Sin City

[Myxo]

Oh, and how great was Elijah Wood's character? Cree-py!

[Gamblour.]

Eh, didn't really like it.

The editing was complete shit. One thing people like to say is that because it's a comic book, that justifies a million things wrong with it. Sorry, if it doesn't work as a movie, it doesn't work as a movie. The movie was slow as hell and boring, and constant attempts at noir narration didn't make it move any quicker. I don't think the three seperate storylines were necessary, maybe if it was just Clive Owen's story, it would have fucking rocked.

See, I don't think you can have three seperate storylines without anything connecting them. If the only connection is Sin City, well I don't think they made it enough of a character. You try and get attached to one character, but then you have to meet and reattach to a whole new character. I think it would have worked better Sin City itself was the whole essence of the connection between the people. Then, you would understand these three guys all have the same shit to go through.

Edit: I guess I should add that I didn't read the graphic novels.

Also, what segment did Tarantino direct?

[metroshane]

The editing was complete shit. One thing people like to say is that because it's a comic book, that justifies a million things wrong with it. Sorry, if it doesn't work as a movie, it doesn't work as a movie. The movie was slow as hell and boring, and constant attempts at noir narration didn't make it move any quicker. I don't think the three seperate storylines were necessary, maybe if it was just Clive Owen's story, it would have fucking rocked.

See, I don't think you can have three seperate storylines without anything connecting them. If the only connection is Sin City, well I don't think they made it enough of a character. You try and get attached to one character, but then you have to meet and reattach to a whole new character. I think it would have worked better Sin City itself was the whole essence of the connection between the people. Then, you would understand these three guys all have the same shit to go through.

I'm not being facecious when I say that that is your problem.  What I mean is that RR was completely upfront when he said he wasn't trying to make this a movie version of a comic.  He was trying to do something new.  A hybrid so to speak that just so happens to be shown in a theater.  So I, at least, have to give him the respect of trying to view it as 'not a movie version of a comic'.  Why don't 3 separate stories work?  Probably because we've been using the same narrative format for every single story since Shakespeare and we've been conditioned to accept that.  If you start comparing this to other movies...then you just don't get it.  Slow and boring?  It may have not been you're cup of tea, but how could it have been boring?  

All I know is that I came out of the theater feeling like a bad-ass...a feeling I haven't had since I was 9 years old coming out of Smokey and the Bandit.

[modage]

Also, what segment did Tarantino direct?

not a segment.  just a scene: the one with Owen and Del Toro in the car.


LISTEN TO KEVIN SMITH INTERVIEW ROBERT RODRIGUEZ AND FRANK MILLER ON NPR.ORG HERE:
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4569989

there's a 5 minute soundbite that aired, and the hourlong unedited interview which is really interesting.

[Dtm115300]

I have to agree with metroshane.

I saw this movie last night. I thought it was great. I don't really see how it was low moveing or boring. There was alot of action, emotion,comdey and  extreamly entertanting stories. As far as the film being separate stories, i thought it just made it more interesting. The film was Beautifully shot; great cinematography and visual effects. It really does feel like your turning pages in a comic. Being a big comic fan it was great to see such a great transition from comic to film. I thought the editing was pretty good. It had some flaws though, but nothing distracting. I can't wait till the dvd. I might go see it again lol.

(I never read the comics ither)

[Stefen]

Is this part in the movie?

[Gold Trumpet]

I didn't expect to like this, but I really did.

I don't think anybody is less thrilled about this comic book craze than me. I remember being persecuted for disliking the first Spiderman because of how rushed it felt in the story. To me the film was rushing through the major scenes of Superman with no density or motivation. Superman is as far away from comic book filmmaking as you can get so automatically people just labeled me as being against comic books. I couldn't deny it. Though Sin City has a large comic book touch, it also has a unique spirit to it. I realized it wasn't really comic book films I was against, but just bad films. Spiderman is still the worst taste in my mouth. Sin City has enough of a flare to it that by the end of watching it I realized the major ad campaign going for it wasn't going to gurantee big box office. Its a unique film in the way Kill Bill was for Tarantino. That film didn't impress me as much. I saw touches of Tarantino's past that reminded me of how better he use to be. I see touches of Rodiguez becoming a better action director in Sin City.

