Sin City

[Gamblour.]

Hmm well something strange is going on.

There are people here saying, "What the fuck? The movie is brainless so quit using your brain to analyze it." But there are people, including myself, who did not enjoy the movie when we saw it. It's not that I was expecting anything, I had heard good and bad things, but I went and saw it and could not get into it all. Things about this film bugged me.

I come here and try to explain and reason out why things bugged me. But I can't do that apparently, because I'll get bombarded with people telling me to shut up and just watch the movie that I didn't enjoy in the first place. See, I'm not going to enjoy it, so I would like to learn why my opinion is the way it is.

Now if we could all get over this and quit telling people to shut up, that'd be great, thanks. (Even though I"m being a total hypocrite and did this to GT somewhere in the Scorsese forum)

Carla Gugino is the sexiest woman alive.

[Pubrick]

Carla Gugino is the sexiest woman alive.

yeah, in Spin City.

[deathnotronic]

I'm new here. Don't shit down my throat please.

This movie, to me, was just a movie to keep me entertained for a few hours. I didn't go into the theatre expecting to see anything groundbreaking, or to analyze it any deeper than the overall story. I watched and enjoyed.  Taking a movie for what it's worth when it comes to huge movies like this is much more important to me than being oh-so-critical over continuity flaws and the likes.

But what do I know.

PS. Was I the only one totally creeped out by Elijah Wood's character?

[meatball]

I thoroughly enjoyed Frank Miller's cameo. At first I thought it was a 'professional' actor, then I realized on my second viewing that it wasn't. Does anybody know which story segment he directed? I have a feeling it was Marv's.

[modage]

I thoroughly enjoyed Frank Miller's cameo. At first I thought it was a 'professional' actor, then I realized on my second viewing that it wasn't. Does anybody know which story segment he directed? I have a feeling it was Marv's.

he co-directed the whole film, save for tarantino's scene. rodriguez had originally offered him the chance to direct a segment until he realized he'd rather have him around for the whole thing so they both co-directed the film.

I'm new here. Don't shit down my throat please.

This movie, to me, was just a movie to keep me entertained for a few hours. I didn't go into the theatre expecting to see anything groundbreaking, or to analyze it any deeper than the overall story. I watched and enjoyed.  Taking a movie for what it's worth when it comes to huge movies like this is much more important to me than being oh-so-critical over continuity flaws and the likes.

But what do I know.

PS. Was I the only one totally creeped out by Elijah Wood's character?

welcome.  

not to shit down your throat but...  

i dont think anybody said that continuity flaws were a problem.
whats huge about this movie?  why shouldnt huge movies be as good as smaller ones?

[Gold Trumpet]

I recently read one of the graphic novels the film was based on. Technically, I'm less impressed with the film after. Its a pretty precise adaptation when it comes to dialogue, but I felt the shot compisition was weaker in the film. Miller is very thorough in presenting a new angle and perspective with every little piece of dialogue that I got the impression each drawing he did was more important than the overall scene he was telling. Rodiguez manages to keep many scenes to standard perspectives and little variety. He does duplicate many of the interesting shots well, but not nearly all of them to the extent Miller went into.

Do I really like the film any less? Not really. If my opinion was professional, I imagine I'd even feel obligated to write a negative review. Its an entertainment vehicle and the film popped and crackled enough on those levels to keep me involved and enthused. Actually, the film reminded me of my appreciation for Sam Fuller. Fuller excelled in pulp stories like Sin City does. Though Fuller has larger issues in mind, you really can't see an excellence of art in the traditional sense with Fuller. Its storytelling to such a spirit that his shortcomings are redeemed. Actually, when I first got into Fuller, my opinion was mostly negative because he didn't work for me in a traditional sense. His films have a classification similiar to Sin City. Sin City is just for entertainment though.

[deathnotronic]

I'm new here. Don't shit down my throat please.

This movie, to me, was just a movie to keep me entertained for a few hours. I didn't go into the theatre expecting to see anything groundbreaking, or to analyze it any deeper than the overall story. I watched and enjoyed.  Taking a movie for what it's worth when it comes to huge movies like this is much more important to me than being oh-so-critical over continuity flaws and the likes.

But what do I know.

PS. Was I the only one totally creeped out by Elijah Wood's character?

welcome.  

not to shit down your throat but...  

i dont think anybody said that continuity flaws were a problem.
whats huge about this movie?  why shouldnt huge movies be as good as smaller ones?

