PeterDavid.net

The humor I found in it was in how ridiculously over-the-top the violence was. I laughed out loud in several scenes (some where I probably wasn't supposed to).

But I think it was too literal a translation. What works on the comic page doesn't necessarily work on the screen.

Sin City was nifty visually, and I was really impressed by how creepy Elijah Wood was as Kevin.

I enjoyed the movie, but wish I hadn't paid to see it... it made my feminism glands twitch. Noir isn't a feminist genre, I understand that, but it seemed that women were reduced to plot devices to spur on the male heroes. They just weren't people.

I'm not too familiar with Miller besides the Batman books. Is this a pattern with him?

Well, Sin City isn't terribly sensative towards women. But, no, Miller, doesn't have a a pattern with that... though most of his books are very violent in general.... Save for the Rusty books

But as for Sin City, it was too much of a translation from picture, and some things just didn't work for me...

Visually, it's a stunning treat, and a good look at how comics and movies can use simial techniques to tell a story. Storywise, I liked the Sin City books, so I was ok with this, my only complain being that Jessica Alba wasn't dancing on the bar naked... the casting was great, for the most part... but... the narrative.

While narrating works quite well in comics, with text boxes and though bubbles all over the place, it doesn't work nearly as well on screen. The voice overs go on for over half the film, and I kept wanting to yell "Just shut the F*** up and let me watch the movie!"

I got over it, and the movie was good overall, and I applaud the effort by both directors to bring something new and innovative. Unfortunately, like most first stems into something new, they stumble a bit. This is a good comic book film, but it ended up being too much comic and not enough film.

I loved it but this is exactly "the kind of thing" I like.

I was worried a few minutes into it, mostly because Michael Madsen was so terrible. He's a good actor so I don't know exactly why his reading of the hardboiled noir material came off so badly--I was ready for Ryan Stiles and Colin Mochrie to show up.

Once the Marv story began I was hooked. Loved the visual style, in fact after seeing this I suspect that Batman Begins will seem too ordinary.

But I can easily understand how many will be turned off by Sin City. Even I thought that the ultimate fate of the Yellow bastard was a bit much (though well deserved).

It's a fair cop. I'm sorry to read that you didn't like 'Sin City', Mr. David; I enjoyed it immensely, but I understand where you're coming from. Peace.

I had mixed feelings about the film.

I did not go into the theater with any particular expectations, as I never read the original material (call it my silent protest to the comic industry's slide to the gritty, dark side in the 1980s).

In any case, I thought visually, the film was stunning -- four-star eye candy. However, story-wise, a few things weren't clear to me, and there seemed to be some continuity problems. In addition, the dialogue was stiff and clumsy in spots, and I assume this was because it was lifted verbatim from the original source material. If that's the case, then I think Miller and Rodriguez should have realized that everything written does not necessarily transfer well to what's spoken, and they should have done some re-writes accordingly.

The violence was no harder to for me to take than a typical Mickey Spillane novel, so in my case at least, it wasn't really an issue -- especially in black and white.

Overall, I'd waver a bit between giving it two or three stars, out of four.

I understand the criticism. The audience I saw it with consistently laughed at the dialogue. It didn't seem as serious as when I read it.

Peter, why I see you're need to have hope in a story, I found Fallen Angel to go a long time without a hint of hope. Towards the end of the third arc, it was there.

I enjoy Frank Miller's work, Sin City, 300, Dark Knight Returns. But there is something I've said to friends regarding the train wreck Dark Knight Strikes Again;

You owe me $48, Frank. Forty-eight freakin' bucks!

There, it's out.

However, story-wise, a few things weren't clear to me, and there seemed to be some continuity problems.

I've seen a couple people mention continuity problems, but I didn't see any. The three separate stories are not supposed to happen in sequence or really be related in any way other than that they are set in Sin City. The entirety of That Yellow Bastard happens before The Hard Goodbye, for example. This is made clear with the appearance of Marv, Kevin's appearance at the farm, the city limit marker not being shot up, etc. Those are deliberate and aren't mistakes. That said, I don't know if that's what you were talking about. It's completely possible you already know all this and there are other real continuity problems that I didn't catch.

I thought it was a pretty good movie, The Hard Goodbye was excellent, That Yellow Bastard was passable (though i think Alba was a bad choice) and The Big Fat Kill was while well handled a bit to much on the overacting side.

To me the movie did hold hope; the hope that more movies will get through the execs office without the need to tack on a happy or more public friendly ending where the original author had not intended there be one.