[squints]

Visually stunning. One of the most violent movies I've seen in a while but in such a good way. Its just as good as everyone says..but better

[Gamblour.]

I'm not being facecious when I say that that is your problem.  What I mean is that RR was completely upfront when he said he wasn't trying to make this a movie version of a comic.  He was trying to do something new.  A hybrid so to speak that just so happens to be shown in a theater.  So I, at least, have to give him the respect of trying to view it as 'not a movie version of a comic'.  Why don't 3 separate stories work?  Probably because we've been using the same narrative format for every single story since Shakespeare and we've been conditioned to accept that.  If you start comparing this to other movies...then you just don't get it.  Slow and boring?  It may have not been you're cup of tea, but how could it have been boring?  

Sure, I'll give him credit for trying something different. However, film is a medium, and every medium has rules. This movie could've been "not a movie version of a comic" and worked totally fine. I don't think it worked at all. How could it be boring? When they do so much voice-over that whatever visual is onscreen becomes meaningless, or when they push-in just to get all the words spoken. Sorry, that's boring.

And for fuck's sake, do you REALLY want this movie to be your reason for a new narrative paradigm? That's so stupid. I get it, you liked the movie but just because you can't defend it having three disconnected storylines, don't say something as asinine as it's ahead of its time in terms of narrative format. Rodriguez isn't Jesus, this movie isn't the second coming. He's not a genius, and he didn't just invent some new format. Why in the fuck should this film not be compared to other movies? I hate to break it to you, but it's on celluloid, it's a fucking movie. It plays in cinemas, just like every other movie. If you wanna justify something that doesn't work by saying it's its own new form of cinema, well fine. I guess Glitter is beyond the reach of criticism because the filmmaker was brilliant enough to avoid such trite cinematic conventions as editing, proper storytelling, and good acting.

Yes, I have a serious problem with something, and it's bad filmmaking. It's not like I hated this movie, it just wasn't great. And your defense is stupid, sorry.

[meatball]

film is a medium, and every medium has rules.

for fuck's sake

Why in the fuck

it's a fucking movie

Gamblor, relax. You've taken the flick way too seriously. It's exactly what you've called it, a fucking movie. Don't get all hot and bothered about it. Are you hung up on the fact that the movie doesn't 'follow rules' or what?

As for myself, I loved it. It's the little engine that could, chugging along confidently and splashing blood every which way it can. If I was still a film student, I might be hung up on a lot of imperfections... but it's like reading a comic book... you accept the style that it's giving you and you go for the ride. If not, you close the book and move on. No use fussing about it.

Rourke's Marv was the best part of the film for me, while (sadly) Owen and Del Toro's the weakest. Sin City definitely has a lot of spirit, enjoys itself, and was simply a blast to watch. I grew up as a comic book fanboy, and as far as I'm concerned this is the best film translation of the comic book spirit.

[MacGuffin]

Nailing a serial thriller
"Sin City's" painstaking journey from the pages of Frank Miller's life-in-terrordome comics to the nation's multiplexes was a cool convergence of a determined director, a trusting studio and pure tech savvy.
Source: Los Angeles Times

Walk down the right back alley in "Sin City," as a poster for the movie that came out Friday grandly proclaims, and you can find anything. Well, maybe not anything.

To be specific, graphic novelist Frank Miller's hard-boiled wonderland is a place of vice, corruption and brutal street justice. To wit: For "Sin City's" big-screen adaptation, Clive Owen's character, Dwight, fronts a gaggle of gun-toting prostitutes, a battle-scarred Bruce Willis (as Det. John Hartigan) gets pistol-whipped and hanged, Jessica Alba pole dances in a rhinestone bikini and cowgirl chaps, and Benicio Del Toro, in a signature screw-loose role, has his head unceremoniously dunked in a toilet. A menagerie of other rough-trade characters played by Mickey Rourke, Elijah Wood and Alexis Bledel don't get off so easy.
 