I never said that anyone said that. I was speaking in generalities, my friend.

And, huge as in funding, promotion, etc... you don't see trailers for The Sea Inside everywhere, do you? Huge may have been the wrong adjective.

"Huge" movies should be just as good a smaller ones. There's no reason for them not to be. We'd all love this to happen, but, unfortunately, given the direction Hollywood has been going, I can't forsee this option being a viable one. What it comes down to is the general public paying for shitty movies. See: New Ashton Kutcher movies. Nearly every movie that fits my definition seems to be the wheel of reinvention sputtering out hour and a half atrocities.

Again, generalities.

[Ghostboy]

I thought it was interesting how the very last scene of the film, the coda with Alexis Bledel, was the only scene that was shot on an actual location, with no blue screen; it looked completely different from the rest of the film, and the telltale signs of HD were visible for the first time.

[Jeremy Blackman]

There are people here saying, "What the fuck? The movie is brainless so quit using your brain to analyze it" . . .

Now if we could all get over this and quit telling people to shut up, that'd be great, thanks.

Fair enough, but I didn't say any of those things.

I recognize the things that you and others dislike. I liked them. It's just been bothering me that people are surprised, horrified, and offended by these things.

I like the comicness, which includes by coincidence things that are in a lot of bad movies.... overacting, unrealism, jump cuts, CGI... Are people making misleading associations here? Do they expect either an art film or a conventional action film, and because it has superficial elements of the latter they pull it into that group with disappointment? I don't know. And why are these things good in this movie? Because there's a totally different level of recognition. That's what I loved about the movie. It's completely unafraid of its comicness, and that changes everything. Or it did for me.

despite his involvement, the film still brings nothing new to the table.

I think you're trying to argue against adaptation in general. If that's true, you have a lot of convincing to do. Do you believe in absolute originality?

visually i was unimpressed, and found no means of escapism in the film because i was distracted by how inconsitent it was

That's your problem right there. The point of Sin City is not to let you escape, but to trap you. I also distinctly felt "trapped." And please tell me what you think was inconsistent, and why it's a problem.

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.

I agree... which is why Samsong's comment about inconsistency confused me. Does he mean it was inconsistent because there were different storylines? I don't know. Have you seen Sky Captain and the World of Tomorrow? That's a perfect contrast to Sin City... it fades to normality (visually and narratively) in a very big way.

[Gamblour.]

I thought it was interesting how the very last scene of the film, the coda with Alexis Bledel, was the only scene that was shot on an actual location, with no blue screen; it looked completely different from the rest of the film, and the telltale signs of HD were visible for the first time.

I noticed that too. It jumped out at me, the hospital walls, the nurses walking around. It kind of slaps you. I have to say, I couldn't tell nor did I even think that the film was shot in HD. I guess Rodriguez is right about its potential.

[matt35mm]

I thought it was interesting how the very last scene of the film, the coda with Alexis Bledel, was the only scene that was shot on an actual location, with no blue screen; it looked completely different from the rest of the film, and the telltale signs of HD were visible for the first time.

Jumped out at me, too.  Mostly because of the shot follow Bledel walking, the camera was either dollied or steadicammed, which was nothing like what had come before, since you couldn't really do that with greenscreen stuff and match the background's movement realistically.  It all of a sudden felt like realistic environment.

I also didn't notice any HD signs or anything like that, I just noticed that it looked like a "real" movie all of a sudden.  What are those signs of HD that you noticed?  I know you've worked in HD, so I'm sure you know more than I do about it.

[Ghostboy]

What are those signs of HD that you noticed?

Just an ever so slight murkiness -- especially in black and white, where the two tones and the graduation between them aren't as crisp and rich as they would be in film.

