Sin City
|
List Price: Our Price: $4.04 You Save: $15.95 (80%) Availability: Usually ships in 1-2 business days Buy Used: from $0.99 (click here) Category: DVD See more DVD releases |
|---|
Buy this DVD movie at online store in your country
Canada
Canada
Movie Reviews of Sin City
Movie Review: Easily the best of 5 Stars
2005 has not been a banner year for movies, if I have to sit through one more super-hero movie I think I'm gonna puke. Between big Hollywood bombs and remake after remake, you can imagine the joy I received from watching this incredible movie. About as flawless as a movie can be this is film-making at it's best. I am not very familiar with Frank Miller and his 'graphic' novels, but I am very tempted to do some serious catching up with the man!!Have you ever seen a movie with so many a-list actors in your life? and here is what really surprised me, some of these actors generally make crappy movies (Brittany Murphy) but they all shine here, big time. Bruce Willis and Mickey Rourke get the most screen time and both excell mightily, I'm sure it won't happen but some oscar consideration for best actor should be considered for either if not both. Willis is at his best as a cop with a bad heart feeling his age trying to do good by his one true love, Jessica Alba, who plays a stripper with a big heart. She also is great in this, and thank god, because she followed this with 'Fantastic 4' why Jessica, why? Mickey Rourke, who I have always enjoyed, even in some of his more poor movies, is just stunning here, he plays this so well, he makes sure you will be thinking of this character weeks after you've seen it. I have now seen this three times and his portrayal of a man fighting all kinds of inner demons, not to mention a serial killer and a corrupt priest (played very well and very creepy by Rutger Hauer) is something I'll never forget.
Clive Owen is 3rd in the depth chart, but what a job he does, and I think he needed this, it makes people forget he did the awful 'King Arthur' he plays a cop trying to save his lady from a real low-life of a man played brilliantly by Benicio Del Toro. I mean this man is such a total sleaze-bag, and Del Toro absolutely hams it up, I'm guessing he had a blast playing this role. Brittany Murphy, and I can't believe I'm going to say this, is pretty solid as Owen's girlfriend. This is the same woman who did 'Little Black Book' and 'Uptown Girls' so this was a welcome change, hopefully this will help her pick better roles in the future, cuz' she is very attractive and really not that bad of an actress.
Moving on, some of the smaller roles are some of the best. Now this may seem strange to most, but I think Elijah Wood (yes, Frodo) should be nominated for Best Supporting Actor. He does not say a word, but his performance as the serial killer is down right scary. The facial expressions he uses are sinister and perfectly timed, you watch they way he "meets his maker" and tell me that didn't make the hair on your neck stand right up!!! Devon Aki is Meho, another who does not say a word, but is enchanting, until she whips out of of her many weapons and does some really not so nice things to alot of bad men. This was followed by D.E.B.S. Devon.......again, why?
Rosario Dawson is sexy as hell as Gail, one of Clive Owen's former flings, she too is a bad-ass and Nick Stahl is the son of senator Power's Boothe, both are scum-bags, but Stahl is just nasty, nasty, nasty. His scenes with Willis and Alba towards the end are sensational to say the least. Michael Madsen, Alexis Bledel, and Carla Gugino also co-star, and like I said earlier, all contribute in one way or another.
My only tiny, and I mean very tiny, complaint is Michael Clarke Duncan, he is very unbelievable and his role lacked the edge and depth of every other character, so this is two poor showings in a row from him, as he was really bad in 'Daredevil' but no big deal as most of that movie was atrocious.
Robert Rodriguez, for the most part, is a visually gifted director, he has a special way of showcasing violence in a stylized way that few can compare with.'Desperado' is one of my all time favorites and 'From Dusk Till Dawn' is one of the better horror vampire movies ever made. Although I have not seen any of the 'Spy Kids' movies, I know from there commercial success and with talking to alot of kids that atleast the first two are very well done. So it's a real shame that I recently heard that his latest kids fare, 'Adventures Of Sharkboy And Lavagirl' was such a flop.