Starkly rendered in black and white (with select flourishes of color) and shot on high-definition digital video, "Sin City" may be the most faithful comic book adaptation ever made. Panel by panel, down to the last diagonal sheet of rain and stinking garbage heap, three volumes of the popular series were painstakingly "translated" to film. That's in part because Miller was permitted to adapt his own material, teaming with Robert Rodriguez (of "Once Upon a Time in Mexico" and "Spy Kids" fame) for his directorial debut. But if not for the confluence of a lot of cutting-edge technology and un-Hollywood ego suppression, some pretty persuasion by Rodriguez and the wide studio latitude Miramax granted the filmmakers, Miller's creation would probably remain the exclusive province of his devoted fans.

"I decided years ago that there would never be a 'Sin City' movie because it would never be done faithfully," Miller explained by phone from New York. " 'Sin City' was my baby. If it came out and was some crappy thing that winked at itself, I wouldn't have been able to look at myself in the mirror." Rangy Texan Rodriguez, on a hot streak after the $100-million-plus successes of his "Spy Kids" trilogy and "Mexico," had other ideas. "I didn't want to take 'Sin City' and make it into a movie," Rodriguez said. "I didn't want to adapt it or squeeze it down. I wanted to take cinema and make it a moving graphic novel."

After tracking Miller down through his lawyer and comic book editor, Rodriguez made his pitch. "His book was bolder and more visionary than anything anyone was trying to do in cinema," he remembered. "I said, 'We could reinvent cinema just by reshooting what you did page for page.' " The result is a $45-million art-house movie on steroids — an experimental marriage of green-screen special effects and film noir shot cheap and fast on Rodriguez's Austin soundstage with big-name stars.

For Miller, 48, the Stanley Kubrick of the comic book world, "Sin City" represents the culmination of a tortured relationship with Hollywood. After several bruising experiences working for the film industry — notably, writing the story and original script for 1990's disappointing "RoboCop 2" — he vowed never to eat lunch in this town again.

"For me, it's been a real joy and an unexpected one," Miller said. "There's always wasted opportunities, squandered moments. And there's ones like this where this crazy Texan showed up and suddenly 'Sin City' is a movie." Echoing a famous line from his graphic novel, he added: "I turned a certain corner and I was in a whole different world."

Stumbling blocks

In 1991, Miller wrote and drew "Sin City" with the intention of self-publishing a quick-hit, 48-page serial. Arranged around the exploits of a barely sane, tough-as-bricks hit man named Marv, out to avenge the murder of a prostitute, the first installment, "The Hard Goodbye," ran nearly 200 pages. It eventually spawned seven volumes that feature recurring characters, baroque violence and interlocking themes.

There were never any plans to make it into a film.

Enter Robert Rodriguez. In 2003, the director, intent on adapting "Sin City," met the reluctant writer-artist at his favorite Hell's Kitchen watering hole to show him a homemade digital mock-up of the film on his laptop computer. Although visually impressive, the answer from Miller — who had never heard of Rodriguez as a director — was still a firm "No."

"Even after seeing the wonderful stuff he showed me, I still turned him down," said Miller. "I thought all moviemaking was Hollywood. I was that paranoid about it." Undaunted, Rodriguez invited the comics auteur to come to his home studio in Texas to observe what he referred to as a "test with a couple of friends" — actors Josh Hartnett and Marley Shelton.

"Usually, an artist has to assume all the risk," Rodriguez said, recalling the elaborate courtship. "He has to sign away everything and hope you don't screw up the movie. I knew I had to reverse that to where I would take the risk, pay for the shoot, shoot the material, cut it together and do the score. Only if he really loved it would we make a deal. And if not, he could keep it as a short film to show his friends."

