Sin City

[Alethia]

saw this tonight.  pretty damn entertaining.  i enjoyed myself.

[matt35mm]

I liked the nudity.  Not just because I'm a perv (a.k.a. man).  Nudity is rarely done well in movies, really.  Swimming Pool got it right, and this movie got it right (to a much lesser extent than Swimming Pool, of course).  I guess it goes back to Frank Miller, really, who knew how to use nudity when he was drawing the comic.  Plus all the girls looked gorgeous, even if they were all either hookers, stippers, or "dykes."  I thought "you're so pretty" many times during the movie.  And all the men look just as terrible as they're supposed to.  Excellent job.

But more than that, I loved the distinct feeling that the directors didn't give a damn whether or not the audience liked it or not.  There were tons of the things that the more "sophisticated audience member" would find boorish and gaffaw at.  It was SO comic book-y, so direct, so silly, and I'm glad it got onto film (or digital, really) the way it did.

It would never be my favorite film of any year, but I truly appreciated its artistic integrity.  This was really an Art Movie in its purest sense, because every artist involved did exactly what they wanted to do and nothing else, without feeling the need to cater to an audience that didn't lap this stuff up.  When I went in, I thought it was gonna be more crowd-pleasing.  I'm glad it wasn't.  I, however, was quite pleased by it.

And the NPR interview with Kevin Smith, Rodriguez, and Miller was great, and helped me enjoy the movie more, because I better understood the nature of the beast.

SPOILERISH:

Hartnett's 'lil unibrow in his second appearance cracked me up a bit.  I really don't know how intentional that was.

[meatball]

I liked the nudity.  Not just because I'm a perv (a.k.a. man).

I liked it, too. It wasn't smutty in any way, just beautiful women.

[Pubrick]

Being a big comic fan it was great to see such a great transition from comic to film.

(I never read the comics ither)

the second sentence makes the first kind of meaningless.

[mogwai]

he probably only read the pictures.

[ᾦɐļᵲʊʂ]

Amazing adaptation, and it makes me wonder how it might've lacked if Frank Miller wasn't as involved.

[matt35mm]

Amazing adaptation, and it makes me wonder how it might've lacked if Frank Miller wasn't as involved.

Well, Rodriguez's goal was to make it a direct transfer of the comic to the screen.  Obviously, having Miller there helped in that endeavor.  Without Miller involved, the goal would've been the same, but it probably would have been less successful.  A lot of the elements would've been the same, but it'd all be at about 50 or 60% of what it is now.  It elimated the need to interpret the source, because the source of the source was on set everyday.

I think it would've had about the same look.  I think Miller helped the actors out a ton, because how these should be played, only Miller really knows.  And it probably just would've been a less assured movie, because Rodriguez would have been plagued by wondering what Miller would've thought about it every step of the way.  This was probably more directed by Miller than by Rodriguez, actually.  Rodriguez was the guide of the technical elements and brought his filmmaking experience and power (all of the actors he was able to get, the financing, etc.), and so Miller directed through Rodrigeuz.

So I guess the answer is that the direction would've been different and less assured without Miller involved, but that it would've still had that bold look and comic-book atmosphere.  It still would've been different from anything that anyone's seen before, which is the major drive behind the hype over Sin City, but the movie itself would've only been about half of what it is.

[samsong]

didn't like it, though it does have its moments.  i dont think frank miller's writing translates well to film.  when spoken by the characters for me to hear, i felt a lot of it was over-the-top beyond reason or campy fun/pulpy cool, but i imagine miller's words are much more effective on the page alongside his jarring illustrations, which the film also failed to capture.  it gets the color scheme right and that's about it.  the photography is boring -- the lighting is generally bland and it displays a lack of understanding of black and white photography, indicative of rodriguez's misunderstanding of the genre he aspires to not emulate but expand upon (not a good idea) and of cinema in general.  he's the industry's most economical and efficient film technician but by no means a director, or at least not what i consider a director.  obviously he does the duty of any director but lacks vision, or a unique one anyway.  rodriguez's work is completely derivative, no more so in any of his other work than it is here since he's directly lifting from the material that compelled him, though i guess miller directing with him gives him some legitmacy.  

i felt while watching the film that there was a lot that could have been done and i do think a good adaptation instead of trying to create a cinematic graphic novel, a decision that i think was both lazy and naive on his part, despite his claim to wanting to do it that way for the sake of faithfulness.  if that's the only way it could've possibly been done, i dont think the resources used for this film including the talent involved (most of the acting was great) should have been wasted.  rodriguez might as well have put out a full-page ad in all forms of print media telling everyone to go and buy Sin City books and it would've been just as compelling and interesting as this film was.  i'd rather experience them for myself instead of having a guy without an imagination or an arbitrary need to utilize every bit of film technology available essentially read it to me through a film that feels way too long considering its nature.