Latas

Though I convinced my girlfriend to go and see it with me, emphasizing the artistic aspect of the movie and playing on her creative side, I was very glad that I warned her of the violence ahead of time. She skimmed through the first TPB and saw enough so that she felt prepared. Though there was still much grimacing coming from her, she loved the stylized cinematography and color usage in the film.

Frank Miller's artwork was both brilliant and brutal..... but when that artowrk is transformed into moving pictures, well.... it takes on an even more shocking and gut-wrenching character. (The rubber glove snapping sound effect when Hartigan takes away the Yellow Bastard's other weapon was an especially memorable experience.)

Fred

To me the movie did hold hope; the hope that more movies will get through the execs office without the need to tack on a happy or more public friendly ending where the original author had not intended there be one.

That's funny, since they kind of did do that with Sin City as well. The last bit with Becky getting her comeuppance that was shown after Hartigan's story ends wasn't in The Big Fat Kill.

Sin City (and Dark Knight Returns) features what I think is my favorite kind of hero: the redemption hero or the martyr. These heroes make the ultimate sacrifice for their ideals. It's almost romantic.

And yet I find it refreshing that PAD prefers stories that aren't drowning in hopelessness. Still, there's something to be said for killing your heroes. For one thing, it can make them more memorable. I'm thinking of the Cowboy Bebop anime myself. Kill the hero and he'll stay with you longer. But the death has to be worthy.

I don't read the Sin City comic, or generally go in for a lot of Noir, but I enjoyed the movie. It quickly became clear to me that this was going to be a lot of cases of "The hero is doomed, but his cause is not". Sucks to be Hartigan or Marv on a personal level, but they DO win. The badguys go down for good, and a lot of good people live who would have died, a lot of bad people die who would have lived. The city continues to be corrupt, an unending source of pain and sorrow, but the light shines through once in a while.

I thought SIN CITY was, dare I say it, fun. Frank Miller's style -- what I affectionately call film noir on horse steroids -- is a hyperactively exaggerated take on the tarnished angel/deserving doomed villain story. The heroes aren't just tough: They can be shot repeatedly, get bounced around by speeding cars, even jolted in the electric chair, and still shrug it off with barely a pause in their step. The acting was sometimes wooden -- Brittany Murphy's character seemed to only be an accent -- but it worked overall for me.

As for Miller and women, I'm not sure they came off badly here. Yes, all the women were stone-foxes, but that's hardly unusual for Hollywood. Gail was incredibly tough, and even the "weak" characters of Nancy and Shellie managed to do what they could to help the good guys.

I agree with most of what Peter says - I really liked the movie, though (as has been said) it's the kind of thing I like. I *did* wish that there was perhaps a touch more humor, but that's the source material.

The one comment of Peter's with which I take a slight issue is "It's great to see that Hollywood can genuinely produce a major motion picture this faithful to the source material." Which is true as far as it goes - but I don't think you can credit "Hollywood" with this as much as the film's co-director, Robert Rodriguez. While he does make films in conjunction with and which are distributed by Dimension Films (a division of Miramax), Rodriguez is about as "un-Hollywood" as you're going to get these days, even going so far as to resign from the Director's Guild of America (and thereby losing out on a lucrative gig directing A PRINCESS OF MARS for Paramount) in order to give Frank Miller a co-director's credit on this movie. Rodriguez bucks the system whenever he thinks it'll stand in the way of what he wants to do on a given project, and he's (in)famous for doing jobs on his own movies that would normally be done by others on major studio films. So, while SIN CITY is a studio release, you can't *really* give Hollywood credit for it (except insofar as they greenlit the thing in the first place).

Having said that, yes, the fidelity to the source material *is* staggering, and Hollywood would be well advised to emulate this in the future. They probably won't, though...

I don't think it would exactly be fair to say that Frank Miller has something against women just because in "Sin City" they're pretty much all whores or strippers. I mean, after all, he did create "Elektra," a strong and deadly woman as tough as any man. It's not like he killed her off in a blatantly phallic...

Oh. Well. Okay, but...she got better. And, hey, there's the female Robin, so that's good.

PAD

Let's not forget Martha Washington either.

Peter,

You've never had a 19th Century Novel college course, have you? Some of the Victorian literature you're forced to digest (WUTHERING HEIGHTS, THE MILL ON THE FLOSS, ESTHER WATERS) is SO damn fatalistic you'd think the entire nation of Britain was in desperate need of prozac during that period. Who the hell wants cynicism these days? I LOVE good ol' fashioned naivete!