As Miller recalled, the gamble paid off: "In 10 hours, we shot this scene and I got to work with the two actors. Watching the whole green-screen approach and having Robert describe how the scene was going to work really put the hook in my mouth — just the way he planned it!" The scene became the movie's opening sequence. "Turned out there was no difference between that test and the first day of principle photography," Miller said.

For Rodriguez, an exuberant, cowboy-hat-wearing 37-year-old — moreover, a guy whose cellphone ring tone is the opening guitar riff from AC/DC's "Dirty Deeds Done Dirt Cheap" — the next logical step was to invite Miller to share directing credit.

"I wanted it to be 'Frank Miller's Sin City,' " explained Rodriguez at his suite at the Four Seasons Hotel in Beverly Hills. "I really wanted him to be there as a director rather than as a writer or producer. Otherwise, they might just stick him in a corner and feed him a sandwich every once in a while. As a director, everyone would have to listen to him." What they had not figured on, however, was violating the Directors Guild of America's co-directing policy. "I didn't know it was against the rules until a week before we were about to shoot," said Rodriguez. But by that point, the choice was no choice.

"Nothing was gonna stop us," Rodriguez said. "This movie just felt too new, too right and too experimental. You think, 'Do I want to make movies or do I want to belong to a club?' The rules — which say the two co-directors have to have been a duo before the movie — are behind the times." The director resigned his DGA membership. "You think about the trade-off," he continued. "This movie wouldn't exist otherwise." "I was moved," said Miller, sounding both grateful and sardonic. "I kept on saying, 'What a mensch!' "

Star bursts

The movie began to take shape quickly when word of the production spread. Actors were signed on to come and work in bursts. Jessica Alba agreed to film for seven days, Del Toro came in for four and Willis was contracted for 10 days' work, during which they shot an average of 65 setups a day. "That's like two months' shooting in Rodriguez time," the director said with a laugh.

Having two directors on the set proved a useful resource for members of the cast who wanted to understand more about their character's back story or motivation in a particular scene.

"It was very self-indulgent because we got to talk each director's ear off about our characters," said Alba, Sin City's token stripper with a heart of gold. "It was so narcissistic."

"It was like having a historian there all the time," added Brittany Murphy, playing a lovelorn waitress caught in a love triangle between Owen's and Del Toro's characters.

Miller's most immediate on-set impact, however, was on storyboards. "He'd draw something out and then the next day, he'd be like, 'This is actually a good shot,' " recalled Rosario Dawson, whose character, Gail, is something like the CEO of a platoon of tough-talking, pistol-packing prostitutes. "And then he'd just set it up." Rodriguez's running dispute with Quentin Tarantino about the future of cinema being digital led Rodriguez to invite Tarantino (with whom he had previously collaborated on "Four Rooms" and "From Dusk Till Dawn") to sit in as a "Special Guest Director" for a scene in which Owen and Del Toro argue in a CGI car.

"He came in so prepared, he made Frank and I look like bums," said Rodriguez. "He had every shot prepared, all this visionary stuff. Frank just said, 'This is the most fun I've ever had in my life!' "

"[Tarantino] would come over and ask questions — he was very solicitous," Miller said. "Not arrogant at all. He brought his own ideas about how to treat the sequence — good ideas."

Shot against a green background screen, the movie's various "sets" were almost entirely virtual, added in by computer later — a technique Rodriguez had perfected while shooting his "Spy Kids" trilogy. The upshot was that many actors who share screen time never physically met.

"I did the shot with Mickey Rourke — who had been in the shot three months earlier," said Dawson. "I'm throwing handcuffs to him [in the scene] and I was never in the room with him."

A Miramax miracle

WHILE Miller and Rodriguez have entered into a de facto mutual admiration society for all the obvious reasons, Rodriguez takes pains to point out the film could never have been made by any studio other than Miramax, headed by departing honchos Harvey and Bob Weinstein.

