Overall Rating
 Awesome: 59.57%
Worth A Look: 16.98%
Just Average: 4.94%
Pretty Crappy: 11.73%
Sucks: 6.79%
18 reviews, 216 user ratings
|
|
| Sin City |
by John Rice
"This is what happens when technology meets creativity."
|
After years of goofing around, Robert Rodriguez finally gets what he's always needed. Someone to keep him on on track."Film Noir" originally got its name because the first entries in the genre had particularly low budgets and it was cheaper to rent sets and equipment at times when they were normally sitting unused. That meant shooting at night, resulting in the name Film Noir, as in Dark (or black) Film. The stories invariably involved seemy characters roaming city streets, with long jacket tails billowing behind them. Corrupt cops, prostitutes, gangsters and any sort of unpleasant individuals were all that were found in any Noir. While some characters were better than others, nobody was ever entirely "good". There were an endless series of double crosses, murders and revenge and everyone tried to get to the money, avoid being caught or simply exact some revenge. Sin City revives the genre while simultaneously making the most successful transition from graphic novel to big screen ever achieved.
Sin City truly is a dark, morbid, graphic novel nearly brought to life. The characters are flesh and blood but not entirely human and not always completely mortal. They all bleed when cut or shot, just not all in the same color, and there is a lot of bleeding going on. Some die when they are shot, others can be shot a dozen times without much real damage. Sin City has also gotten a reputation for being extremely violent, and while it certainly has more than its share of bloodshed, it is far from being one of the most violent movies ever made. There is more death in 30 seconds of the Omaha Beach scene in Saving Private Ryan than in the entire 2 hours of Sin City. Add to that the fact that the Saving Private Ryan scene is based on reality while Sin City is pure fiction and it may lend a bit of perspective. Still, even though it is based on a "comic book" Sin City is most definitely a mature film which many younger viewers will not enjoy, due to the great deal of time spent developing characters between violent confrontations.
Sin City is comprised of three stories from the graphic novel series by Frank Miller. One involves a retiring cop (Bruce Willis) with a heart condition who rescues an 11 year old girl (played by Jessica Alba later at age 19) from a kidnapping pedophile (Nick Stahl) who happens to be the son of a powerful Senator. The second has a malformed brute named Marv (Mickey Rourke) waking up next to a dead prostitute (Jaime King) and running from the authorities who have framed him for her murder. The third involves a mysterious man with a "new" face named Dwight (Clive Owen) protecting his girlfriend (Rosario Dawson) who also happens to be the leader of the Sin City hookers, from a deranged killer (Benicio Del Toro). There are plenty of other characters moving through the story, often crossing from one plot line to another. These include Kevin (Elijah Wood) who is one of the most warped individuals ever put on screen, Shelly (Brittany Murphy) a waitress at a local strip joint, a celebrity Cardinal (Rutger Hauer) who has attained some sort of hero worship and uses it to every advantage, including getting his brother (Powers Boothe) elected to the Senate. The list goes on and on. In fact, the number of high profile cameos is so large, in most movies (Cold Mountain for example) it would have been terribly distracting, but Sin City is so far removed from reality and completely packed with recognizable faces, it manages to work.
When Sin City was announced, my first and primary question was, would director Robert Rodriguez destroy it? I haven't exactly been quiet about my borderline hatred of almost every movie Rodriguez has ever made, with From Dusk 'till Dawn rising highest above the "barely tolerable" level. Rodriguez' primary problem is his tendency toward a complete lack of narrative or the most fundamental meaning in his movies. Maybe he was absent that day at film school, assuming it is even mentioned these days in film school. Making matters worse is his exuberant commitment to digital filmmaking. While digital cameras are nothing more than a tool, like with digital still photography, they make it very easy for the filmmaker to forget the most important aspects of storytelling, which is the story itself. There is no better example of becoming obsessed with the process and forgetting the product than Rodriguez' last attempt, the incoherent and downright unbearable Once Upon a Time in Mexico.
There is one saving factor preventing Rodriguez from the disaster of his last (actually, last two) attempts and that is Sin City creator Frank Miller, who Rodriguez saw fit to credit as co-director, which is an interesting story in itself. There is little doubt Miller is the one who kept Rodriguez on track and maintained a reasonable amount of direction in the film. Rodriguez even requested permission from the DGA (Directors Guild of America) to give Miller co-credit for the film, which was refused with the explanation that only one director is allowed credit. When he asked why other directors, such as the Wachowski brothers (Matrix Trilogy) are allowed to do so, it was explained this was because they had joined the Guild as a team. Rodriguez promptly quit the Guild and co-credited Miller, as well as buddy Quentin Tarantino, who directed one scene. A brief aside on a similar story, which demonstrates the absurd actions taken by the various Hollywood Guilds involves the 1999 film Waking the Dead by director Keith Gordon (The Singing Detective) and starring Jennifer Connelly (A Beautiful Mind) and Billy Crudup (Almost Famous). Gordon received rights to make the film, based on a novel by Scott Spencer, wrote his own screenplay and made the film. Only after the film was completed did Gordon discover that screenwriter Robert Dillon had written his own screenplay years earlier. Since Dillon was a member of the Screenwriters Guild, Gordon was forced to give him writing credit, even though he had absolutely nothing to do with the film. That's Hollywood.
Sin City succeeds because of Robert Rodriguez, but only because he did not act alone. Without the close participation of creator Frank Miller, it no doubt would have been nearly as awful as his last two attempts. Finally, with the help of Miller to keep him on track, the digital tools Rodriguez loves have become actual tools instead of the playthings he has made them in the past. The image is surprisingly rich and close to film-like, while not quite reaching the actual depth of real film. While I was impressed with the rich B&W, with selective bits of saturated color, I couldn't get over the feeling that film still would have looked better, though admittedly a bit less crisp. The question is, would this film have been made on celluloid, or could it have? I suspect it is possible, but the cost may have been prohibitive, so in this situation, digital was exactly what was needed. The reason it works this time around where it so often fails is because Sin City is not trying to look exactly like film. At the core it is a special effects film. Every single second is digitally processed to give its unique, slightly otherworldly look, rather than trying to look like film.
This review originally appeared on Slacker-Reviews.comThis is the first truly successful transition from graphic novel to screen, one which could not have been done without both Rodriguez and Miller.
link directly to this review at https://www.hollywoodbitchslap.com/review.php?movie=11918&reviewer=373
originally posted: 04/07/05 20:53:53
![[printer]](/images/icon/printer.gif) printer-friendly format
|
 |
USA
01-Apr-2005 (R)
DVD: 13-Dec-2005
UK
N/A
Australia
14-Jul-2005
|
|
Articles 
subscribe to this feed![[AllPosters.com]](/images/icon/ap.gif){kind=icon}