Concerning the supposedly misogynistic themes in Frank Miller's work: Yes, unfortunately, I've picked up on that time to time as well. THE DARK KNIGHT RETURNS is a pretty decent example. (Check otu what Miller did to Selina Kyle/Catwoman - that was just plain nasty.) One reason why I'm seriously debating with myself whether or not to see SIN CITY.

Still, you have to learn to take the bad with the good. Like Roman Polanski, for example.

DAVID wrote I enjoy Frank Miller's work, Sin City, 300, Dark Knight Returns. But there is something I've said to friends regarding the train wreck Dark Knight Strikes Again;

You owe me $48, Frank. Forty-eight freakin' bucks!

There, it's out.

I agree. I love Frank Miller but DK2 absolutly blew & sucked("although Mark Millar swears it was also a masterpiece).

PAD wrote I mean, after all, he did create "Elektra," a strong and deadly woman as tough as any man. It's not like he killed her off in a blatantly phallic...

He also resurrected her himself in the Marvel Hardcover Elektra graphic novel.

Joe V.

Now Michael Madsen was just plain bad -
but I was surprised by how GOOD an actor Frank Miller was in HIS scene.

I had only read "The Hard Goodbye" before the movie came out, just so I could get a feel for what would be going on.

I was immediately hooked, but I didn't have the chance to get around to finding any of the other Sin City stories.

My wife and I went to see Sin City at the UA Theatre on The Strip in Las Vegas (since we were there, and had the time, why the hell not?). Thursday night, midnight showing. Decent crowd.

We loved it. :)

I did have to question why the hell the couple sitting in front of us had their 6 year old daughter with them (she looked like a little brainiac, but still).

I did have to question why the hell the couple sitting in front of us had their 6 year old daughter with them (she looked like a little brainiac, but still).

You too?

There was a 4-5 year old and 7-8 year old brought into the cinema by a parent. I wanted to say something to her or the attendant on how they were allowed in to a R rated film.

I held my tongue. I'm single with no kids and I didn't think I was in a position to comment on someone else's parenting.

Personally, I wouldn't take someone those ages to the Spider-Man flicks.

I've heard stories of people bringing their kids in as well....I have no idea why they thought this would be anything even remotely accessible to a kid (speaking asa father of 2, it'll be a long while before I'll let them watch it).

That said, I loved it. Visually impressive, I didn't notice that 90% of it was CGI, though some of the dialogue was tough to hear. Clearly, not all that is written should be spoken ;^D My wife was forewarned about the level of violence in it, and she liked it too.

as far as DK2 goes, I loved it...heck, I managed to walk away from reading it with a sense of wonder and awe regarding Plastic Man (a character I only remember form his cartoon). About the only thing I didn't like about it were the colors.

but manages to have humor (albeit sick humor) and hope of salvation.

I won't see the movie since it was clearly outside my limits in terms of violence. But PAD's comment at the end was interesting to me. A "hope of salvation" is an element that I find missing in a lot of films today, or when present, it is a "cheap" salvation. I understand that my christian worldview is very much at work in this regard. The movies (and books and comics, etc.) that have the most lasting impact for me are precisely those which are a story of redemption. But that is just my personal opinion.

The reason I found it interesting to see PAD make this comment is that this is why I did not like the Sir Apropos book but have liked the New Frontier series. The New Frontier books seemed to me to have more of a redemptive message. It is why I happen to like Orson Scott Card a lot as well. His books generally have a "hope of salvation" element woven throughout.

But thanks, PAD, for the thoughtful review. I look forward to picking up the new Hulk this afternoon.

Iowa Jim

as far as DK2 goes, I loved it...heck, I managed to walk away from reading it with a sense of wonder and awe regarding Plastic Man (a character I only remember form his cartoon). About the only thing I didn't like about it were the colors.

It may fall into the catagory of loved it/hated it with no middle ground.

Among my gripes..

The homophobic rant in Act III felt mean-spirited and a diservice to both characters involved.

Batman and Superman were nothing like the characters in Dark Knight Returns. Batman was cruel and blood thirsty. Superman's head was somewhere else than it should have been.

Luthor was the villian; What about society's indifference to the degradation of rights and freedoms?

The story was completely disjointed. The art work (see GL's alien life) was crude.

Great movie. Great great great great movie.

Acting-wise, I was surprised that Brittany Murphy was much, much better than the Gilmore Girl...

There was a 4-5 year old and 7-8 year old brought into the cinema by a parent. I wanted to say something to her or the attendant on how they were allowed in to a R rated film.

