Sin City
|
List Price: Our Price: $4.02 You Save: $15.97 (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: Sin City Breaks Rules
Summary: 5 Stars
When the movie title appears, the lighting becomes dim and the audience receives its first glimpse of the evil portrayed on the screen.
Frank Miller's Sin City is highly stylized and very violent. It is based on a graphic novel, but is also reminiscent of film noir of the 1940s and 50s. This is evident in the use of voice-overs, crime and the personalities of the characters. The extreme loyalty of the film to the novel is refreshing after so many disappointing adaptations such as The Hulk and Daredevil.
The film was praised for staying true to its roots. The novel was often superimposed into shots of the film to make the two as identical as possible.
The characters are stereotypical representations of what one might expect from a bad neighborhood. All of the men are murderers, even the police. There are good guys and corrupt ones and their clashes result in death most of the time. The women are strippers or prostitutes who use violence to take care of themselves or who utilize their men to do the dirty work for them. The cast is exceptional with stars such as Bruce Willis, Jessica Alba, Rosario Dawson, Brittany Murphy, Elijah Wood, Benicio Del Toro and Nick Stahl. The characters are highly controversial and they hardly depict role models which is cause for some to question why such famous actors would want to be part of such a project. Director Robert Rodriguez said, "Actors want to create memorable characters; they don't want to play themselves in movies over and over again."
The story itself is presented in layers. There is a short story with Josh Hartnett that acts as the very beginning and the end of the film. It is based on the short "The Customer is Always Right" and was created as a vehicle to sell the film to producers. The compelling story starring Bruce Willis ends and returns again after the two center stories. It is based on the short "That Yellow Bastard." There are two middle stories that only have one segment each. One called "The Hard Goodbye" stars Mickey Rourke as a Hulk-like do-gooder that constantly faces trouble. A second non-returning segment stars Clive Owen and is based on the short "The Big Fat Kill." Each story revolves around a man's love for a woman.
Rodriguez was ejected from the Screen Actor's Guild for breaking one of the rules with Sin City, working with one or more co-directors.
Quentin Tarentino appeared as a guest director and was paid only one dollar for his contribution. The style of the film is reminiscent of Tarentino's own work. The chronological structure of the film is similar to that in Pulp Fiction. There is even a homage to Reservoir Dogs when a man's ear is shot clean off. Tarentino's own fame has brought conflicting ideas about which scene he directed. The general consensus seems to be that he probably directed a relatively unimportant scene.
This film is not for the weak at heart nor is it for women who easily get offended by films that might seem to degrade them on the surface. This film contains violence and female nudity. The nudity is not excessive and makes the film realistic.
Violence is the most obvious element. It is so abundant that the film almost received a harsher rating than the R rating it received. The visual effects aid this dilemma. They make the amount of blood and the severity of the violence less intense. Some might say that the extremity of the violence is used to generate publicity. Male genitals are attacked several times throughout the film and cannibalism is an addressed issue. Each of these adds to the shock value. The film has been scrutinized by some for being too violent, but creator Frank Miller said, "Chuck Jones got criticism for violence!" referring to the creator of Wile E. Coyote.
The visual effects were so unrealistic, they had to be done on a green screen. The film was shot in color and was later changed to stark black and white through a digital process.
USA Today outlined the seven cardinal rules of movie-making that Sin City broke. These rules included never making black and white movies, never using voice-overs, never having blatant sexuality in a comic book movie, never using several directors, never making beautiful actors uglier, never excluding famous actors from having dialogue and never relying on green screens for the bulk of a film.
Overall, Sin City seems to be a hit or a flop with people with no one in between. The sexuality, violence, and unusual film-making are certainly refreshing elements even if they shock instead of thrill.
Movie Review: One of the All-time Best Comic Book Movies
Summary: 5 Stars
After much hassle, I at long last go to see SIN CITY, the movie version of the classic Frank Miller graphic novels. I sit through 20 minutes of previews, including one for HITCHIKER'S GUIDE
which I'm excited about (I dig Doug Adams), and the tedious STAR WARS 3 : SITH HAPPENS, which revolted me to no end.
The movie begins. (WARNING: I don't give much away in this review, but at this point I do give away small clips).
Love the opening. Great mini which sets up the feel of the city and hence, the feel of the movie.
Love the tragic Bruce Willis short. Glad to see Nick Stahls working.
Then, we get right to the good stuff: MARV.
