Jump to content

Night at the Movies - Sin City


Scrivener
 Share

Recommended Posts

You knew I'd get the first post in, didn't you

So, yeah - I didn't like it. Not as in "OMG it sucked", I'm still giving it a 7/10... but it wasn't at all what I expected. In fact I can narrow it down to 3 distinct categories:

1) Censorship - This movie was NOT complete. Several sequences took the Kill Bill Vol.1 way out - either by faux-stylistically dropping to black during moments of intense violence, or by totally whiting out blood and gore (I'm talking solid white). It's obvious which parts work for style and which parts are flat-out censored... especially if you've read the GNs and remember exactly what was in the missing cells. I garauntee there's an unrated directors cut already waiting in wings for DVD.

2) Wooden performances - Worse... deliberately wooden performances. I'm talking really good actors standing still, awkwardly delivering lines - and it shows that they are not comfortable - that these actors know they should be doing something. Hands twitch, lines feel forced and fake... Maybe they just went with all first takes - who knows. But the acting goes from high school drama club to first rate oscar material and back again so often that it's positively jarring.

3) The soundtrack - This is not the emotionally charged type of music that blew us away in the trailer... this soundtrack seems like it belongs in The Big Combo. I know what they were going for - giving it that old noir feel, but that music never really worked to begin with. It's just the best that was available at the time. It never ceases to amaze me how poorly movies incorporate soundtracks these days. The music tells you how to feel, and Sin City's music tells you to feel unimpressed.

Artistically it was a really great attempt, but they made some poor decisions that really hurt the film, I think. I also noticed tons of makeup-related continuity errors. Bad ones. And if it were me at the AVID machine, I would have recut the stories so they flowed together a little more coherently... more Pulp Fiction and less Amazing Stories.

I do know, however, that the entire movie was shot digitally... and unfortunately here it's obvious. Movies shot on film, even the bad ones, feel more polished and professional than movies shot digitally. Ultimately this comes across on the same quality level as a really good student film. If it really WERE a student film, I'd be blown away. But it's an expensive hollywood blockbuster.

I don't know. I want to love Sin City - but I only kinda like it. Can I recomend it? Sure. I want this movie to succeed because of how much that would help Paramount to keep their Watchmen movie on track. But honestly, the graphic novels make for a much more intense experience than the movie.

7/10

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I went to see this last night. I had NO clue that it was this violent. I guess I should've known, since Robert Rodriguez was involved. I remember how violent and unwatchable (to others like me) the second Blade movie was, compared to the watchable first and third installments.

Anyway, I made it through to the part where Marv completely dismembers Kevin.

Thats when I left, went to the bathroom to throw water on my face and leave.

I didn't make it. I collapsed in the bathroom and was apparently out for six minutes. When I came to, mens room patrons, an usher and a manager were standing over me asking if I was alright, should they call an ambulance etc.

After drinking some water, regaining my composure etc, I got a ride home. I later had someone return to the theatre to retrieve my X3.

In all my years of having PTSD, I have never - ever - passed out. This is a first. I guess I got old.

Anyway, for what I saw of the movie, I'd give it a 10/10. If you like ultra violence, film noir and one of the best comic-to-movie adaptations ever commited to film, go see this. If your stomach can't take the violence - trust me - you do NOT want to see the movie. And whatever you do, don't take the missus or the kids. I mention this because there were kids screaming in the theatre and most families up and left.

LOTR was a violent movie in most aspects; but like most movies where the directors have a wider audience in mind, the ultra violence is left to your imagination and not graphically depicted. wtf is the matter with Robert Rodriguez? I mean, seriously. Sure the graphic novels were violent, but that is to be expected and is lot less visual than film.

Oh yeah, everything Scriv wrote in his review, is pure rubbish. The movie was well done, hence the reason I even stayed past the first ultra violent part which took place less than twenty minutes into the movie. I mean, once Marv equiped himself with a hatchet, it was all over.

Watching Mickey Rourke play Marv, brought back memories of how Pulp Fiction brought John Travolta back from the brink. Mickey pulls a stellar performance in depicting pure brute. I simply cannot imagine anyone else in this role; not even Ron Pearlman. I hope that this is his comeback movie. I always liked him and look forward to seeing him in the upcoming Domino.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

OMG. Is SC actually defending this megaviolent piece of cinema... from ME?

Wow. We must have switched rolls or something. Oh well. I was pretty hard on the movie. I guess I was just expecting the next Kill Bill - and it just didn't quite live up to the technical excelence of those films. My experience with moviemaking has tainted me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:


Originally posted by Scrivener:

OMG. Is SC actually defending this megaviolent piece of cinema... from ME?


heh, I hear that hell has yet to freeze over

quote:


Oh well. I
was
pretty hard on the movie. I guess I was just expecting the next Kill Bill - and it just didn't quite live up to the technical excelence of those films.

Yeah, I can understand that. Then again, I didn't see Vol 1 yet (though I have it on DVD), only vol 2 - which I understand was a lot tamer (in the violence dept.) than vol 1. Is that true?

quote:


My experience with moviemaking has tainted me.

Yep; and there's nothing wrong with that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Vol 1 isn't actually worse than Vol 2 - they're pretty much the same as violence goes. It's just that Vol. 2 dosn't fly through it's story so neck-breakingly fast.

Actually, now that I really think about it - the animated sequence is probably why people think of Vol.1 as being more violent. In that section the vilence is about as exaggeratedly over-the-top as most unedited adult anime (See: Akira, Spriggan). Except for that animated bit, both movies are pretty much exactly the same on the violence-o-meter.

Now - if you have the Japanese version of Vol 1 like I do... well, that's a different story entirely. The Japanese cut is nasty as hell.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...