That's what an R rating means - under 17 requires accompanying parent or adult guardian. It doesn't mean that people under 17 aren't permitted to see the movie at all. That's NC-17. I don't know if I would have taken a child that young to see Sin City, but everyone was playing by the rules as far as the ratings go.

Well, I like this sort of thing, so I LOVED this movie. The casting was spot on down the line. I had my doubts about Mickey Rourke, but, damn, he IS Marv.

No hope? All the main characters win their battles. They just don't all survive them.

Slick, I found your comment about the voice-overs pretty laughable. Have you ever seen a film noir?

IowaJim, 'outside your violence limits'? Hmmm. Didn't you see 'The Passion of the Christ'?

That's what an R rating means - under 17 requires accompanying parent or adult guardian.

Yes, but I still get to question why the hell parents would take their 6 year olds to see this. :)

The latest MHC newsletter had the company owner commenting about the movie, and about the fact that he gave the Sin City books to his kids to read when they were under 10.

I mean, *I* didn't read/see stuff like that at that age, and I can understand why.

Some have suggested that, if not for being in black & white, this movie would have been NC-17.

And I'm thinking, how is this movie any worse than dozens of other movies released every year that are only rated-R?

Being an admitted whore to all things comic, I went in with high expectations.

Nope, the WE/Oxygen Network storyline of Electra didn't stop that, nor did the over origin in the Hulk movie stop that. The only time I lost the hype was with Batman Returns (you couldn't kill me to watch any of those Batman's again). Other then that I'll always be there for the comic movie.

So of course I loved Sin City the movie as an adaption to the comic book. I have to agree that I found the actual comics over the top and way too hopeless. I'm a "hero wins in the end" kind of guy. If the villian wins it better be one hell of a good win. And I am against the idea that evil just outnumbers good and good is just too damn powerless against it. In my mind if creation is a balance then good has it's powers too and should flex as many muscles as evil on the grand battlefield.

As to the "darkenning' of comics so many people complain about, I often feel this complaint is misplaced. Today's audience is not going to except the stuff done in the 1950's and 1960's. Superman can just pick up buildings without the weight collapsing on him. Storm can send an avulance down on a group of enemies and not hurt anyone. Bruce cannot put on a bat suit and beat the crap out of people on a nightly basis without the police starting a serious investigation into who this bat nut is.

If you have a world where men could fly at the speed of sound and could take a bullet storm without getting hurt, it will be a dangerous place. Hence comics are reflective of this. To go back to everyone is bright and sunny would be akin to still telling people that when a nuke dropped you'll be safe under the desk.

Female Robin was pretty cool, but I remember being dismayed at the way Dick was treated in DKSA... totally out of character for him and Bruce. The fight between Hartigan and the Yellow Bastard reminded me of the fight between Bruce and Scary Obsessive Dick.

PAD's comments are exactly the reason why I started to pull away from rushing out to see Sin City. A few weeks before the movie was released, I started re-reading the comics the movie portrays. I remember really enjoying them when they first came out. Now, they don't have the same appeal for me. I guess I'm not into ultra violence any more. Or having every female character be a stripper/whore or both. It's fine, for what it is, and after all, it is called SIN CITY, not Family Values City, or Politically Correct City. But I think I'm going to save this one for Netflix. As visually stunning as it looks, and from the previews, I can see that the director went out of his way to frame scenes right from the page, it's not one of those movies where the big screen adds a lot to the experience, like a Jurassic Park or a Star Wars movie.

I thought that the transalation from comic to movie was great. I'm not so sure I understand why some folks had a hard time with this. It was great fun.
Sin City was violent towards women. However, the main characters (Marv, Dwight and Hartigan) had major issues with people hurting women and say so a number of times in the film. Therefore, I find this movie to be PRO women.
I think over-thinking this film is a bad idea as it is highly "toungue-in-cheek". Sin City, for me, was never truely about the stories. It was and always will be about the art. The stories are just fun little extras.

Ralf Harrings comments on:
LATAS; "To me the movie did hold hope; the hope that more movies will get through the execs office without the need to tack on a happy or more public friendly ending where the original author had not intended there be one."

RALF: "That's funny, since they kind of did do that with Sin City as well. The last bit with Becky getting her comeuppance that was shown after Hartigan's story ends wasn't in The Big Fat Kill."

RIVETHED1: Actually, in the Sin City Comic, Becky gets gunned down in the alley along with Manut and all the other thugs. So she gets her comeuppance either way.
I think they just wanted to wrap the film up in a neat way and still have the characters get whats comin to 'em.
and to LATAS; keep that hope alive, brother! I agree with you man. Hopefully this film can pave the way!