I can't say enough good things about this movie, it is hands down the best of the year, and I really hope it is not forgotten around academy awards season. This is expertly acted and directed, and is simply one of the best-looking movie's I can remember. I hear there is a new version coming out, with extended scenes and the infamous "not rated" tag. So you can bet I'll be first in-line when the date is announced.
special effects....5 stars, Not over-done, perfectly timed.
action rating......5 stars, Amazing gun-fights, great chase scenes, suspense and a few one-liners thown in as well
Movie Review: The "Ayes" Have It...
Summary: 5 Stars
Despite the posted opinions of several reviewers that "you'd have to be a(n) [insert derogatory remark here] to enjoy Sin City," it still has an overwhelmingly high rating here. I guess that means the "Ayes" have it in this case...and I'm among them. I guess those reviewers think that 90% of the people who've rated the film here are stupid, depraved, sexist, or all of the above.
Let's take a look at the detractors for a moment, shall we?
First, there are those who are appalled at the level of violence, despite a great deal of it taking place off-screen (in the comics, it should be pointed out, they would not have had this luxury). But these are the same people who complain about violent films across the board (though they generally ignore the violence in certain movies because they LIKE them, regardless). There have been FAR more violent films than Sin City (including The Passion of the Christ, a movie generally hailed by those who hate Sin City)...but these folks like to talk about this movie as if it's the ne plus ultra of gore. This is ludicrous, and these people aren't worth discussing, really...so we'll move on.
"This movie was so sexist, I can't believe it! This is NOT a female-friendly film!!!" Interesting. My girlfriend, who is simultaneously a strong, independent woman and an unashamed "girly girl," really loved this movie. Then I gave her the comics to read, and she loved them as well...so we went to see the movie again. Of course, she doesn't look at things from such a narrow point of view. She recognizes that EVERY character in Sin City is an archetype...the men are portrayed just as badly as the women, if not worse. Despite all of the talk about women being degraded and brutalized in Sin City, most of the bruality is aimed at the male characters, and the most empowered characters in the film are women. Go figure.
"This isn't really film noir...what a rip-off." I've heard every conceivable argument here, and don't agree one bit. "Film noir has lead characters with fatal flaws...Sin City doesn't." Were we watching the SAME Sin City? The Sin City in which EVERY lead character has at least ONE fatal flaw? To say that Hartigan, Dwight, and (come on, people) Marv have no fatal flaws is like saying that James Dean had no style. Next. "Film noir has characters double-crossing each other...Sin City doesn't." You mean like Bob shooting his partner in the back? Like Becky selling out her friends for mob money? These don't constitute double-crosses? Again, were we watching the same movie? Next. "Film noir has plot twists...Sin City doesn't." Oh, come on! Let's not be stupid here, people. Sin City has everything that film noir requires...flawed characters, double-crosses, bleak worldview, complex character relationships, high-level corruption...you name it. Sin City is film noir, and the people who point out what film noir is supposed to be are simply proving my point.
"This movie is SOOOOOOO derivative of Tarantino's movies (or any other popular director)!!!!!!!" Is it? Despite the fact that the original Sin City comics were released in 1991, when QT was still relatively unknown? I've heard people say that Sin City is a Pulp Fiction rip-off, despite the fact that much of the material in Sin City was written and drawn before Pulp Fiction, and the film is essentially a carbon copy of Miller's comics. That's strange...perhaps Mr. Miller has a time machine?
Among those who are fans of the comics, there have been very few complaints...the only one I've heard was from a chap who complained that the film was TOO MUCH like the comics (which I didn't understand in the first place), but then went on to point out things that were left out of the movie, and how that bothered him. Seems he was so confused that he couldn't decide whether he hated the movie for being too faithful to the comics, or not faithful enough. But apart from him, it seems that every fan of Miller's comics is hailing Sin City as the ultimate comic book adaptation...and with good reason. It is a PERFECT translation from page to screen, unlike anything I have ever seen. Finally, comic book fans have a film that doesn't pointlessly alter the storyline, doesn't change the style, doesn't ruin the dialogue of the books, doesn't kill the mood of the source material.
