Sin City

[cron]

It's funny reading these posts.

Not yours.

I think viewers these days are so spoiled with commentaries and behind-the-scenes featurettes, everybody fancies themselves a guru. Then it becomes like an art gallery where the discussion of the making and significance..

that was like watching the word 'interpretation' getting violently raped.

[samsong]

i don't hate the film but there's this inevitable feeling as to how big this movie is going to be and how it will epitomize film culture and further limit most people's already small view of cinema to just the overly sentimental, simplistic, and manipulative (Garden State, The Notebook) and the technologically advanced (The Matrix and now this one)... i'm only picking on those because i often hear them come up in "discussions" about movies among my peers (with the exception of Sin City since, you know, it just came out).  i don't knock people for liking those movies, or i try not to anyway, and i don't see a problem with them being so popular outside of the fact that so much is being ignored as a result of it.

I don't think I'd put Sin City on par with Garden State or the Notebook at all.  Sure, it had a big budget and there was a lot of hype surrounding it, but that doesn't mean it's a bad film.

It was very exaggerated and very stylized, but no more than the comic book (well, as film goes, it was more stylized, but in a similar vein as the book).  Hell, the book itself was very cinematic.  When I read it years ago, I felt like a movie had to come out about it sooner or later.

So, it did take an extremely stylized approach to the subject, and when someone gets really stylized it's easy to say the film is empty and is using the special effects or techniques to make up for lack of subatance.  

This film, however, was overflowing with substance.  Rich storylines, amazing dialogue, and it all came across as a fantasy noir comic book.  If you didn't even know about the graphic novels it was based on, you'd still understand the connection.  It had great acting, great directing and was basically eye candy.  This movie had some spectacular elements, and never lost my attention.

i understand that it's a stylized film... that's all i addressed.  the potential of the substance was great but i dont think it was reached in the film, especially because it's simply an imitation of the graphic novel, which may in itself be cinematic but to simply mimic it in film form seems boring to me, and was boring when i watched it.  for as stylized as it was it certaintly lacked any distinctive quality other than how it was entirely done in post production, which was both good and bad for the film.  nothing about the film excited me and given its nature, it felt incredibly long... i thought there were some serious pacing issues, something a heavily stylized film of substance shouldn't have.

[Pas]

This thread is like incredible. Seriously. This is just an entertaining movie, it's not Waiting for Godot god damnit. Stop analyzing what was not meant to be analyzed. "The use of nudity wasn't on par with the nudity of Swimming Pool" or whatever, just say : "I LIKE LUDIVINE SAGNIER'S BOOBIES BETTER"

Loosen up a little. If you tought : "hum, the lighting is bland and this is a lazy attempt at converting comic-book-to-film" when a chick was dancing around a pole, please consult a physician.

[meatball]

It's funny reading these posts.

Not yours.

You're so sweet!

[matt35mm]

"The use of nudity wasn't on par with the nudity of Swimming Pool" or whatever, just say : "I LIKE LUDIVINE SAGNIER'S BOOBIES BETTER"

Oh, that's not what I said.  I said I liked everybody's boobies; I definitely never ranked anybody's boobs, and I wouldn't say a thing against the nudity in this movie.

And since I was the only one who said anything about the nudity, and since I wasn't really analyzing it, there was no nudity analyzing at all.

All I meant to say was that the nudity was actually sexy in this movie, which is surprisingly rare in movies.

But I agree with what you were trying to say, even if you misunderstood what I was saying.  Overanalysis of movies is a tedious thing to sit through.  Same with books.

I don't really think that anybody has overanalyzed this movie so far in this thread, though, so I can't tell what the big deal is.  Just because it's an entertaining movie doesn't mean you're not supposed to talk about what you thought in detail.  NOBODY was thinking about the stupid lighting when Alba was dancing on the pole or anything like that.

This movie was different from most movies in serveral ways--in its direction, in its look, its style, its editing (edited to be like the comic book, whether you like it or not)--which opens the door wide open for discussion and analysis on what works and what doesn't and why.  There are times when people overanalyze things and I hate that just as much as you do, but I honestly don't think that's happened yet.  And it certainly didn't happen when I said I liked the nudity.  You said don't analyze what was not meant to be analyzed--who has done that in here?  The look of the film, the style, the editing, the translation of comic book material directly onto the screen... that all WAS meant to be analyzed!