I'm sorry, where does your review begin and the one you were quoting from end?

Loved Sin City, every form. Movie, comic book, sock puppet theatre. Anything.

If it ain't your bag, it ain't your bag. I'm just enough of a sick SOB to love every single bloody frame of it.

I wish people would stop thinking Pulp Fiction is noir, or that "moreso" is a word (come now, Peter, you're a writer!), but other than that, I don't have a problem with what you said.

It's great to see that Hollywood can genuinely produce a major motion picture this faithful to the source material.

I can't read this without recalling a review from, I believe, the San Jose Mercury News a few years ago -- probably of the first Spider-Man film, but I'm not positive.

(Understand that the Merc in general is not exactly known far and wide for its movie reviews.)

Whichever reviewer it was had some comment about how (paraphrasing here) Hollywood can treat playwrights (Shakespeare included) and Nobel-winning authors like cheap hookers when it comes to film adaptations, but if they mess with a *comic book* movie all the fans treat it like the eighth deadly sin.

I just found it a terrifically amusing comment, and one that I think sums up some interesting points about fandom.

TWL

Matt Butcher writes; "I'm sorry, where does your review begin and the one you were quoting from end?"

Review?

What review? To whom are YOU talking to?
Which post are you referring to?
What planet is this and is there any tea on this ship?

I have to agree with Susan... I'd read the first three Sin City stories just to see whether the movie would interest me or not, and I was just appalled by how women come across in "Sin City". Sure, these are stories written in the vein of noir, but we're not living in the '40s anymore; what could be excused as social conventions then doesn't fly now. It's not impossible to tell a noir story where the woman is something more than a whore (or just naked for the hell of it) for whom those poor men are always taking the fall.

I can't deny "Sin City" is relatively well-written (repetitive tropes aside). But from someone who gave us Martha Washington, I'm a little disappointed.

to complete silence by saying, "I am hope." If he stands in a bar in "Sin City" and announces he's hope, he'll just be greeted with raucous laughter and told he's in the wrong place.

Y'know, there is a tad bit of innocence and hope in Sin City. I'm thinkin aboot Nancy & Hartigan. She seems like an alright girl. And yeah, sure, he blows his brains out at the end (oops, spoiler. Heh.), but like the man said “an old man dies, a young girl lives. Fair trade.”

Yellow Bastard is my fav. story in there anyway, cuz deep down I see it as a love story, so maybe I’m biased.

I have to agree with Susan

Damn feminists. ;)

DIANA writes;
"But from someone who gave us Martha Washington, I'm a little disappointed."

Ok. You're disappointed. You obviously feel that Frank Miller has to pander to you?

Come down to Earth with the rest of us.

It's less egotistical down here.

TIM LYNCH,

Keep in mind that Shakespeare (or any other popular literary figure, for that matter) has considerably greater lasting power than your average superhero on the block, and will ALWAYS be open to adaptations for years to come, be they good or bad. Fans get into an uproar over a "comic book movie" exactly BECAUSE they usually have only one shot at it. HAMLET will always be indulged with a cinematic adaptation every year. How many more ELEKTRA adaptations do you see happening in the near future? If KING LEAR is made into one stinky movie, no problem; it'll always have another crack sooner rather than later. Sadly, once you screw up a superhero movie once, you hardly ever get a second chance.

Rivethed1: There's a significant distance between pandering to me as an individual and making SOME kind of effort to represent women fairly. "Sin City" offers female readers absolutely nothing, broadly stereotyping the entire gender as conniving, treacherous whores, over and over again. Sure, Miller has no personal obligation to me; but I don't think I'm stepping TOO far over the line in demanding a little less rampant misogyny.

"Sin City" offers female readers absolutely nothing, broadly stereotyping the entire gender as conniving, treacherous whores, over and over again.

Compared to the men, who are all conniving, treacherous bastards, over and over again.

Sounds like both sides got an equal shake on this one.

I'm surprised that there aren't women at least saying that they liked the fact that women had power in this movie. No, wait, I'm not surprised: there were tits (bad thing), other women being subjective (bad thing), etc.

Diana; you make a blanket statement thinking;" "Sin City" offers female readers absolutely nothing...". Sin City doesnt offer women art and artistic integrity? It doesnt offer them vengeance against Manut and his goons? It doesnt offer them a champion like Marv who goes out for revenge for them if they are wronged? Many female friends whom I consider decent and moral individuals enjoyed Sin City very much. They took it for what it was; A comic book movie. Not a personal forum to make a snap judgement that this movie is "Bad for all women" as you seem to think.