In my opinion, Sin City is the perfect comic book movie, painstakingly adapted from one of the most powerful comic book series in the history of the medium. And it seems that the majority agree with me. That doesn't necessarily mean that we're right...maybe we ARE all stupid, depraved, sexist buffoons, however unlikely that may be...but hopefully, I've done a sufficient job of explaining why I think this is a great movie, why I will always have a place in my heart for it, and why I'm eagerly awaiting the next Sin City film.
This review was written by a well-studied film buff...who is in no way a sexist, an idiot, or a psychopath.
Movie Review: Simply, A Must See
Summary: 5 Stars
I only expected good things when I heard that there would be a film adaptation of Frank Miller's "Sin City" graphic novels, and after seeing this movie I can safely say that it was above and beyond even what I thought it could be. Robert Rodriguez really brings Miller's frantic and colorful (although not necessarily in the film, no pun intended) world to life, and makes the lines between comic and movie blur. Everything from the story to the cast of characters is nothing short of stellar as far as "Sin City" is concerned. Add in some outrageous (and sometimes gruesome) special effects, and a guest directing spot by the heralded Quentin Tarantino, and you have the formula for one of the best and most original movies to hit the silver screen in years. Short of nothing, this is a must see for fan's of Miller, Rodriguez and Tarantino, and the Sin City series.
The story may be somewhat confusing to some as it does jump around a bit (thanks to guest man Tarantino's patented directing style), but most should be able to piece everything together because it all relates to one giant overview in the end. The cast is perfect for the movie. There is really not one person from this film that I would take out, or anyone else I would add. You have the obvious eye candy of starlets like Jessica Alba (Nancy), Britanny Murphy (Shellie) and Rosario Dawson (Gail) to hold over the audience, while, well known actors like Bruce Willis (Hartigan), Mickey Rourke (Marv) and Clive Owen (Dwight) give the film plenty of credibility. The characters are developed wonderfully, and each has their own agenda/means for being in the film (like many I will never look at Elijah Wood the same way again). The story flows well actually for jumping around a bit, but that is what gives the film its special feel, and one that makes the viewer know this is a worthwhile experience. Without revealing too much of the plot line of the movie (which trust me you will want to find out for yourself as it is so good) the film basically takes from three of Miller's graphic novels, "The Big Fat Kill", "That Yellow Bastard" and "The Hard Goodbye", which if you have read any of the comics or novels you will probably be familiar with. Marv (Rourke) spent the night with the woman of his dreams, a hooker named Goldie, only to awake and find her dead of the bed next to him. Being framed for the murder, Marv escapes and vows to find out who indeed killed Goldie. Along with that Hartigan (Willis) has just awakened from his injuries he suffered while saving Nancy (Alba) when she was a child, only to meet back up with Nancy, who is now stripping at a popular night club. And all the while Dwight is trying to protect the city's prostitution brigade, after they mistakenly kill an officer. The way that the story fits together works almost perfectly considering that going from one frame to the other is not exactly the easiest thing to do.
About those who have complained about the movie. I've noticed that most people who have given this movie bad reviews or trashed it have concentrated on two major points : the violence and the unrealistic events. As far as the violence goes, yes Sin City is extremely, extremely graphic. However if you were to take any of this away from the movie, everything "Sin City" was centered around would falls to pieces. Not to say the movie is dependent on its violent content, but in reality these stories come from comics which are most of the time graphic in nature (don't even ask about graphics novels). The violence though is very cartoon-like, so I can't really imagine anyone being genuinely offended for seeing a bloody character appear on the screen. As for the unrealistic qualities the movie has, like I said it comes from a comic book series. I'm guessing a lot of people who have complained this movie either don't know this, or haven't read comics/graphics novels. Basically the movie portrays what happens in the novels to a T, and complaining or trashing the movie for being unrealistic or violent shows not only close-mindedness, but an unwillingness to accept that there are other ways to create authentic ideas. At some point people have to learn how to suspend their disbelief.