Why should people zip their lips on entertaining movies?  Most movies strive to be entertaining in some way.  None of the makers of Sin City would want you to treat this like fluff that you just watch and say "that was entertaining" and then not talk about and just completely forget about.  This movie was entertaining, but it wasn't lightweight fluff.  The comic book was a bold piece of art, and the movie was an interesting experiment in making a comic book movie in a whole new way--there's a TON to talk about here.  And for the most part, all of these comments have been intelligently stated reasons why they felt it worked or didn't work.

What do you want from us?  Is this thread supposed to be dead, or just filled with several "I just saw this, it was entertaining" comments?  It is the nature of most of us to state what we liked and didn't like about it, and why those things worked or did not work.  That's the premise of this entire forum!

Sin City is entertainment, who gives a shit what it's place is in cinema. The majority of the world's population don't. It's great that you guys take this stuff seriously because you're passionate about it, but sometimes you've got to lighten up.

A lot of us rightfully give a shit what its place is in cinema, because as I just stated, this movie is a fairly bold experiment in filmmaking.  This movie was a fairly big cinematic event for that reason.  Yeah, it's just a cool new movie for the majority of the world's population, but why should we "lighten up?"  We sign onto this forum to discuss movies.

Nobody has done anything wrong in this thread, so why are you guys picking on the people who came in to this forum and clicked on this thread to discuss Sin City--a movie that I think gives a lot to discuss about?  I liked the movie.  As for the people who didn't like it that much--they have been giving solid comments as to why not.

And actually, nobody's been treating this like a particularly deep movie.  All of the analysis has been on-the-surface stuff.  Nobody's caught up in what this meant or what that meant, so I'd say we all are fairly lightened up in this thread.  Nobody is taking this too seriously.  But when you click on the thread "Sin City," it's implied that you're supposed to discuss Sin City.  And I expect, when I click on the thread to read other people's thoughts in as much detail as they feel like giving on Sin City.  I don't want to see a whole thread of just or

I guess I got more upset than I expected to be, but only because I think the entire purpose of this forum has been challenged.

[modage]

yeah, i dont appreciate when the movie is just brushed off like 'oh, it was cool.' like there was NO WAY it would be actually good.  it SHOULD'VE been actually good, not 'just for a comic book movie'.  you know?  why should you hold movies to a different standard?  like 'oh this is fluff,' but 'this is worth criticizing'.  i guess i'd rather read someone like samsongs review tearing apart why he didnt like it than someone who dismisses it as not worthy of a review even when they liked it.  i dunno.  the movie could've been Pulp Fiction, but unfortunately it was just pulp fiction.  and thats disappointing.

[Kal]

The visual effects are great... and it was fun for the most part... but thats all... no big deal

I saw it at the Regal South Beach, it was packed, and a lot of people left in the middle of it... I dont know what they were expecting but hell, it was alright

[Jeremy Blackman]

I'm disappointed that people are following modernage's lead, dragging in baggage of expectations and narrative/structural/visual standards that really don't stick to this film. We're getting close to the "but it's style instead of substance!" comments from that one City of God thread... and that's just scary. Are you the same people who walked out of 2001 saying "where were the aliens?"

I appreciated this movie for what it is. The only expectations I had were visual, and those were fulfilled. I loved the overacting. I loved the jarring speed, the impatience and the incoherence.

Samsong, are you really complaining that this is a derivative work? Are you kidding? And did you forget that Frank Miller co-directed this thing?

You lost me when you complained about it being "beyond reason."

[metroshane]

How can an adaption not be derivative?  Superman 2 was really derivative of Superman 1?

Anyway, I really liked the boobies.  I loved the fact that Carla G. was probably the oldest and least 'in shape'(by E standards) and probably the only one with kids...but was way far the sexiest.  Go Carla.

[meatball]

And since I was the only one who said anything about the nudity, and since I wasn't really analyzing it, there was no nudity analyzing at all.

My feelings are hurt. I also approved of the nudity.

I'd have to agree with my colleagues here... some of the critiques on this movie have been ridiculous.

[matt35mm]

And since I was the only one who said anything about the nudity, and since I wasn't really analyzing it, there was no nudity analyzing at all.

My feelings are hurt. I also approved of the nudity.