And while we're on the subject; Lets say Miller didn't represent women fairly. Why,then,does Miller HAVE to make any effort to represent women fairly? Wouldnt this be pandering to your needs? Wouldnt this be false to the creator if he only did what other people wanted? Is that what you want from a creator? Your way or the highway? If you don't like it, fine. But don't try to turn it into something it clearly is not.

I saw it and enjoyed it, but I'm confused. Where was Michael Flaherty? Where was Mayor Winston? And Caitlin? And Charlie? And couldn't they have gotten Michael J. Fox to at least do a cameo?

To the folks who are complaining that the women in Sin City are all unrealistic stereotypes...are you implying that the men aren't? Where do you live? And shouldn't you consider moving?

"The reason I found it interesting to see PAD make this comment is that this is why I did not like the Sir Apropos book "

I loved the Sir Apropos books, In fact for a long time I've thought if I ever won the mega lottery I'd pay to get the theoretical 4th and 5th books written.

(I know it's off topic PAD, but is there any hope of more books?)

I think there is hope in them, one of the reasons Po hates himself is he's not as cynical as he'd like to imagine he is.

I think there is hope in them, one of the reasons Po hates himself is he's not as cynical as he'd like to imagine he is.

Apropos has an interesting character arc, whereby the 3rd book he Actually Kinda Gives A Shit. This is, of course, completely blown away by the end of the book.

Hell, I'd say the end of "Tong Lashing" is about as bleak and hopeless as anything in "Sin City". (Great ending, though. I love me black stuff.)

Craig, women didn't have power in this movie. The storyline with Dwight made this completely obvious. The ladies of Old City (Old Town?) kept the peace within their own district, but only within the limits allowed by the cops and the Mafia. And do I need to point out how quickly they start taking orders when a man comes along?

While we're on the subject, why did Goldie have to seduce Marv if the ladies had any sort of control? The reason Kevin kept getting to eat people was because they were "just hookers" and no one would miss them.

I still enjoyed the movie, but I like taking things apart.

"Craig, women didn't have power in this movie. The storyline with Dwight made this completely obvious. The ladies of Old City (Old Town?) kept the peace within their own district, but only within the limits allowed by the cops and the Mafia."

But you could argue the same for all three players--the cops were obviously not in control and neither was the mob. In fact, the mob was probably in the weakest position, which is why they had to get the women and the cops fighting each other.

"While we're on the subject, why did Goldie have to seduce Marv if the ladies had any sort of control? The reason Kevin kept getting to eat people was because they were "just hookers" and no one would miss them."

Sometimes, when you have to fight a monster, you need to use a monster. I think the women together might have been able to kill Kevin--but only at an unfathomable cost. At any rate, you have to give Goldie some credit for control if it only took one night with her to turn Marv into an Exterminator Angel.

"But you could argue the same for all three players--the cops were obviously not in control and neither was the mob."

On the other hand, none of those players had to have sex for a living and wear skintight leather.

"Goldie some credit for control if it only took one night with her to turn Marv into an Exterminator Angel."

Yup, having sex. That's what chicks are good for.

All in all, the movie wasn't much of a feminist tract. But still fun.

And, y'know, Martha Washington kicked ass, and stuff.

One of us has largely missed the point of the Sin City comics, Peter. :-)

I think they're a lot of fun. The violence and sex and noir in them is so over-the-top it's downright comical. Sin City is the flip side to The Simpsons. There's plenty of humor and regular doses of "hope of salvation" as you put it, although different stories have them in different amounts.

To my mind, Sin City is Pulp Fiction done right. I wish Miller would produce more of it.

"Yup, having sex. That's what chicks are good for."

I think you may be letting your evident contempt for prostitutes blind you to Goldie's heroism. (Mind you, I've only seen the movie once). My take was that she knew that she was marked for death and instead of just running off and saving herself she manipulated Marv into becoming her avenger. She is like the Bruce Willis character--she dies so that others will live.

Tim Lynch writes: (Understand that the Merc in general is not exactly known far and wide for its movie reviews.)

It should be. I think the Merc generally does an excellent job of movie reviews. At least as regards the movies I'm at all interested in seeing.

The Merc in general is a rather underrated paper, IMO. If it were serving a more significant city, I think it would get a lot more attention.

You think the Merc does good movie reviews?