"Sin City" was and still is easily one of the most pleasurable viewing experiences to come along in quite some time. If you are a fan of the Sin City series, or any other movies which Rodriguez and Tarantino have been involved in, you are in for a spectacular treat, because this is definitely among the best films that either has been a part of. If you have no idea about any of what I have said or you haven't seen or even heard about anything related to the two directors, this is still a worthwhile movie to see, if only for it's uniqueness. There's plenty of interesting plot developments, likeable/ hate-worthy characters, and stunning effects to hold almost any viewer over. There's not much more I can say, except that you should really see this movie. Do so right away.
Movie Review: Noir reinvented
Summary: 5 Stars
If there's anything you knew in advance about "Sin City" (aside from who gets naked -- show a little class dammit) it's that director Robert Rodriquez went as far out of his way as humanly possible to make this film adhere as closely as possible to the visual feel of the comic book source material. Well, I haven't read any of Frank Miller's legendary "Sin City" comics, but having seen the movie, I can't imagine it existing without them.Many people will see similarities between "Sin City" and the work of Quentin Tarantino, both because Robert Rodriquez will probably never break free from this stigma no matter how many kiddie flicks he makes, and more importantly -- gulp -- he actually inviteds QT on board to direct one of the segments, this after he'd torn up his DGA membership card in disgust after they wouldn't allow him to list Frank Miller as a co-director, so as far as integrity goes it's hard to one-up Sir Robert here. I didn't pay a whole lot of attention to which segment QT was supposed to be directing ahead of viewing this flick, and it's to the film's credit that it all seems of a piece no matter how the chores were divvied up.
Now, there are a couple of things that are immediately going to weed out a certain part of the older audience (hello Ma!), this being the "artsy" use of black-and-white splashed here and there with purposeful primary colors, and also the integrity of the action sequences. I shouldn't diss the so-called "older" audience, being in my third decade of existence myself, but my parents and everyone else their age have certain prejudices toward a particular kind of modern film, this being the type that has "far fetched" action sequences. Yes, in "Sin City" the characters are able to take a ridiculous amount of bullets and keep on ticking as well as jumping out of windows several stories to the ground without any apparent injuries, but to that I say that there is a reason this kind of thing works in a film like "Sin City" whereas it can easily wear thin in a movie like, say, "The Matrix". Sin City is portrayed as a hopelessly fatalistic backdrop against which the best the characters can hope for is to die with a little bit of dignity. It doesn't really matter that Marv doesn't croak after taking a bullet to the head because you know the dice are gonna roll cold for him sooner or later.Another comparison people may make to Tarantino is to point out that "Sin City" is also an anthology film. I could mention the fact that this is based on three graphic novels featuring different protagonists and leave it at that, but -- at the risk of unduly diminishing the genius of Quentin Tarantino, whose "Pulp Fiction" is undeniably the most influential film of the 90s and a work of art in it's own right -- it should be noted that QT did not, in fact, actually INVENT the anthology film. No, that would be George Romero and Stephen King with "Creepshow" (I'm kidding, of course, but you get my point...).
Aside from the anthology aspect, there is one thing that actually does somewhat resemble "Pulp Fiction": Bruce Willis' character makes an early exit only to return later in the film. It's not the same chronological gimmick that QT utilized but I've said enough as it is.The one aspect that got so much press in the film's pre-release was the unprecedented decision to film the entire movie in front of a green screen. This move not only doesn't come off as a gimmick but you'll find yourself forgetting that "Sin City" isn't absolutely real about five minutes into the movie. Sure, there are numerous improbabilities, as detailed above, but it's the MOVEMENT of the characters, vehicles, weapons, etc. that seem a bit cartoonish; nothing about the actual scenery really does. In essence, "Sin City" sticks to the elements that continue to make noir so compelling: great camerawork, gritty characterizations, and the theme of a hardened soul holding out some kind of remote hope for redemption. Bruce Willis was an absolute no-brainer for this flick: he's spent the last decade perfecting this world-weary gutter saint character, and "Sin City" is arguably his best portrait of this tortured soul archetype yet. Willis, Clive Owen and Mickey Rourke are the three main protagonists, and you'll find yourself rooting for them not through point-of-view bias alone, but because each of these guys completely earns the right to be called a bad ass. In a way I'm glad they saved the fate of Willis' character for last as the whole movie seems to be building to such tragedy.
