so whaddya think folx? those that have seen it, those that haven't? i'm definitely seeing it Friday. it loox awesome.

I'm with you. I can't comprehend why she's never broken out into a major star. I have high hopes for this one, also for Rodriguez who has never quite delivered on his tremendous promise. I like most of his movies, but so far substance hasn't quite caught up with his amazing style. I think "From Dusk Till Dawn" is a great, underrated movie by the way, so maybe my judgement is suspect. Can't wait.

yeah i agree marco, RR's very stylish but he is lacking substance. i hope he directs a classic one of these days =).

I think that RR can direct, edit, etc.

But I've never liked his writing, just my .02.

sin city is one of the few times he's directing other people's writing. so hopefully this'll better than the faculty AT LEAST!

Saw a lab screening of this summer's underwater action film of "Into the Blue", with Jessica Alba and Paul Walker. It's pretty good, think it will do well. Jessica in a bikini underwater--let's just say, it works for me. Think the Alba fans out there will be pleased. Might just be her big breakout movie too.

The underwater photography is pretty amazing. The movie was shot by my friend Shane Hurlbut, who I am working with right now.

Ah... Jessica Alba... can't wait to see Sin City, mostly for Alexis
Bledel though (and the look, of course! Doh)

Charles: 42.4%? I see Shane and you worked on both C/B and
Mr. 3000? neat! C/B looked nice!

p.s. I just found out (on IMDB) that I need to wait till June 2nd to
see Sin City in the cinema here. Nooooooooo! Argh, sigh....

<<<-- Originally posted by Rob Lohman : Ah... Jessica Alba... can't wait to see Sin City, mostly for Alexis
Bledel though (and the look, of course! Doh)

Charles: 42.4%? I see Shane and you worked on both C/B and
Mr. 3000? neat! C/B looked nice!

p.s. I just found out (on IMDB) that I need to wait till June 2nd to
see Sin City in the cinema here. Nooooooooo! Argh, sigh.... -->>>

Rob,

Yet another reason for you to make that move over here like you were talking about. And, you wouldn't have to stay up until 2am to watch the Academy Awards like we did the year I was in Nederland. But, you lucky souls get to start your daylight savings time adjustment a week earlier than we do, and you have stroepwaffels so I guess it's all even (hehe).

-gb-

I saw Sin City at a press screening about a week ago. It was pretty awesome. It's not perfect - there are somethings from the books that just don't translate well into the 'real' world, there are some lines of dialogue that are fine to write but impossible to say - but it works more often than it doesn't.

josh,

you are aware that a lot of the films written in the 30s-50s had dialogues straight out of books, right? plus lotta screenwriters then were novelists as well.

<<<-- Originally posted by Yi Fong Yu : josh,

you are aware that a lot of the films written in the 30s-50s had dialogues straight out of books, right? plus lotta screenwriters then were novelists as well. -->>>


It's a little different. The fact is there were a lot, lot of bad noir films written in the 30s-50s, the one's that survived are the ones that adapted to the medium the best - stuff like The Maltese Falcon and The Big Sleep, which though they had pulpy roots, had a different cadence to their writing and dialogue than they're neighbors - which is one of the things that set them apart as masterpieces of the genre at the time, and continues to do so today. There were plenty of crime writers before Hammett and Chandler, they were just the ones who were the best at it. And The Big Sleep Sin City ain't. Nor does it try to be, as Miller's inspiration for it came from somewhere else.

While Sin City the movie takes its look from film noire, with some changes, the characters and the story and the dialogue all come from the old Crime pulps - and that's a different kettle of fish altogether.

Frank Miller took the specific inspiration for Sin City - the comics - not from noir films but from pulpy detective fiction like the kind Mickey Spillane used to right (in fact, Spillane's Mike Hammer work is a direct inspiration for Sin City, many of the prose passges in the book sound as if they could have been written by Spillane himself). Most of that stuff wasn't ever translated directly to screen as it was written, and the stuff that was normally wasn't very good because then as now some of that stuff a person just can't say.

