A Beautifully Horrible Movie
Sin City is an endless stream of misogyny and sadism as well as one of the most morally shallow films I’ve ever seen, but its aesthetic brilliance is unquestionable. The writing and acting are Tarantino-esque in their ability to perfectly play homage to the film noir genre, but a little more flat than I would have preferred. Regardless, this is a perfect realization of Roger Ebert’s maxim “A movie isn’t about what it’s about; it’s about how it’s about it.”
I agree with Matt though when he says “A cinematic landscape filled with more Sin Citys would be awful.” Like every other groundbreaking piece of art, people are going to learn the wrong lesson’s from Sin City’s success and jump to the conclusion that filling a movie with strippers and graphic violence is a shortcut to success.The real lesson of this film and its PG-rated cousin Sky Captain is that digital filmmaking in the hands of the right filmmakers can be elevated above the sterile, emotionless shit that defines the majority of special effects films.
8 comments
Copy link for RSS feed for comments on this post
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
I just got back from seeing it, and thought that it might be the dream of the Far Right.
Women as objects? Check.
Rampant Vigilanteism? Check.
Honest men made to suffer for years on end? Check.
Hopefully the lesson filmmakers will learn from this is to RESPECT THE MATERIAL. Rodriguez brought in Frank Miller as a friggin Co Director, and based the movie on every single panel of the Graphic Novel. And it shows. The only compromise made was in Nancy’s clothing; she was supposed to be at least topless while dancing. I didn’t miss that, though I’m sure countless Alba fans, Oliver Willis included, did.
Good movie. I think the reactions to this movie are going to be parallel to the ones Pulp Fiction had when it first came out.
Comment by Blogtopus — April 2, 2005 @ 7:08 pm
Lauren at Majikthise noted that you should be careful which theatre you see the movie.
She noted people cheering at the death scenes. The gorier and more heinous the scene..the louder the cheering.
Comment by carla — April 3, 2005 @ 7:12 pm
Been a Miller fan for years, I missed comics growing up as a kid (how I will never know), and Miler’s Dark Knight and Ronin were among the books I encountered in college that opened up a whole new world to me. So, I have a soft spot for Frank, and have been hoping this film is his redemption against the industry he feels has foresaken him.
I read the first few installments of the Sin City saga way back when, and never expected amovie version of any of them. Much less a good movie. Miller’s antagonistic love/hate towards Hollywood (and by extension, even “mainstreamizing” comic venues such as my former employer WIZARD magazine) were legendary. I think it took the perfect offer for this to happen, and Rodriguez made it.
My wife (social worker, feminist and mother of my daughter) was aghast when I recently had out the old novels while working on a Sin City movie cover for WIZARD, and she made her distaste known. But you cannot just pick up the book and flip through the pages and understand. I think even without reading Miller’s other work before he reached Sin City, you cannot apprciate the evolution. How society will interpret the jump from niche serial comic to blockbuster will be interesting.
I am extrememely excited to see this movie, it looks like an exact replica of the gorgeous masterpiece that was the graphic novel.
Now, who will go see it with me, and how do I get my wife to understand I’m not a sadist…?
Comment by Mr Furious — April 4, 2005 @ 6:59 am
It would have been a better pic with half the gore. The implied violence is such a huge part of Noir.
While it was a great movie, several of the “gags” were just out and out spoiled by tagging the punchline with a graphic depiction of what we already knew was happening or going to happen.
I saw the picture yesterday afternoon and later that evening on “Malcolm in the Middle,” Hal tells Francis to break Hal’s finger to cover up a misdeed. It was priceless. The soft crunch and the look on Hal’s face were more than enough to make me squirm.
It’s almost always better to let the fear stew in the watchers head than to abate it by showing what happens.
As for the mysogyny, well man it was there in spades.
What with “The Incredibles” Ayn Rand inspired story line and now this, I’m hoping some one comes out with a ground breaking movie I can get behind philisophically.
All that said, “Sin City” is an extraordinary picture.
I’m holding my breath for the animated version of Philip K Dick’s, “A Scanner Darkly.”
Comment by Stephen — April 4, 2005 @ 9:27 am
I haven’t seen Sin City yet. However, I’m curious, What do you (stephen) mean about the Ayn Rand inspired stoyline of The Incredibles. I’m not ruling it out, I’m just curious how you mean.
Comment by Ross A Lincoln — April 4, 2005 @ 11:59 am
I probably ought to be smart enough to explain what I’m talking about, or just keep my mouht shut.
Luckily someone else can explain for me.
Here’s a slightly different take.
Comment by Stephen — April 4, 2005 @ 12:49 pm
I have to say that I loved Sin City. It was the comic book come to life. This movie just crashed right through the bar that X2 set for comic book movies. I too am looking forward to A Scanner Darkly because it’s about time we had a good adaptation of Dick’s work (not that Blade Runner isn’t good, it’s just not very faithful). The best thing about this weekend, is that Sin City did well enough to prove to the studios that The Watchmen can be successfull, and proved to me that it might be possible to make it into a movie. Even though Terry Giliam said it couldn’t be done.
Comment by Andrew — April 4, 2005 @ 1:34 pm
I’d hope Hollywood would’ve learned its lesson in terms of strippers and graphic violence not necessarily making a good movie from “Kiss of Death,” one of David Caruso’s retarded forays into film, but Hollywood’s never been so great about learning its lesson …
Comment by Briantologist — April 5, 2005 @ 11:09 am