kept close to the original graphic novels - maybe Frank Miller's participation should be a guiding light to a certain Mr Alan Moore, whose Watchmen script is almost certainly being butchered at this very moment.

Anyway, I'll keep an eye out for Sin City on DVD.


----------



## Foxbat (Jun 8, 2005)

> Mr Alan Moore, whose Watchmen script is almost certainly being butchered at this very moment.



Is this coming to the big screen?  

If it is I certainly hope it's not butchered.


----------



## Leto (Jun 8, 2005)

Foxbat said:
			
		

> Is this coming to the big screen?
> 
> If it is I certainly hope it's not butchered.



It is and so butchered in the eyes of its creator that Alan Moore doesn't want to have anything to do with DC again. Which leads to a crucial question, who's gonna publish League of Extraordinary Gentlemen Vol. 3 ?


----------



## Brian G Turner (Jun 8, 2005)

Alan Moore was covered in this thread:
http://www.chronicles-network.net/forum/showthread.php?t=5751

where he complained that he was too busy to help with the V for Vendetta film, then complains about it moving tangentially from is original vision.

Frank Miller seems to have made a very clear statement to the writers of the world - that if you can get involved in the filming of your writing project, then you can get results that faithfully represent it.


----------



## Raven (Jun 8, 2005)

Miller was lucky enough to get a director who was a huge fan of his source material AND had the clout to get the film made the way he wanted it made. Moore has never been so lucky. _

Watchmen_ is a case in point. Way back in the late 80s, the studios demanded so many changes to the script that Moore pulled the plug. The latest version has just died because the studio wouldn't cough up the money - they set a budget of $100m and then demanded cuts. Nobody could make a _Watchmen_ film on that budget, and Paul Greengrass did not have the clout in the industry to resist the cuts, let alone demand more.

Miller himself helped, mind you - after seeing what happened to his scripts for _Robocop 2 _and _3_, he swore he would never work in Hollywood again. He only agreed to do so on the explicit condition that he had approval at all stages of production, which is why he gets a co-director credit - he was literally on set throughout filming, and involved closely in post-production. 

So with Rodriguez, Miller and Tarantino (who also helped) all singing from the same hymn sheet, and most of the actors happy to accede, there was no way anyone else could interfere. 

Moore doesn't have the stamina to see a film project through at this level of detail, as he's happy to admit, and has never had the good fortune of getting his work 'adopted' by a really powerful industry figure who can make it happen as it should. He's become quite philosophical about it now: his attitude is that the studios are paying him for the use of the name, and beyond that name any resemblance to his books is purely coincidental.


----------



## Lacedaemonian (Jun 8, 2005)

Another excellent review Raven.  I was already planning on going to see this movie tonight, but now I am really looking forward to it.


----------



## Leto (Jun 8, 2005)

I said:
			
		

> Alan Moore was covered in this thread:
> http://www.chronicles-network.net/forum/showthread.php?t=5751
> 
> where he complained that he was too busy to help with the V for Vendetta film, then complains about it moving tangentially from is original vision.
> ...



As did Mike Mignola with Hellboy.


----------



## Amber (Jun 8, 2005)

Eh. What sexual content does this film have? If it's high I'm not going to watch it- especially with my dad and brother who are also going to watch it....


----------



## Raven (Jun 9, 2005)

Sexual content is moderate to high. Nothing dreadfully explicit, but a lot of semi-nudity (including strippers and prostitutes), references to paedophilia (though no naked or semi-naked kids, happily), one or two sex scenes, etc.

The violence is more explicit and extreme. Pretty raw, actually, in places - dismemberment, decapitation, execution by electric chair, people being shot in the groin, etc. And there are some references to cannibalism, and a shot of someone being eaten by a wolf. 

Basically, it is, as I say, very much an 18 film. Not for the faint-hearted. The violence and sex are highly stylised, and rendered in black-and-white with only single colours added for emphasis (as the whole film is), and the language isn't too bad, but I would not let anyone under 18 watch this.


----------



## Neon (Jun 9, 2005)

Amber said:
			
		

> Eh. What sexual content does this film have? If it's high I'm not going to watch it- especially with my dad and brother who are also going to watch it....


Haha, yea I'm not sure it's a "daddy and his daughter" type of film.  You'll love it I'm sure, but prob best to go with your friends on this one.


----------