The Marv segment steals the show for me, hands down. I love anti-hero stories, I love intense violence and gore, I love insane cannibal stories and I love Mickey Rourke (good to see him in a bigger role again). This segment had it all and then some! Whoever thought Elijah Wood could be scary? Better yet, who ever thought there would be a flick where Mickey Rourke and Elijah Wood brawl!?! Marv is a superb anti-hero: he's mean but to the right people, he has self-loathing and a disorder, he reflects on the old days when he kicked everyone's assess, one of his only pals is a lesbian, and he goes nuts when anyone roughs up a woman.
But although he easily takes the cake here, let's not overlook the other goodies.
The next act, featuring the incredible Benico Del Toro, Brittany Murphy and some bloke named Clive who I've only elsewhere seen in I'LL SLEEP WHEN I'M DEAD (which sucked while I watched), was good but I didn't care for Clive. He was too bland for me. Too David Duchoviny. Other than that, it was smokin'. Benico shined bright as always.
Bruce Willis returns in a wonderful grand finale. I was particularly fond of Nick from IN THE BEDROOM as Junior/Yellow Bastard. What a sickeningly good show he put on. He looked like what would happen if John Malcovitch and Big Bird had a child together and then locked it in a fruit cellar for thirty years.
The stylish noir of the film is genius, the stark B&W with the touches of burning color. It's hypnotic and gorgeous. Rodriguez redems himself for the hilariously bad ONCE UPON A TIME IN MEXICO. The hard-ass saving the dirty angel theme runs throughout the film but doesn't get old
or stale, the violence is over the top and splendidly brutal, and the gore and T&A is aplenty, pleasing the heck out of a depraved maniac like me.
This film gets stars all across the board from me. Although the casting of that bland bloke Clive in the hooker showdown tale was a bad move, and although Bruce Willis plays an old man and yet nobody thinks to slap some old man make-up on him (even when he ages during the course of the film), the movie over-all is stunningly good and Miller's brillance was wonderfuly transported from the page to the screen.
The real stroke of genius here was letting Frank Miller co-direct the movie. Rodriguez (and Tarantino, somewhere) aided with the techincal and camera direction aspect but Miller repainted the mood of his graphic novels. This is why it came out so good, unlike the bastardized versions of comics which hit theaters without consultation
of the original creators (doody-tanks like THE PUNISHER and THE HULK). Rami did great on the SPIDER-MAN films because he was such a hardcore fanboy, but normally such dedication to the original artisty isn't present and directors think they have ways to improve the original story, and then they, in the end, ruin them.
BATMAN BEGINS was originaly based on Frank Miller's BATMAN: YEAR ONE. While BATMAN BEGINS still looks to have some promise, it likely would have been better if they had worked with Miller on it. Miller was one of the best things to ever happen to Batman. We'll see if Christian Bale cuts the mustard or if he simply cuts the cheese.
So far, I have mixed feelings about it. It looks good overall, but Bale looks so much like Kilmer in the suit. This seems like a bad omen. Don't get me wrong, I like Bale. AMERICAN PSYCHO was great! But
Bale as Batman? I don't know about that.
Anyway, SIN CITY was the best movie I've seen in a very, very long time. I highly, highly recommend it to everyone who enjoys crime, noir, horror and overall fun movies.
Movie Review: Get over yourselves and think...
Summary: 5 Stars
I have quite a few things to say after seeing this movie and reading almost every review on this site. Every comment from those that loved it to those that hated it. From the 15 year old that shouldn't have been let in the theatre w/o his Mommy in the first place to the "top-rated critic" that prolly had more expectations then all of us put together before they even went in the theatre. I'm not saying each person doesn't have their own basis for their opinions, but it seems everybody has pre-conceptions for a movie of this hype long before they even give it a chance. Drop your expectations and you'd be surprised how much you can enjoy ANY movie. However, I'm going to start with my personal opinion and try my best not to include any factual information yet so bear with me:
First things first, people that cry and whine about the gore and "degrading" representation of women and nudity and the fact that you can't relate to the characters - what exactly did you in all your teenage/feminist ignorace expect from a rated R movie called "SIN CITY"? It's seems to me that so many uptight people automatically see or hear something that SEEMS a certain way and they don't bother to think into the hidden meanings. The hookers that show skin but are tough as nails simply show the adversity and determination of women to struggle through the pimps and killers and fight back the only way that ever gets things done. So many bleeding hearts want to believe that war is bad, but they shouldn't deny the fact that the changes that COME from war are necessary.