Part of it is that is that you can read faster than you can speak - and when dialogue and action are put together to create a specifically timed gag - it really throws the gag off when one of the characters has to get a whole lot of words out. It throws the timing off and lets the construction of the scene show through. It works fine on a comic page, where you can get everything that's going on and absorb the dialogue at a glance, but it doesn't work the same when you have it moving in real time.

And that's not to say the entire movie is like that. Like I say, it works more often than it doesn't. But sometimes, it doesn't. Michael Madsen, in particular, comes across like he's reading off of cue cards. Some of Clive Owen's stuff doesn't really fly either. But for the most part, it works fine.

I heard from a screenwriting teacher that the Maltese Falcon script accidentally came about when a secretary typed up all the dialog from the book as a writing aid for John Houston. The writing aid ended getting greenlit. I don't know if it's true, but I'm halfway through the book right now and it does indeed appear to be word for word with almost no changes or deletions. Even the staging -- remember Bogart's secretary rolling his cigarette while perched on the edge of the desk? -- is exacly the same. It's the weirdest thing I've ever seen. I think Joshua definitely has a point about Hammett's writing naturally lending itself to the screen. Having Bogart say the lines can't have hurt either.

i suppose some writers are "cinematic" and some aren't =^). v. interesting.

Roger Ebert gave Sin City a huge thumbs up. Calling it brilliant.

His review did a better job of explaining the movie than anyone elses so far. Apparently Rodriguez was very faithful to the book.

According to the review, they used the actually comic books as story boards. There are three main stories that converge toward the end to keep it from burning out too soon.

I've read most of the Sin City's but I stopped reading them when I heard the movie was coming out. I want to see the movie stand on its own without wanting to compare it to the books. But it will be interesting comparing what I see on the screen to the books *after*. From what I've already read, the composition is certainly faithful. I know Rodriguez wanted Frank Miller to get director's credit but how much did Miller actually do on the set?

Anyway, I hope Miller gets to film "Hard Boiled" too. That's the book he did with Geoff Darrow who went on to do a lot of the design of the Matrix movies.

That's the review that counts. Good for him. I've been rooting for Rodriguez for years. I hope he finally starts getting more respect. I had a chance to talk with him after a showing of Mariachi at Sundance (actually, my friend did all talking -- I was too shy) and he was the most unassuming, but energetic person, pretty much like he is in TV interviews. I remember he was almost ranting "transfer to video and edit it that way. It's cheaper." I didn't appreciate the significance of that at the time.

"I know Rodriguez wanted Frank Miller to get director's credit"

He said on one of those late night talk shows -- that guy who comes on after Letterman -- that he actually quit the director's guild over this issue.

<<<-- Originally posted by Keith Loh : I've read most of the Sin City's but I stopped reading them when I heard the movie was coming out. I want to see the movie stand on its own without wanting to compare it to the books. But it will be interesting comparing what I see on the screen to the books *after*. From what I've already read, the composition is certainly faithful. I know Rodriguez wanted Frank Miller to get director's credit but how much did Miller actually do on the set? -->>>

According to Rodriguez, Miller was actually on set directing actors the entire time. A lot of his work as co-director was geared towards performance.

Well, just saw it, twice, and I do think it's brilliant. I liked the fact the dialog isn't natural. Nothing about the world of this film is natural. The first time I saw it, I thought the pacing was way too fast. I still loved it, but everything seemed uncomfortably accelerated. The second time, the pacing didn't seem too fast at all. Once you know what's going to happen, you just ride along with the vibe. I think this is a movie designed to be watched over and over. I do think it will be remembered as a classic, if any movie that divides people to such extremes can be called a classic. Look at the reviews -- it's either a brilliant triumph, or the epitome of everything that's wrong with the modern trend in film. Too bad poor Jessica Alba didn't have much to do though. All she does is smile at people and bend over to reach into the refrigerator.

I also just saw the film (only once... so far) and I also loved it. It is so well made, so true to the comics, and just so damn cool. Everyone pulls off the noir type dialogue, and the movie manages to be more exciting to watch in black and white than many movies that are filmed in color. And it never holds back. It's gritty and violent, but it wouldn't work any other way. I do think this is Rob-Rod's best work and will be a classic eventually.