"They give me so much freedom," he said. "With Bob, it's like, 'I'm here at the bar with somebody you gotta meet.' He comes in on a Saturday, meets Frank Miller, looks at the tests and says, 'You can make the movie.' "

"You don't get that anywhere," Rodriguez added. "That's why wherever those guys go, I'll follow them."

But at the end of the day, all parties say Miller's input proved to be the crucial X-factor. "I think having Frank there was absolutely essential," said Owen, who had just seen a final cut of the film and admitted to feeling "blown away." "He's the guy that conjured up this crazy world. I have to say, I think the guy's a genius."

[metroshane]

and every medium has rules

Ah, I didn't realize you felt that way.  In light of that, you have every right for hate it for not being every other movie in the FUCKING universe.

Also, I didn't say RR was the messiah.  And I'm not saying it was perfect.  But my question is, if the filmmaker himself says that he didn't edit traditionally, film it traditionally, or tell it traditionally...then why the hell did you go see it?  It seems you already had  your filmmaking dogma in place.  Please understand I'm not attacking you, I'm only using the language you seem familiar with.  

And for fuck's sake, do you REALLY want this movie to be your reason for a new narrative paradigm?

Of course not,  and I doubt RR does either.  What I do want is something different.  Different from other movies...and in the future different from this one.

asinine as it's ahead of its time in terms of narrative format

You're putting words in my mouth.  I never said that.  I don't think it's ahead of it's time...I think it's been a long time coming.

It plays in cinemas, just like every other movie. If you wanna justify something that doesn't work by saying it's its own new form of cinema, well fine.

So do cell phone commercials and local eye doctor ads.  And got news for  you.  The 'cinema' is being reduced to pre-emptive marketing for DVDs, the  future of movie making.  In a time when we have directors cuts, alternate endings, interactive soundtracks, multiple angles, etc...no movie is made without thinking of the DVD purchases.  Some directors are already filming in a way that is condusive to DVD extras.  Soon writers will too.    

I guess Glitter is beyond the reach of criticism because the filmmaker was brilliant enough to avoid such trite cinematic conventions as editing, proper storytelling, and good acting.

Where's your masterpiece?

And your defense is stupid, sorry

OK.  I accept your apology.

[Gamblour.]

Gamblor, relax. You've taken the flick way too seriously. It's exactly what you've called it, a fucking movie. Don't get all hot and bothered about it. Are you hung up on the fact that the movie doesn't 'follow rules' or what?

Just because I say fuck a lot doesn't mean I'm angry. I'm just pissed off when people say something is ok because it's different, and that it being different, and that fact alone, excuses it from forms of criticism. Or if they say "the dialogue is supposed to be bad", as if that justifies anything.

Of course not, and I doubt RR does either. What I do want is something different. Different from other movies...and in the future different from this one.

See, I appreciate movies that do something different. But when they do it differently, they should at least do it right. I don't think they did. I think they got a few things right for the audience to enjoy and ignore the fact that stories are slapped together.

Filmmaking does have rules and form. Otherwise, that's like writing without sentences or grammar. Take for instance In the Bedroom and We Don't Live Here Anymore, both adapted from Dubois stories. In the Bedroom gets something unbelieveably right with the way the story is told and how it goes about it. We Don't Live Here Anymore is a messy messy piece of shit. There is a right and wrong way to tell a story and make a movie. I don't think Sin City got it right.

Where's your masterpiece?

What is that? I have to make Citizen Kane before I can say that Citizen Kane is brilliant?

[SiliasRuby]

Saw this tonight. Fantasticly fun and really wild. I really really liked it alot. I don't much about the comics but Igot the gist of what kind of comics they were and by the end of it, I wanted more. So...  

[metroshane]

See, I appreciate movies that do something different. But when they do it differently, they should at least do it right. I don't think they did. I think they got a few things right for the audience to enjoy and ignore the fact that stories are slapped together.

Valid critisisim.  Sorry about the masterpiece comment...I just thought bringing  Glitter up was irrelevant.