this is all being said by someone who didn't even know the Sin City books existed before the film was announced, but i dont think that should matter.  films should speak for themselves, and this one is only a trailer for the books.  rodriquez confuses grauitousness for the kind of indulgent bliss that is apparent in the works of tarantino, leone, and even some of godard's work, post-production manipulation for style, imitation for creativity, suffocating adherence to the original work for faithfulness.  the key to all these differences is that the directors mentioned all brought a certain confidence and originality to what they were putting on screen.  some of it is incredibly outlandish but handled with such style and confidence in the greatness its creator was achieving that we can't help but feel the same way.  someone mentioned the artistic integrity of the film and i couldn't disagree more, because rodriguez is performing hero worship of the most boring sort, and seems to direct everything with reservation, trying to make sure he's pleasing both miller (who i think was well intentioned but doesn't know enough about the medium) and all of Sin City's fans.  for something that's supposed to be a revelation in cinema, Sin City is incredibly underwhelming and generally lifeless.  

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.

[Gamblour.]

I totally agree with your last paragraph. I was at my friends' apartment, and, while deciding what movie to watch, it seemed like they only knew of the existence of the following movies: Fight Club, Requiem for a Dream, Donnie Darko, Boondock Saints, and Memento. I like all of those movies (haven't seen Boondock), but like you said, simple, manipulative, technological films are the ones that are remembered.

[Myxo]

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.

This isn't oil and brushes samsong.

The fact is, people pay a lot of money to get movies made. Those people want to see a return on that investment. If films were cheap, we could imagine a much more diverse and interesting marketplace for everyone. People want an escape. However, that isn't enough. You have to sell them that escape and everyone needs to spread the word that a film is great. Movies get ignored because they get mixed in with the rest of the thousands of low budget obscure films that are released every year. People don't have the time or inclination to sort through what they spend two hours and $8.50 on.

[matt35mm]

Fight Club, Requiem for a Dream, Donnie Darko, Boondock Saints, and Memento.

You know it's funny, the people who have these movies (though I must say that I own Fight Club, Requiem, and Memento) think that they're particularly knowledgeable about movies, or have a sophisticated taste in movies, and they get aggressive when one of those movies are dissed--Boondock Saints gets dissed all the time, and Donnie Darko is frequently called overrated, but not really by anyone who knows what they're talking about.  Which is why people can go years without anyone disputing that The Boondock Saints is an awesome movie (I haven't seen it either, so I'm not gonna say otherwise).  But I've called Donnie Darko overrated, and I've said that I don't have any particular interest in seeing Boondock Saints, and most of these people seem surprised at my opinion, since I'm supposed to be "the movie guy."  (I'm sure a lot of us are the "movie guys/girls" of our respective locations)  It's just funny that as "the movie guy," I'm supposed to like these tiny, weird "independent" films, especially ones that are really "edgy" and have a lot of cussing in them.

I guess this is what it feels like to be stereotyped.  Of course, I get the same thing for being half-Asian.  But it's interesting that when I get a comment on my race (like when I was wolfing down a bunch of candy and a friend said, "Don't they have any candy in China?  My God!") I find it funny or at least harmless, and that the attacks on my movie-geek status is what tends to offend me.

For the record, out of the bunch listed above, Memento and Requiem are the two truly brilliant movies, and Fight Club is pretty solid--although most of the fanbase is just attracted to the violence and tough-guy stuff.  Donnie Darko is overrated--the director did a great job in creating the mood and atmosphere that ultimately, for me, worked as a slight of hand in distracting the audience from realizing that it was actually a fairly mediocre movie.  And I think it's fair to say that I'd probably hate The Boondock Saints.

I've rambled way too much and none of this has to do with Sin City.  I'm sorry.  I'm just tired and unfocused right now.

[ᾦɐļᵲʊʂ]

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.

[SiliasRuby]

And I think it's fair to say that I'd probably hate The Boondock Saints.

You probably will, it's ok, but not great. I wasn't that impressed with it much...I gotta sell that DVD.

[meatball]

It's funny reading these posts. They come off sounding like the last surviving humans huddled in a shadowy meeting room planning the future of mankind. 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.

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.. and bull shit about the piece becomes more important than the piece itself. You like it or don't. It doesn't matter what color shoes Rodriguez was wearing when he directed a particular scene.


Boondock Saints is horrible. Overnight, a documentary about the director, is great, though. See that.  

[Gamblour.]

Sorry meatball, we'll stop thinking and discussing accordingly.

And I think you're right, viewers have been spoiled by commentaries and attempt to play sciolists and pass it off as their own knowledge. When you see people doing that, please come back and describe it in detail.