Secondly, I am an aspiring actor and a movie buff beyond many peoples' understandings. Do most of you nay-sayers even understand how difficult it is to "act cheesy"? I've done quite a few theatre shows, and as a mandatory skill, you have to overact. You HAVE to be cheesy to appropriately pervey the meaning behind the plot. I truly believe the acting was exceedingly excellent and not as easy or crappy as so many of you haters think. Each charater was shown in the way they needed to be from the pages of the comic by their respective actors/actresses. When a director tells you, "Ham this up and be corny!" you friggin do it and hope you do it well. And they all did just that.
Finally, again, only as my opinion, I believe this movie was an original, complex, risque masterpiece that needed to be done before someone else did it WRONG. Do you people truly believe the directors/writers said in the middle of a scene, "Hold on! We shouldn't put that in, people might get offended." Gimme a break folks, what the #@$! do they make movies for? Movies are an escape from reality and are meant to tug at your emotions, even if that happens to be disgust or hate. Actually, do you haters dislike this movie because maybe it's a little TOO close to reality for your tastes? Does it scare you only because this seems to be what our world is working towards? Good deeds are never rewarded...evil lurks everywhere, even where you least expect it...the beauty that you see on the surface doesn't always match underneath... That's what this movie really shows and I think it bothers alot of you. This is the underbelly of what our planet is slowly building towards and that makes you mad that we can enjoy it as entertainment.
Now, the facts: This movie was as original as they come. It had very distinct lessons to learn from EVERY character. It had star power that each showed off, if anything, their diversity. It is true to the comic and is an amazing genre-bending story that has been attempted and failed at every time...until now.
My suggestion to anyone reading these reviews that hasn't seen it (or that have and simply want to hear others' opinions), don't think too hard when you watch it. Don't pick apart what you do and don't like about each scene. Watch the movie and, at the end, decide for yourself. You'll either love it or hate it...there doesn't seem to be much middle ground here. Use your brain and not your eyes to figure this one out.
Personally, as a wannabe actor, a movie freak, and a comic book artist/reader I can't wait to own this one and put it at the front of the stack!
the jokA
Movie Review: ORIGINAL and THRILLING!!
Summary: 5 Stars
First and foremost, SIN CITY is a treat for the eyes. There's never been a movie that looks quite like this one. It was filmed largely in front of green-screen sets, much like SKY CAPTAIN AND THE WORLD OF TOMORROW. Unlike that dreary movie, which tried to make us believe the "sets" were real, SIN CITY tries to make us believe the entire movie is a comic book that's been animated. It attempts a lot technically, and ACHIEVES it. There are a few moments in the movie (the shot of Bruce Willis leaving prison, with snow coming down on him, for example) that are beautiful, pure and simple. Others are whimsical. Others give us vertiginous angles that wouldn't be possible in "real life." The movie is worth a look just for the technical aspects.
I've never read anything by Frank Miller. I'm not a graphic novel reader. But I am a fan of film noir, and what I loved about this movie was the way it melded "old style" film noir narration (a la the books of Dashiel Hammett or Raymond Chandler) with a modern sensibility. The movie is also ultra-violent, but if you read something like RED HARVEST by Hammett, written in the 1920's, you see that streets running red with blood is hardly a new thing.
The movie tells three (OK, four) loosely interweaving stories that are set in this metropolis that is utterly corrupt. No one "normal" even seems to live there...it's populated entirely by corrupt cops, killers, strippers, hookers and psychopaths. Some of them have hearts of gold, or at least, hearts that aren't totally black, and these are our heroes. I don't want to delve into the details of each story, but I found them all fascinating, although the first major story, with Mickey Rourke as the disfigured tough Marv may have been my favorite. I felt it most cleanly walked the line between humor, pathos and suspense. His character was an original.
Nearly everyone in the movie was terrific. You can tell they were energized by taking part in Robert Rodriquez's little experiment. Mickey Rourke was outstanding...too bad no one will recognize him, because this could be his comeback vehicle. Clive Owen (whom I've always found a bit hard to warm up to) was very good...tough, vulnerable, funny. Bruce Willis does his patented world-weary cop, but there's a reason he keeps getting parts like that...he's darn good in them. Benicio Del Toro clearly had fun with his creepy role. Elijah Wood, while not really called upon to "perform", certainly shatters his "good hobbit" image in this flick!