I saw the film yesterday and really liked it a lot. It truly immersed you in the style in a very nice way. It was beautiful, really. In an I'm-going-to-torture-you way :).

I have to say, though, that I didn't like some of the stilted dialog. I actually think that it is possible for actors to deliver stilted dialog in a way that is still believable. There were too many lines where it sounded like an actor just reading a stilted line, rather than an actor the stilted thing he is saying it.

I know that it was in part an artistic choice, and I am open to the idea that on repeated viewings I would start to agree with that choice... but I pretty much always want to believe what an actor is saying.

Does anyone know which segment Tarantino directed? I'm guessing it is the Bruce Willis one... I believed that dialog the most.

<<<-- Originally posted by Greg Boston : Yet another reason for you to make that move over here like you were talking about. And, you wouldn't have to stay up until 2am to watch the Academy Awards like we did the year I was in Nederland. But, you lucky souls get to start your daylight savings time adjustment a week earlier than we do, and you have stroepwaffels so I guess it's all even (hehe).

-gb- -->>>

This year I didn't get to watch any Academy Awards since it was
only behind a "decoder" (ie, expensive movie channel). That was
a real bummer since I watched for years through the BBC (which
didn't air it either this year).

I'll let you know when I move! Heh.

Tarantino didn't direct a whole segment. He just did the car scene where Benicio Del Toro talks out of the slit in his neck.

anyone read the article on IGN or interviews with RR? according to RR himself, there will be extended cut of sin city where you can see all 3 stories in a linear fashion. i think it'll be 3 hours long with each story an hour long.

now that i've seen it, there are a few points i hope the extended cut will resolve. both marv and bruce willis goto the farm. marv deals with the elijah wood character and bruce willis with the nich stahl&alba. what i don't get is there's a shot of elijah reading the bible sitting on the porch of the farmhouse but bruce willis is making a racket in the background. why didn't the creepy elijah go after bruce willis?

now regarding the movie in general, while the style, fx, and everything else was very good, the story was lacking. i've not read the comix myself but i hope the printed work makes better sense. what do i mean? well after seeing the film you don't get a sense of fulfilment in your own life. it's just blam blam mindless entertainment but it doesn't help you think about your own life. it's very hard to relate. having said that, it's still one piece of very polished entertainment.

i was hoping for this piece to finally let RR shine and get inducted into the "great directors" of our time but i dunno if he will ever be if he keeps missing out on telling great stories. i think spy kid gets pretty close... but none of his other works have come closer.

I don't think I can completely explain it but the Kevin character is just wrapped up in the book which I remember to be the Bible. He is a strange creature who may only be concerned with what interests him or what the cardinal sends him to do.

I haven't read "The Yellow Bastard" but I've read the other two stories and the movie version pretty well adapts it verbatim except for some minor changes. For example the girl at the very end actually dies in the alley in the book but it was changed so she could provide the nice book end to the beginning with the Josh Harnett assassin character.

So I don't think reading the book will give you any greater insight other than an appreciation to the extent to which Rodriguez went to be faithful to the Miller vision.

As for the stories, if you accept that the moral center is several light years away from what is generally shown in film then to me the main focus is on the intensity and despearation of the characters in the midst of evil. When the whole city is sinful, then the heroic characters are those who carve out a tiny bit of order and justice. The truly evil are those without a moral code such as the ruling family and anyone who turns traitor or liar. The protagonists are those who see things in black and white. To that extent, the Kevin character is actually a form of protagonist because his character is crystal clear whereas the villains all have a grey area or are hypocrites.

I think this is a movie that has to be accepted on its own terms or completely rejected. There's just enough character development to accomplish what the filmmakers set out to do, but Margaret Atwood it ain't. I think the thinness of the characters in this movie is the same kind of thing that was problematic in classic noir. Was it ever really explained what Sam Spade saw in the mysterious woman that always lied to him in the Maltese Falcon? Characters in those old movies were usually just types -- tough guy, sexy vixen, fat villain. You either enjoy their desperation or you don't. I did think the Marv character was the most fully developed. You could have made an entire movie out of his story. The Old Town segment was the weakest, but definitely had its moments. I kind of think they should switch the order on those two. Marv is a tough act to follow.