[cheap shot] Well, that certainly explains yours. :-) [/cheap shot]

More seriously ... Bruce Newman is okay, but Glenn Lovell (whose name I haven't seen lately -- did he leave the paper?) always struck me as absolutely awful. He was petty and sneering about way too many things, and often confused "how well was the movie done?" with "is this the movie I'd have made?"

Give me a Kenneth Turan or an Elvis Mitchell any day.

I can't really agree that the Merc's all that great a paper overall, either -- granted, it's better than the SF Comical. I've been spoiled, though -- my entire pre-Bay adult life was spent in LA, and the Los Angeles Times is a very solid paper. Before that, I was in and around New York -- and the NYT, despite some of its flaws, is still pretty much the standard-setter in my book. (Even given its lack of a comic section.)

Hell, even the Cornell Daily Sun was a heck of a paper while I was there. :-)

TWL

"I think you may be letting your evident contempt for prostitutes blind you to Goldie's heroism."

I have no contempt for prostitutes, evident or otherwise. I have contempt for stories that can only depict strong women by focusing on their sexuality, because I consider that to be stereotypical rubbish.

"I have contempt for stories that can only depict strong women by focusing on their sexuality, because I consider that to be stereotypical rubbish."

But you still consider it "fun"? Well, different strokes and all...

Goldie wasn't exactly admirable. She did what she had to, but she set up Marv and didn't even tell her sister what she'd been planning. In my mind, Gail was a lot more sympathetic and compelling.

Well, Peter, each to his own. Sure, it can seem depressing. And to paraphrase Marvin the Parnoid Android, why would we have characters we like die? The universe is filled with enough of good people dying, why make up more of it?

And yet, I loved this movie. Every sick, violent, and death-soaked minute of it. Although I hope it does not speak to me too much. I would not want to solve life's problems like these guys.

But each to his own. Sin City is getting great reviews. I told my barber about it. After seeing it, he told me it was revolting (although he was not mad, and he still cuts my hair). This is the same barber who once showed me some icky internet porn that he thought was cool.

Each to his own. Just don't play your stereo too loud.

OK, my wireless signal is getting weak. Time to post now; the heck with spellcheck.

One aspect of Sin City that isn't getting enough attention--with all the talk we have had about censorship is anyone else pissed off that we will be denied a Richard Rodriguez directed version of A PRINCESS OF MARS just because he had the gall to correctly list Frank Miller as co-director???

I don't want to start an argument over the value of unions but how is it ok for a union to tell an artist how they can make their art? This would never be allowed to happen to a writer or a painter but movies are still apparently considered little more than consumer product with pretensions of art, seemingly even by some of the people who make them. It's a damn shame.

And Rodriguez deserves credit for having the cojones to do the right thing.

It's a damn shame.

I agree.

In this case, it sounds like the DGA isn't so much a group there to protect directors as it is to keep them in line and to make sure the DGA maintains control.

That isn't what a union should be about.

A lot has been said about the accuracy of the translation from comics to film. But that's pretty easy when you're using so much greenscreen.

And it's not like Frank's stories (or art) are that detailed. Plots were usually an afterthought. Over the course of all the Sin City comics, he threw in maybe a dozen references to other SC episodes, in an attempt to establish some kind of continuity. Not much, and it's pretty weak, but it's there.

With the movie, they finally had the opportunity to weave all of the serialized minis into one cohesive story. But they blew it. Showing Marv and Kevin again after they were already dead must have been confusing for some who never read the comics. How Dwight connects at all is a blur since they chose to include his sequel story. I don't recall the senator ever getting his just desserts even in the comics, and on the screen this was a real sticking point.

Ehhh... I blame it on the director being an obsessive fanboy.

You know the main reason I liked Sin City so much? The story sticks with you. It dosent disappear from your mind 35 seconds after you walk out of the theater like so much other summer hollywood fluff (*cough*NationalTreasure*cough*)
I found myself thinking about the characters and events days after I saw the movie, and THATS the sign of a good, worthwhile film.
Yes, it went heavy on the monologuing
Yes' the dialogue was sent up a little too much in places
and, yes, they did have a slap-happy, carefree approach to the violence at times, but you know what? All these semi-lame characteristics formed together to create something wholly unforgettable and completely hypnotizing,
Loved the movie, best of the year thus far.
(Now lets see if Batman Begins can live up to the uber-hype)

By the way, i don't think anything can save Fantastic Four from the cornball its destined to be.

I see some major tongue-in-cheek comparisons to Roger Cormans 1994 disaster on the horizon...