The women don't fare quite so well. The parts are somewhat underwritten and incidental. Jessica Alba is the most important female character, and while she looks the part, her acting talents aren't totally up to snuff. Not enough to make one cringe, but there could have been more depth. Rosario Dawson really chomps into her role...she fares best among the women. Alexis Bleidl is OK and Brittany Murphy overacts mightily. I know many will find the movie to be anti-woman. True, women aren't portrayed in too great a light here...but you know what? Men aren't either. These people are all just shades of scum...some scummier than others. But the women are also strong and can "take care of themselves." So, if you want to argue the movie glorifies violence...that's one thing. But hates women? That's a non-starter for me.
But this movie, primarily, is a feast for the senses. A great overall visual look (Visual Effects supervisor: Robert Rodriquez), great editing (Rodriquez) and camera work (Rodriquez). Good musical score (co-composed by Rodriquez) and great sound work. It's a dizzyingly fast-paced movie that never feels hurried. There's always something fun to listen to or to see.
It is VERY violent. If you were turned off by KILL BILL, you might be equally appalled by the violence here. Absolutely not for little kids. But if you want a visceral treat, this is a MUST SEE movie. I thoroughly enjoyed myself, and am ready to see it again!
Movie Review: Pure Entertainment
Summary: 5 Stars
Even moreso than usual, I have nothing to tell you about this movie that hasn't been said a million times before. Still, some things are cool enough that you've gotta take the time to recommend them no matter what. As I said in my title, this film is pure entertainment, from beginning to end. It virtually never lets up, and has the visual innovation, technical brilliance and sheer oddness to make feel like it could've gone on for a whole lot longer without getting old.
As others have said, this is perhaps the ultimate 'guy film', and it's delightfully violent and perverse without either becoming to grim or seeming like it is solely meant to shock. Plenty of people are offended by the violence, though it's tough to imagine why considering how over the top most of it is. Also, others have accused it of being sexist as the majority of the women are in the film are prostitutes and scantily clad. (You'd think the fact that all the men in the movie are killers and criminals and slimebags would offset this and make it merely misanthropic, or perhas *gasp* a sheer piece of absurd fantasy with no real connection to reality, but apparently not) I find both these causes for offense to be utterly ridiculous, but it is relevant to the certain groups. So prudes and humorless feminists: Beware! You won't wanna see this movie. Or, maybe you will, as getting offended seems to be the primary pleasure of those two groups. But whatever, the people who do wanna see this movie know who they are, and they'll like it.
As everyone knows, this movie is divided into 3 major sections. I like this pattern, as only having a couple relatively brief segments means that things have to get going fast, and that the film has numerous peaks. Everyone loves to compare this to `Pulp Fiction' though this isn't totally relevant, as though the segments cross over and reference each other, they all stand alone and don't really illuminate each other all that much. The internal references are just kinda... cool, but they aren't really all that important. Though there is a slight concern: The segments proceed in decreasing order of quality, so the best parts of the movie are at the beginning. Still, it's all good enough that this doesn't matter all that much.
Most people love to talk about the black and white with occasionally bits of color as the major trait of the film, but I think some of the other stylistic quirks are more unusual and intriguing. The dialogue and acting are deliberately over the top, a slight caricature of you're stereotypical noir dialogue and mannerisms, which combines with some nearly perpetual voice overs from the primary characters, and lots of sleazy music to complete the noir feel. The overblown noir stylization is combined with some really bizarre and of the wall characters, such as the scrawny-mute-superhuman-cannibal-serial-killer-farmboy, the misshapen-yellow-pedophile-mancreature and the deadly-asian-ninja-prostitute. This is all pretty weird, naturally, but it never gets so unusal that it can't be taken seriously.
The film also really illustrates the potential of digital filming, as the backgrounds and scenery are combined with the actors seamlessly. The world doesn't look real, exactly, but, of course, it's not really meant to, and there's never any doubt that the actors are there.
Despite the emphasis on style, and over the top violence and action, the film has a certain emotional resonance. It may all be absurd, but Marv and Hartigan are still genuinely likable, sympathetic characters. Dwight is less compelling, but he's still pretty, well, cool, and that's pretty good too.
Yeah, that's it. The core-audience for this film will almost certainly like it, and have doubtless already seen it. Everyone else... I dunno. But I sure like it.