It's a mistake to compare Sin City to Hammett or Chandler because that's not where it comes from, and will give someone not familiar with the material the wrong idea. The problem is that for most people, that's about all they know about film noir and crime fiction (which aren't the same thing, and Sin City is much more pulp crime fiction than film noir) and what they're getting is something else.

If you are really familiar with this particular type of pulp fiction (the style, not the movie) and like it, you'll like the film. Otherwise, you might get off on the gloss but find it empty. Hardcore pulp crime fiction is not about characterization or realistic dialogue, and Sin City is a homage to both the best and worst attributes of that particular form of writing.

This "Sin City" movie adapts--nearly panel by panel--three Sin City stories:

Marv = "The Hard Goodbye" (new title for original "Sin City")
Dwight = "The Big Fat Kill" 1994/1995
Hartigan = "That Yellow Bastard" 1996

The movie begins and ends with The Salesman character (Josh Harnett) from the short story "The Customer is Always Right", part of the "The Babe Wore Red" compilation.

Not included in the movie are a plethora of other short stories, as well as some of the later work. Curiously, Robert Rodriguez chose not to film the "A Dame To Kill For" story, which is actually the second Sin City story...it's the first Dwight story, and in fact Marv plays a relatively large supporting role in it, along with the Old Town girls. Kind of a shame, because it's probably the best STORY of all the Sin City work. (Possibly sequel material???)

For those that are interested, here are all of the "Sin City" books, in the order they were published:

"The Hard Goodbye" 1992/1993
"A Dame To Kill For" 1993/1994
"The Big Fat Kill" 1994/1995
"The Babe Wore Red and Other Stories" 1994
"Silent Night" Christmas Special 1994
"That Yellow Bastard" 1996
"Booze, Broads, & Bullets" 1998 (includes "The Babe Wore Red")
"Family Values" 1997
"Hell and Back" 1999/2000

Conviently enough (of course *wink*) the publisher, Dark Horse, is reissuing all these books in conjunction with the movie, so they should be relatively easy to track down if you are so inclined.

Also, here's a neat little web page I found that lays out the stories in chronological order. Might help ease some of the confusion about what happens when and where:

http://surbrook.devermore.net/adaptionscomic/sincity/sincitytimeline.html

As for the movie itself....I thought it was too hurried, and almost a too over-the-top visually. It's neat to see Frank Miller's amazing work "brought to life" so to speak, but to be honest the stories work better told in the comic medium. In movie form, it seemed a little fake and forced. I might have enjoyed it much more if I hadn't been such a Frank Miller / Sin City fan in the first place.

:-)

I just returned from viewing the film, and I am basically numb.

It is interesting to note that all the comments about the film are from males.

in the showing i attended there were a group of 5 or 6 women. i think they were there for either clive owen or benicio... but after the first few minutes, i think they quickly walked out =P. hahahahha. actually the more gore happened onscreen the more people walked out. it was like a mass exodus.

what was awfully strange was that i saw 2 pair of parents bringing their 12 year old sons to see this? wtf? they thought it *JUST a COMIC BOOK MOVIE*. yet they were the ones that stayed... hahahha. talk about tall and twisted world WE live in.

Someone brought a baby to my screening of it.

I thought it was pretty good.

I think it's definitely a sexist movie. I don't mean that as a negative. We need those every once in a while. The first time I saw it the crowd was completely silent, except for the woman behind me who kept making loud snorting noises in disapproval. The second time was a matinee and half the audience was kids. How did they get in there? I didn't see any parents. They enjoyed it a bit more, but in general, both audiences seemed fairly stunned. This isn't an easy movie to ignore.

I gotta tell you people, I think the violence had a lot of its shock value. . .uh. . .depleted because of the surreality of the look. When blood is white, it's just not as impactful. They also tended not to show half the things happening, either by cutting away, or whatever. Agree? I've seen much worse.

