Film Noir → Discussion•
Sin City: the film noir revival   11-18>|


mellowMay 15, 2005 7:08pm
I'm kinda surprised that this hasn't come up sooner... but who here has seen Sin City? Thoughts, comments? There is rumor of Sin City 2 and 3 slate for 2007...

in case somebody didn't see it.. here are two trailers, to give you an idea of the awesomeness...apple.com/trailers/miramax/sin_city/ [apple.com/trailers/miramax/sin_city/]

Between the direction and acting, I can't think of why any one wouldn't see this movie, especially if you're a fan of film noir!!

ZtLJun 5, 2005 11:01pm
Sin City was impressive. After seeing some of the other comic book movies I was very reluctant to pay for a ticket to Sin City, but it was absolutly worth it. Robert Rodriguez had to drop from the Director's Guild in order to credit Frank Miller with directing, ["http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sin_City_(movie)"] but I think it was a wise move. The actual artistic effort that went into Sin City definitly exceeds most of what goes on in hollywood today.

Sponsor
dragonheadJun 6, 2005 12:21am
It looks beautiful, but it's a bit style over substance, I thought. I also thought it was unevenly paced and more than a little misogynist. The performances overall were very good, apart from Clive Owen (very bad indeed). I also thought it was a bit too splattery and wordy to count as true noir, despite the style.
Still, very enjoyable....

Sponsor
sullenboyJun 6, 2005 12:41am
Dammit, DH! I was just about to post on this and you took the words right out of my mouth, um, er, keyboard! What DH said. Ditto, etc.

Sponsor
dragonheadJun 6, 2005 12:54am
Oops, sorry! ;)
I actually found myself sitting through it thinking "Wow, this must be a really good comic-book", rather than what a fantastic film it was.
I hope to God they don't make sequels, because then the visual impact will be diluted by repetition. One is enough.

ZtLJun 6, 2005 2:44am
Dragonhead it isn't as if you would have to see the sequils. I think with the same dedication they could make a very interesting series. I do agree with the comment on the noir of it. It deviates a little with the more detailed violence, but I think that was still very well done. It came off as pulp fiction like to me. As for Clive Owen, I thought he was acting in a very noir-style. Compared to most modern film, it could come off as terrible and dry, but I think with the narration especially it did turn out well in the context of the film. What did everyone think of seeing Rutger Hauer?

Sponsor
dragonheadJun 6, 2005 3:43am
Alright, fair point on the sequels :)
We'll have to agree to disagree on Mr. Owen.
As for Rutger Hauer, I thought his little spot was pretty damned good, was it deliberately supposed to remind me of Brando in Apocalypse Now, though?
Also interesting to see that the only job Mickey Rourke can get these days involves large quantities of facial prosthetics. Still, I thought he was good as Marv.

Sponsor
KingBoyJun 6, 2005 4:26am
"Me, of all people" - interview with Mickey Rourke, a couple of years old but interesting if missed first time around.

MadmaxngJun 16, 2005 11:09am
I agree with you dragonhead,...there should be no sequel to Sin City. I watched Sin City, and had pretty much the same thoughts, a la "this would make a GREAT comic!!"....and that's precisely what MAKES it a fantastic film...because that is what it's supposed to evoke. If you were ever a fan of Frank Millers' graphic novels, (especially the Dark Knight series) you would see my point.... :)

Sponsor
frocketJun 16, 2005 11:36am
Has anyone here actually read the comic? It makes a big difference on how to feel about the film. I thought it was heavily stylized, which would put some people off. I'm not a huge fan of a lot of the actors that were in it, but they did a great job with Frank Miller's style. And I agree that a sequal would be smarmy.


Sin City: the film noir revival   11-18>|