« Heinlein, Card and Webcomics: fans, art, and disappointment | Main | The Aesthetics of Stupidity in RPG Development. »

Eric: Also? Breasts. I mean, dude.

Sin City was astounding.

Truly astounding. Astounding in the way you think movies should be, but so rarely are. It was more than Noir, more than comic bookish, more than Frank Miller (though the Milleresque dialogue was -- of course -- spot on. Lots of "get up, Old Man" that sounded right out of Dark Knight Returns.

The cinematography deserves an Oscar. So does the editing. So does makeup.

So do other things, but it'll never happen. Never in a million years. But this was the ultimate Noir story for the twenty first century -- it understood Noir in a way that 99% of Modern Noir fails so badly at. The core concept -- the One Good Man who must deal with a world of failure and death and destruction and horror and corruption and (most of all) despair -- was better than updated. It was commemorated. It was exemplified.

And even though we had more than one One Good Man... every one of them, at the time they were on screen, were it.

It was good. It was very good. You should definitely see it if you like things that are good. Or at least things I think are good. And if you don't like the things that I think are good... um... well, it might be odd that you're here, reading what I write.

I also bought lots of Preacher while I was out. Not that I think you care about that.

Posted by Eric Burns-White at April 3, 2005 11:22 PM

Comments

Comment from: Miles Gloriosus posted at April 4, 2005 12:05 AM

That is one of the best films I've seen in I don't know how long. I haven't read any of the Graphic Novels (a fact that I now regret), so this was pretty new to me, but my friends who had read them seemed just as excited as I was, so go figure.

The themes of honor, lies, nobility, masculinity and emasculation, God, power-- It was both an incredibly kickass movie and a pretty powerful piece. Partly because it appealed to the noblest parts of myself, and partly because it made me so thirsty for the blood of the villans that not one of of the atrocities commited by the heroes shocked me. If it makes a statement on the duality of man within it's protagonists, it makes that statement in the audience as well-- which is exactly what a good movie (or any good art) ought to do.

And dude-- The things Bruce Willis did with his bare hands-- wow. And that's all I have to say, about that.

Comment from: JoeFF85 posted at April 4, 2005 12:08 AM

I also enjoyed it. I've tried to explain to my friends why, but frankly the word "Noir" wont mean anythign to 50% of them, and the others will think of that anime. Like, five people I know know what Noir is, and they're mostly limited to Tracer Bullet and that one clip from the Animatrix.

Anyway... Mr. Burns, you hit the nail on the head. You found the words to describe what I only could put as "It was... violent, and gritty, and amazing. And had the most beautiful women I've ever seen on film." I reccomended it to my buddy saying he would like it if he liked "guns, blood and breasts."

Comment from: EsotericWombat posted at April 4, 2005 12:18 AM

I'm not sure I've ever had a better time at the movies. Everything about Sin City was just so good. They even managed to make Jessica Alba more hot. I'd hardly believed it was possible

The voice-overs were brilliant, especially Hartigan's. Excellent use of repitition. I flipped when I saw the sequence that Tarantino directed.

Rodriguez said that he wants to film all of Sin City. I can't fucking wait.

Comment from: MasonK posted at April 4, 2005 12:28 AM

Which sequence was Tarantino responsible for? I knew he was involved, but not to what extent.

And Rodriguez will probably get the chance, considering how well the movie's doing this weekend.

Comment from: daveMill posted at April 4, 2005 12:42 AM

I believe it was the scene in the car with Dwight & Jackie Boy. From an interview I heard with Rodriguez, it was actually a much longer scene, but they had to cut it for time reasons.

In fact, there were a number of scenes filmed that didn't make it to the movie do to time.

And they'll be added in for the DVD. Which is sweet.

Comment from: daveMill posted at April 4, 2005 12:47 AM

Oh, and about the Oscars. Rodriguez wouldn't be up for an oscar even if the Academy thought he deserved it, since he quite the Director's Guild in protest when they said he couldn't credit Frank Miller as co-director. So he isn't eligible. Not sure if the movie itself would be eligible for best picture or not.

Found out Tarintino also quit sometime ago. So neither of them will ever get a best director oscar. Which is beyond stupid.

Very informative interview, that was.

Comment from: Christopher B. Wright posted at April 4, 2005 12:50 AM

I didn't like it.

I *wanted* to like it -- I was looking forward to liking it -- I liked *looking* at it. But overall I thought the dialog killed the visuals and the story. 80% of the dialog was just... bad.

I don't remember the dialog in the comic books being bad. I think maybe it doesn't translate well on screen.

There were good bits to the dialog. For the most part I thought Bruce Willis and Mickey Rourke handled their narration very well, even if some of the things they said were, well, odd. Over all Rourke was really fun to watch, come to think of it... but trying to sit through Clive Owen wax rhapsodic about his valkyrie, who was his and yet wasn't, was juuuuuuust a little too much to take.

Visually brilliant. Something was lost in the words, though.

Comment from: A. Hooley posted at April 4, 2005 12:57 AM

Oscars don't mean much to me anyway, so no biggie if they can't win one now.

I also loved Sin City. For the first ten minutes I was a little freaked that they translated the comics almost word for word. But it worked amazingly well, and by the end of the movie, I realized it couldn't be done any other way.

Comment from: JoeFF85 posted at April 4, 2005 1:04 AM

"*wanted* to like it -- I was looking forward to liking it -- I liked *looking* at it. But overall I thought the dialog killed the visuals and the story. 80% of the dialog was just... bad."

