Sin City (2005)
April 20th, 2005 at 11:07 am (5 - Whoa!)
Having been a big fan of Frank Miller for many years it was with great anticipation that I waited for the cinematic adaptation of the Sin City comic series. Robert Rodriguez‘ assertions that he intended to be true to the original work allayed fears I had of a Hollywoodization of the moody story. As behind the scenes footage and trailers began to make their appearance a new fear developed that the story might be lost as it was embalmed under layers of stylistic CG effects. The movie thankfully escapes this tar pit and delivers a fun and beautiful show that should meet the expectations of both casual watchers and die hard fans.
Many people have asked me for my opinion of the movie, either to match notes or because they were trying to gauge whether to go see it themselves. I found myself repeating two statements that I think relay the nature of the film:
1. This is one of the most accurate and honest movie adaptations of a book I have seen.
2. Anyone who has not read the books is warned that they are very violent as is the movie. To quote my friend Sean:
“Saying that Sin City is kind of violent is like saying that the Care Bears Movie (1985) is kind of cute”.
To be more detailed, if any of you remember the scene from “The Hard Goodbye” where Marv casually drives down the street while holding a guy’s face down on the pavement: yup, it’s in there.
You have been warned.
I have heard some people complain that the stories are misogynistic and cliché. This seems and odd criticism to me since Sin City (2005) is based on (and at times a send up of) the old pulp-noir novels. Of course they are misogynistic and cliché. Realize that, and enjoy the extreme sex, extreme violence and extreme cool that the book/movie captures with such beauty and style.
A turnoff for me was the unevenness of the acting. Most of the roles were spot-on, a testament to the actors and more so to the director and casting agent that got talent like Benicio Del Toro in for Jackie Boy, Mickey Rourke in for Marv, Clive Owen in for Dwight or my favorite surprise of the movie Elijah Wood nailing the silent psycho Kevin. I was however rather disappointed with the wooden performance Jessica Alba gave as Nancy, a character that seems to be following the script and little more. Bruce Willis also at times failed to convince as Hartigan, the aging cop trying to survive long enough to ‘do the right thing’. This is a minor complaint though, there was nothing bad about their work, I just felt it somehow could have been better.
I was careful not to let the anticipation for Sin City built up to the point where it could not be met. I was very happy with the movie and recommend it to anyone who is “into that kind of thing” (if you prefer the Care Bears, give this one a skip). I am also happy to retain some happy anticipation as the forthcoming Sin City DVD is expected to include the full versions of “The Hard Goodbye”, “The Big Fat Kill” and “That Yellow Bastard” which were edited down to make them fit into a theatrical time. Even better, Rodriguez and Miller have said they would like to make more movies and eventually adapt the full series.
Previously on GeekRoar.com:
ExtraMSG said,
April 20, 2005 at 9:53 pm
I’m having a hard time posting. This is the error I get:
Your comment submission failed for the following reasons:
Your comment could not be submitted due to questionable content: ****
Please correct the error in the form below, then press POST to post your comment.
ExtraMSG said,
April 20, 2005 at 9:55 pm
Welcome back to the virtual world.
I think it’s a bit ridiculous saying they’re misogynistic when several women actually have both prominent and powerful roles. Nudity does not equal misogyny. Additionally, cruelty to women is punished harshly in the movie.
I don’t know if Alba was a good casting choice, but the friend I went with couldn’t stop talking about her, so she couldn’t have been all bad. I thought Willis did a good job. I think most I’ve talked to agree that Rourke was the star, though, and stole the show. Much of that may have been the writing around his part.
gl. said,
April 22, 2005 at 9:44 am
“This seems and odd criticism to me since Sin City (2005) is based on (and at times a send up of) the old pulp-noir novels. Of course they are misogynistic and cliché.”
sorry, leopoldo. a medium that pays “homage” to another form without actually updating it is only doing half the work. so they updated the noir visually, but didn’t bother w/ the plots. it doesn’t necessarily make it bad, but it makes it sloppy.
“it’s a bit ridiculous saying they’re misogynistic when several women actually have both prominent and powerful roles. Nudity does not equal misogyny. Additionally, cruelty to women is punished harshly in the movie.”
in this movie, women are props, like the cars and the guns. they have no roles or characters of their own except to be motivators for the actual characters, who, as you note, mete punishment on their behalf. women can be innocent angels or, as in the big fat kill, they can be avenging angels, but all the internal dialogue and progress belongs to boys. the women have no complexity and we don’t exlore their internal worlds at all. if this was a race issue rather than a gender issue it would be much more obvious.
and i’ll agree: jessica alba was the weakest link here. and bruce willis didn’t look anywhere near 65/70.
sven said,
April 22, 2005 at 3:29 pm
I write essays. Wish I could just write a comment-length response, but once I start, there’s so much to say. My response to ExtraMSG is off-site: Don’t Learn Your Ethics In “Sin City”.
Topics: Is Sin City sexist? Not only is the fantasy world it portrays sexist — but also, does creating a film like this promote sexist thinking in the real world? (If so, what should we do?) Putting aside how it portrays women, what “moral lessons” does Sin City teach me as a man? Beyond the ethics of personal relationships, and beyond just Sin City, how does author Frank Miller think men of honor should confront corrupt institutional power?
Steve said,
June 4, 2005 at 7:24 pm
Just a few comments (great website this, btw, and some incisive comments). Leopoldo says, “enjoy the extreme sex […] that the book/movie captures with such beauty and style”. There are no extreme sex scenes in case this is a deciding factor in whether you want to watch it, or let your children watch it (arguably, there’s a lot worse than that in this film). There are a few seconds of a couple between the sheets and there are quite a few bare breasts, but that’s it as far as physical lurrrve goes. There is however a dialogue that talks about scary scary sex
(paedophilia, torture, murder).
gl. says, “women can be innocent angels or, as in the big fat kill, they can be avenging angels, but all the internal dialogue and progress belongs to boys. the women have no complexity and we don’t exlore their internal worlds at all”.
That’s right, because the film is told from the perspective of main characters, all of whom happen to be men. You don’t get any internal dialogue from the men who aren’t main characters, such as the Yellow Bastard.
Films are often cheesey…re-doing the same themes over and over again, often in the same genre; neither of which they can really help. `Sin City` tackles that head on. It embraces the cheese.
Chaisey said,
March 28, 2006 at 6:35 pm
I loved Rosario Dawson in this movie she proved to be a leader to those who finally fight back against those who harm women even if they are prostitutes some wouldnt care including me I love that they have their own law and that they are the ones that inforce it and Rosario Dawson did a wonderful job! Clive Owen was perfect for Dwights character and he gave it an old age type of style to it and made everything better other than that I loved the movie and hope for more sequels and such
fan forver
Chaisey