Okay, but I think my comments were the ones being targeted, with the reference to Swimming Pool and all.

[samsong]

derivative may be the wrong word to use in this case but it works (for me, anyway) when describing rodriguez's work in general.  i clearly acknowledged that miller was a co-director, but that doesn't really matter to me because despite his involvement, the film still brings nothing new to the table.  not one part of this film was unique excluding the visual aspects of the film which to me weren't impressive, and that this is sort of a precedent for the transition from comic books to film.

when it comes down to it, i thought the film was extremely slow for the kind of film it was.  visually i was unimpressed, and found no means of escapism in the film because i was distracted by how inconsitent it was without any larger goal at hand; there's nothing innovative about the film's style besides the technology involved.  it's all arbitrary and intuitive, and for me it didn't work.  preconceptions and standards are unavoidable when it comes to films and the worthwhile ones rise above them.  you brough up 2001... i'll admit i expected to see aliens and other conventional sci fi shit when i first saw it but by its end i was too awestruck to care about my own standars being met.  this is something that especially plagues genre films and that's exactly what Sin City is, and for me it did absolutely nothing because it stays within conventions and doesn't really do anything interesting.  i didn't expect groundbreaking though that's what it was made out to be by some, i expected new, and i didn't get it.  this was old and tired.  you appreciated the movie for what it was, i dislike it for what it is and the wasted efforts for it not rising to the occassion and being great like it could've been (the inevitable comparison to Kill Bill arises in my mind).

but it's just an entertaining film, right? so who gives a shit...

[Pas]

Hum yeah so I was kinda bitter in my last post, I just came back from the movie and expected some major acclaim so I was kinda shocked.

I still stand by what I say, that it totally ruins YOUR OWN viewing experience if you analyze every bit of the movie instead of just watching it. I mean, just let yourself get in the movie, when you see a second or third time then analyze it. Don't do it on the go, you just don't have time to enjoy and analyze at the same time.

Also, about the boobies, those were nice boobies and I was glad of their presence too. Just because they were good boobies. Matt35mm, I misunderstood your comments, I'm sorry. I tought you were like : "the boobies held a really deep philosophical undertone" or something. That wasn't it, so,  

[Raikus]

I think that the main issue people are having with this movie isn't style over substance, but that the style was uncompromising. I, frankly, loved that fact, but others here take the opposite approach. The movie worked for me because the entire thing stuck to its style. It didn't flinch or waver where most movies of this type would. It stuck to its guns.

Most of the qualms are about the film doing just that. "It could have been so much better." Or; "Some of the scenes could have been emphasized." The point is all of the scenes/panels were handled with exactly the same emphasis (with the exception of a few slow downs) and they kept coming a mile a minute. I thought this communicated the idea that although this is set in a make believe universe, it still conforms to actual life. There's no |> for life and some of it's harsh and brutal with its own stream of consciousness. Call it noir, call it stylized, call it crap, but I'll call it meaningful and look forward to seeing it again.

[matt35mm]

I still stand by what I say, that it totally ruins YOUR OWN viewing experience if you analyze every bit of the movie instead of just watching it. I mean, just let yourself get in the movie, when you see a second or third time then analyze it. Don't do it on the go, you just don't have time to enjoy and analyze at the same time.

Oh, I agree with this.  People ask me all the time if I'm always analyzing things during the movie (they think I might since I'm "the movie guy" around town), and I tell them that I really don't think much at all during the movie.  I do most of my thinking afterwards, or sometimes I really never think about the movie at all, ever.  Although I do take mental notes, even on first viewing, on shots that I like, nice acting moments, stuff like that.

Also, about the boobies, those were nice boobies and I was glad of their presence too. Just because they were good boobies. Matt35mm, I misunderstood your comments, I'm sorry. I tought you were like : "the boobies held a really deep philosophical undertone" or something. That wasn't it, so,  

So then we agree to agree!

Although I think all the time on the uses of nudity, and how audiences react to it.  I find nudity pretty interesting.  Not that I think about its "philosophical undertones" at any point, but people have an interesting attitude towards nudity in film, especially Americans, and I've always thought about how that could be used by the filmmaker.  Nudity can be used for all sorts of things, like seduction, it can be threatening, etc.  There's a palpable mood change in the theater when someone takes off their clothes.  It's just another tool in the old arsenal, I suppose.