About thirty seconds into the first segment I realized that all the dialog belonged in word baloons, and the narration in those rectangular narration boxes. When you think of it like that, its fucking perfect.

Comment from: Christopher B. Wright posted at April 4, 2005 1:13 AM

That worked for some segments. The narration worked fairly well for Willis, and worked about half the time for Rourke (though when it worked for him it worked splendidly). But some of that dialog... failed to sell itself to the audience. Well, to me.

The problem, I think, was that the pacing involved in dialog for comics doesn't quite sync up with the pacing involved in a movie. You can frame a *picture* so that it looks like a comic panel, but you really have no place to frame the words. On a comic page, the words hang in place and *don't go away*, so that the reader can take his or her own time to fit them to the picture. That's how you can have heroes and villians spouting ridiculously long monologues in a single panel of action... but that doesn't translate well in movies, even in movies that try to look like comic books, because the words don't just hang there in space.

So something that can read magnificiently in a comic book will sound ridiculous when spoken -- it can't hang there over the action. And so I found myself alternately laughing and cringing as the words came off sounding... unimpressive.

I'll probably still buy the DVD, though.

Comment from: Farvana posted at April 4, 2005 2:57 AM

Saw most of it, and while the cinematography was good, I didn't enjoy much of the rest of it... The story just didn't click with me. I thought the story lacked the cohesiveness it needed, and I just didn't care whether anybody lived or died.

Comment from: Ray Radlein posted at April 4, 2005 7:38 AM

I'm almost certain that you don't have to be a member of the DGA to be nominated for a "Best Director" Oscar. Otherwise, there'd be no need for the DGA to have their own award.

Comment from: arscott posted at April 4, 2005 11:18 AM

Some of the articles I've read about the DGA think say that dropping out disqualifies him. But I haven't seen anything in the academy rules that specifically disqualifies him.

Then again, it's possible the Directing arm of the academy would snub him for dropping out. They're mostly guild members.

The bright spot is that rodriguez is also the Producer, Cinematographer, Editor, and Composer, so he'll walk away with a statuette if it wins picture, cinematography, editing, or score.

Comment from: UrsulaV posted at April 4, 2005 11:26 AM

Loved it. Except the yellow guy. The makeup failed for me there--what worked superbly well with Marv, and made him LOOK like a comic book character, didn't work so well the second time, and combined with the stark color contrast, was jarring. I am told that this was also a problem with the comic itself, though, so at least the flaws were faithful. *grin* But otherwise, cheeseball hardboiled dialogue and all, loved it.

Comment from: daveMill posted at April 4, 2005 11:27 AM

The only info I have concerning Rodriguiz's 'disqualification' for best director came from the interview I heard on Marketplace on NPR. So I certainly won defend it. arscott's DGA member snub theory strikes me as being much more plausible anyway.

Comment from: Miles Gloriosus posted at April 4, 2005 1:25 PM

The only time the dialogue really failed for me was with the woman who played Goldie and her sister. She... wasn't so good. I thought. And her lines sounded really stupid because of it. I think that there's some truth in the statement that what works in comics doesn't work in movies, but I think a lot of that comes down to the vocal skills of the actor. A good actor can make ridiculous dialogue work well, a poor one will just look ridiculous.

Comment from: Brandon E. posted at April 4, 2005 2:44 PM

There are plenty of other reasons the Academy will snub Sin City.

They are hardly the most respectable movie awards out there. Just the most watched.

Comment from: jpcardier posted at April 4, 2005 2:58 PM

This movie took a sucky weekend and made it great. I loved it, my wife loved it, my brother in law loved it.


It was like nothing else I have seen on film. And while I often flinch from graphic violence, this was so cartoonish that the dismemberments, intensines and beheadings made me laugh.


While I liked all of it a lot, it's all about Marv. I have never had such a good time watching somebody doing so many horrible, horrible things. That was a work of genius. Especially Mickey Rourkes portrayal, which just brought it home for me. And Elijah Wood? Creeeeeeeepy. Frodo, is that you?

Comment from: gwalla posted at April 4, 2005 3:08 PM

The dialogue worked for me for the most part. The whole thing is film noir turned up to eleven█just this side of parody. I do think Goldie's delivery was kind of flat, though, and so was Michael Clarke Duncan's.

The weakest part of the movie to me was the Dwight segment. Which is kind of funny because The Big Fat Kill is my favorite Sin City story, and the one I tend to think of as the core of Sin City. I think Clive Owen may be a little too soft-spoken and prettyboy to be a convincing Dwight. He looks more like an accountant than an ex-con.

Still, awesomeness.

Comment from: gwalla posted at April 4, 2005 3:08 PM

Oh, and did anyone else notice the other ex-hobbit in the cast?

Comment from: Dave Van Domelen posted at April 4, 2005 4:55 PM

gwalla: I thought so, but he zipped across the screen too fast for me to be sure (and the credits rolled a little too quickly for my eyes).

As someone who never read the comics and who isn't particularly into noir, I liked Sin City. I particularly liked the sort of optimisitically doomed attitute of the movie...the hero is probably not going to survive, but he'll still win.

Comment from: alpaca2500 posted at April 4, 2005 8:29 PM

Oh, and did anyone else notice the other ex-hobbit in the cast?

i saw a guy that kind of looked like billy boyd... but i'm pretty sure it wasn't him...

Comment from: slabgar posted at April 5, 2005 12:27 AM

This film, it is goodness.

Post a comment

Thanks for signing in, . Now you can comment. (sign out)

(If you haven't left a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Thanks for waiting.)


Remember me?