[samsong]

What the I think you're trying to argue against adaptation in general. If that's true, you have a lot of convincing to do. Do you believe in absolute originality?

then you thought wrong.  my comments for the film were strictly reserved for the film itself, though i'll admit to going off on a tanget about my dislike for robert rodriguez which may have effected the way i decided to articulate my thoughts.  i have no problem with adaptation whatsoever but i don't think Sin City is an adaptation so much as an imitation.  rodriguez unabashedly admits to this, since his believe was the frank miller's work is "above cinema" and the adaptation here seems to be that of cinema to the work, and i personally think it failed.

to answer your question, i believe in absolute originality as much as i believe in absolute objectivity -- i dont think it exists.  i obviously viewed this film with subjective eyes and was not excited or entertained.  that isn't to say that i thought it was wholly bad or boring (though i know i haven't exactly been evenhanded in presenting my opinion).  as far as expectations go i just wanted to be entertained, and that was somewhat met but not satisfied.  i don't see why this reaction is so unacceptable. you seemed to have seen something unconventional and uncompromising, i didn't.  i felt it was a lifeless and drab experience.  i certainly respect what you think of the film despite my inability to relate... i dont think either of us have a definitive answer as to what the film is and how everyone should react.  at least i don't.  if what i said came off that way then let me say that it wasn't my intention at all.

That's your problem right there. The point of Sin City is not to let you escape, but to trap you. I also distinctly felt "trapped." And please tell me what you think was inconsistent, and why it's a problem.

i know this was an element of the graphic novels but the transition from the expresionistic to "realistic" (the more fleshed out, detailed) set pieces was rough and confusing as to its intention.  this is where my problem with the adaptation comes.  the goal/vision of recreating Sin City panel by panel to film i think was a much better concept than the finished product.  whatever the intention behind that decision was, to me the defiance of cinematic conventions here seemed arbitrary.  it doesn't really do anything for narrative storytelling through cinema nor does it break any bearers for imagery, and that doesn't necessarily have to be the result of breaking conventions but i'd like to think that there's a purpose behind breaking the rules beyond simply recreating the illustrations of an admired artist.  rodriguez to me blurred the lines between hero worship and truly adapting the books to film.  

i assumed that escapism was the purpose of the film since it does present us with with a reality that obviously isn't familiar to (most of) us.  at any rate the storytelling didn't engage me, nor did its other elements but again, the film isn't without its moments.  i'm sorry i didn't get that the film was supposed to "trap" me, or that i didn't feel "trapped."  i'm not even sure what you mean by the word anyway.  "please tell me what you meant, and why..." well, you know.

... which is why Samsong's comment about inconsistency confused me. Does he mean it was inconsistent because there were different storylines?

thank you for indirectly patronizing me.  i liked it.  was it as good for you as it was for me because i'm ready for round two, big guy.

all the childish, "witty" exchanges aside, i'd like to reiterate something Gamblor said.  

Carla Gugino is the sexiest woman alive.

that, and there are people who just didn't like the damn thing, and we obviously have our reasons, some of which are rooted in personal preference.  i don't get what the problem with that is.  what i said seemed to need some refining and i'm fine with the discussion and explaning where i'm coming from, but don't treat it as if it's wrong to dislike this movie.  i might've strongly advocated the dislikes but that's just my opinion, and i dont think i ever said it was wrong to like it.  just because the film was meant to entertain doesn't mean that everyone who sees it has to find it entertaining.  what a film is worth to the viewer varies... i don't remember there being a standard or guide as to how all audience members should watch the movie or what its worth is.  if the film rodriguez and miller is truly is as uncompromising as you think it is, then there will be dissenting opinions, and i don't think they give a shit.  neither should you...  not to a point where it's not okay to dislike a movie you obviously saw more in than some of us have... i dont think either of us are wrong, nor should it ever really be an issue of right and wrong (i just got defensive and assumed you were "attacking" [for lack of better word] my opinion.  if that wasn't what you were getting at, then... i dont know).  hopefully i cleared up the things that confused you or caused misunderstanding.

[Jeremy Blackman]

i have no problem with adaptation whatsoever but i don't think Sin City is an adaptation so much as an imitation.

I can sympathize with this if you've read the graphic novels (have you?). Otherwise it's kind of a moral objection, which I don't have and can't understand.

as far as expectations go i just wanted to be entertained, and that was somewhat met but not satisfied.

I think that's strong enough to be a preconception, not just an expectation. I think Sin City is more unpleasant than it is entertaining, which completely worked for me. And I think your openly stated desire for "escapism" means that you tried to understand the movie in a fundamentally different way.

I'm not implying any inferiority here, so please don't take it personally. I'm just trying to understand how your experience was different from mine.

[ono]

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?"

Excuse me, I just had to step in and roll my eyes really quickly.  I am rolling my eyes.  All over the place.

Carry on.  I don't care about Spin City.  Or Sin City.  Is that so wrong?