I'm, probably stupidly, allowing myself the faintest glimmer of hope over the Fantastic 4 movie. Yes, the director has never impressed me in the past. Yes, what they did to Doctor Doom is terrible. yes, most of what we've seen so far has been less than blow you away impressive.

Um....where was I/ Oh right, well, the latest footage LOOKS nice. Maybe they can capture the essential coolness of suddenly gaining superpowers. They might be able to do something with the celebrity culture of today as it would treat paranormals. They have a good actor playing the Thing.

But Doctor Doom, oy. What eactly was so wrong with the classic Dr Doom that they felt he had to be changed? What?

But Doctor Doom, oy. What eactly was so wrong with the classic Dr Doom that they felt he had to be changed? What?

I can only guess that they've made the changes to try and keep the story moving along better.

It's easier to squeeze Doom in on the same flight the FF took to get their powers than to explain why this guy is from some no-name country halfway around the world.

Hell, even I don't know much of Doom's backstory, but I guess I haven't really cared to learn it either. :)

You know, I actually LIKE the part about Doom being on the ship and bailing out on them when the rays hit. That's pretty cool and they could have had his ship crash and burn, giving him the injuries that require the exoskeleton. And it would explain his bitterness--everyone else gets superpowers and all HE gets is a a T-shirt that says "My arch enemies went into space and all I got were these disfiguring facial scars"

But to take away his being ruler of a country and turn him into Donald Trump...how small. And if the villian is small how can we care about the good guys, especially when they outnumber him 4 to 1?

Three words about Sin City

Carla Gugino WOW!!!!!!!

I always thought she was hot but mmm mmmm !!!!

I liked the movie alot it really felt like a Sin city comic and the casting was very well done.Who ever did the cast selection gets a big fanboy pat on the back from me.
By the way was I the only one laughing out loud when the the guy with the arrow in his chest was still talking so nonchalantly"Hey guys should we go to a hospital or something"BWA-HAHAHAHAHA!!!

"By the way was I the only one laughing out loud when the the guy with the arrow in his chest was still talking so nonchalantly"Hey guys should we go to a hospital or something"BWA-HAHAHAHAHA!!!"

That was a riot, made funnier by the fact that there wasn't a whole lot of humor in the movie.

They should have had him wheeled into the hospital at the end with the arrows stuck in his chest and head, still complaining.

Re: Doctor Doom

He is, I think, the FF's biggest problem for making the transfer to the big screen. His armor isn't photogenic, he has too much back story, he's not really a visual bad guy once you get past the ugly armor (that hides his face, which means all he can do is melodrama), but he's their number one enemy.

They should have done the Galacticus/Silver Surfer story.

I thought the movie was delicious fun, and think that those who are worrying about stereotypes really need to get a grip.

I felt the same way about Miller's original "Sin City" graphic novels--too much noir is not necessarily a good thing. There has to be some light in the darkness, doesn't there. The movie's unflinching fidelity to its source material is both blessing and curse: "Sin City" is easily the most faithful comic-to-screen adaptation in the history of the relationship between the mediums, but if you didn't like the source material, odds are you won't enjoy the adaptation. I admire the technical skill Rodriguez shows, making better use of digital background rendering than "Sky Captain & the World of Tomorrow"--great production design, but nothing of interest happening in front of it--but it's still "Sin City," where the men are corrupt and the women are hookers, hookers with guns, ninja hookers with swords, etc.

Adoresixtyfour,
"There has to be some light in the darkness, doesn't there?"

Well, Nancy being saved and having that angelic feel to her, that would seem to qualify.

"'Sin City'" is easily the most faithful comic-to-screen adaptation in the history of the relationship between the mediums"

Absolutely. It's as if the panels were literally just put on film.

"but if you didn't like the sorce material, odds are you won't enjoy the adaptation."

Bullshit. Two friends from work went with me to see the movie. They had not read a page of "Sin City". They thought it was great fun. It also seems to be drawing a ton of critical raves, and i doubt very seriously many movie credits have read the books.

"it's still "Sin City", where the men are corrupt and the women are hookers, hookers with guns,ninja hookers with swords, etc."

Actually, the women were not ALL hookers. That "ninja" you talk about stole the show (at least as far as my buds were concerned) and Hartigan was obviously far from corrupt.

It was a FANTASTIC film.

"but if you didn't like the sorce material, odds are you won't enjoy the adaptation."

Bullshit.

Umm. There's a difference between not having READ the source material, and having read it and not LIKED it.

So, no bullshit here, as far as I can see. :)

Cool, Marv will look stunning in that carefully laced beauty!