So, yes, it's unfortunate that so many people will rent this movie sheerly on the recommendation of Mr. Skin, but hopefully "Sin City" will turn more than a few heads on to a new, hightened quality of experimental film-making in the same way that the aforementioned "Pulp Fiction" did a decade ago. Word is that Rodriquez is planning two back-to-back sequels as we speak.
Movie Review: Warning *Spoilers* Abound
Summary: 5 Stars
First I have to cover the basics. I don't know if I've ever been made so physically uncomfortable by a movie that also entertained me and sparked my interest so much. I doubt if more than two minutes went by during the entire movie where there wasn't an unbelievable amount of blood on the screen. Short of a few, every scene in this movie contained gratuitous violence to a level that I can't honestly say I've been exposed to before. There was torture, castration, rape, cannibalism, prostitution, more castration, and on top of it all a dazzling web of intrigue that will not soon be topped by moviemakers.
Of course it wasn't all scenes of spine-chilling, gut-wrenching violence, there was love in this movie, there was honor, there was justice. Nearly every action taken on the part of the, for lack of a better word, protagonists was taken to protect someone they love. The critics say that the writer supplied the obligatory "feelings" to these characters simply to facilitate the violence, but I disagree. These characters were twisted and destructive, there is no doubt about that, but in a world that was so much more twisted than they were their actions became surprisingly justified. Shooting off the penis of a man didn't seem quite so bad when it became clear that the man was a child rapist. In a town where innocent girls grew up to be militant whores, a senator had the power to kill a man laying incapacitated in a hospital bed, and a mute psycho led by a sadistic cardinal killed and ate prostitutes I had no grievances against the actions of the just, regardless of how unsettling they were. I suppose some blame can be put on the writer for creating such a world and it could be said that the creation of such a world was done solely to facilitate the violence, but I don't think that's true either. These characters were vivid and interesting. Their actions existed in such a morally ambiguous world that you couldn't help but side with those that came across as even half-way human.
The visual style was the reason that I went to see this movie and I was not disappointed. A black and white movie is rare enough these days, but this may be the first to ever feature simple flashes and splashes of color. The black and white actually helped this world come to life. Throughout most of the movie it wasn't even apparent that nothing was physically real. Stylistically and cinematically it was a good idea to never bring out the city and instead to focus on the characters... and the blood. Since the color that was used was always used to bring focus to the actions of those on screen it easily distracted from the cartoonish backdrop that they took place in. When there was no color to speak of, like during aerial shots, it didn't matter that the world looked ethereal because it was supposed to; providing an unearthly setting helped separate Sin City from our world in an entirely necessary way.
The biggest problem I had with this movie is that, when spoken, it becomes ridiculously apparent that comic narrative and dialogue is stilted and overly-blunt. I did like some things that Miller did with it though; near the end of every chapter it ties back to the beginning with a simple line of narrative that has taken on a completely different meaning throughout the scenes. I'm assuming that this was done originally in the comics, but it is still well done.
I'm glad that Frank Miller actually wrote and directed this movie. Normally when people try to adapt comics into movies they end up missing the point of the original work entirely because they don't consult the author, but when the author writes and directs the adaptation those problems cease to exist. I guess Quentin only directed one scene, but I'll be damned if I know which one it was; they all could have been him.
I would talk about the actors in this, but none of them really did anything for me. They were all sufficiently good, not overly impressive or painfully bad. Brittany Murphy, for the first time, didn't annoy me like she normally does. Josh Hartnett had no more than half-a-dozen lines, which I appreciated. Alexis Bledel, TV's pristine Rory Gilmore, played a back-stabbing prostitute, which was amusing. On the whole, there was nothing that impressive about any of them. The writing and visual work covered up for them perfectly though, so they had nothing to worry about. Jessica Alba is scantly dressed for the vast majority of the movie, so if nothing else she can distract you from anything you don't like.
I wouldn't recommend this movie to the squeamish, but if you can handle it it's a movie you won't soon forget.