Good point Josh! I remember reading several stories about
movies where people where grossed out by the violance and
graphics. However, when you really looked at the movies they
didn't really show you anything (like the chainsaw scene in scarface)

It's all in our minds <g>

The jam-packed theater I watched it in was anything BUT quiet! The audience laughed-out-loud over and over, even in some of the gore sequences. Of course, in the most gruesome parts, the crowd reaction was along the lines of "ewwww!", or some such. I did notice a couple of folks leaving during the movie, but they were sitting in the first couple of rows, so I attribute that to their terrible seating.

To be honest, the movie was a bit more bloody and gory than I thought it would be. I dunno why--the cutaway shots were filmed just like the books, and the actual visual gore shots ("I took away his weapons...both of them") were also straight out of the books.

I guess it just plays different on screen. ;-)

After seeing the movie, it was nice to see such an unPC flic in these conservative times. I did think that by the time Bruce Willis' characters story was told it got monotonous and utterly predictable, though the eye candy and pacing kept it from collapsing.

I wonder what Sir Galahad would have thought of this film?

The one criticism I've heard that I agree with is that the protagonists in every story were so similar. Surely there was more variety to choose from in Miller's stories than violent, but ultimately redeemable brutes who are obsessed with protecting or avenging women.

Uh...no, not really. LOL!

Like Duane said, not really, no. That is the biggest problem with the Sin City books - read one, read them all basically.

Actually it's become a real problem with Miller's writing in general in the past few years.

I liked Marv's story the best, then the whores, then bruce and jessica.

I'm sorry, I don't get what Josh Hartnett had to do with anything. I"m dumb.

Rosario Dawson rules. Period. Alba is cute, but a distant second to Dawson. I have a thing for bad girls anyway, much more fun. You pay for it in spades, but worth it. hehehe

Black and white is awesome...I love it so much. The only thing I love more? A black and white movie with the sexiest women on the planet in it! Thanks R.R...lol.

For someone who's never read a comic book in his life (me) - I thought it was pretty cool. I'm not going to start reading comics, but I might start liking these comic book adaptations. (i know this wasn't an adaptation!)

The overall tone was original in my opinion. It felt old and once in a while new, but really it was all new because of the amount of shots and how they were done. It's the visuals that felt old (meaning 30's, 40's 50's time period).

I LOVED the women in this movie. Damn, sexy women make the world go around. My girlfriend said the same thing, so I'm not being sexist or anything...she said it before me.

I think the lighting was really, really well done for an HD picture. I expected less, but it had more than I imagined possible with HD capture. The latest cameras have finally (I think) reached maximum HD-ish look. At this point, I'm thinking all future generations of pro HD cameras will be pretty much indisingishable to film cameras. They have a slight "HD" look still, but the average person can't tell...no way in hell can they tell. It's film to them...the HD revolution has won if you look at HD and film as equals right now. The film really looked sweet...and I was watching it in an old theater with a crappy projector skipping almost the whole time. (it strobes up and down constantly because the film is jumping a sprocket).

Just my opinion, but I think R.R. finally made a movie I could stand all the way through too. The trilogy he made was good, but not great. I'd say this film was good too...great? No, the stories in it weren't life altering for me.

I'm very curious to see Stars Wars next month...has Lucas used the lastest HD cameras the same way? I've got a feeling that he's toned down the lame video game quality of the past 2...maybe it'll have more story and substance.

R.R. is definately doing some interesting things and I look forward to the years ahead with him. The only thing he needs to do and NOT be afraid to take his time...he's to busy trying to make 3 movies a year. That might hurt him, but who knows...he might be a superman filmmaker. We'll see..

Sin City is worth the $ to see in theaters, so check it out if you haven't already! At the very least, it's got some of the sexiest girls ever in glorious black and white!

I just saw this over the wekend on DVD. I was a bit wary going in, but I thought it rocked. Watched it a second time and liked it just as much.

there's an extended dir's cut coming in nov/dec?

Cool. I suspected as much.

One detail/connection I noticed that I thought was nice/weird was the use of glowing white for blood, and then the admission by Bishop(?) Roark that Kenny was filled with "White light" when he fed.

I wonder if that was coincidental style choice or an intentional connection. I'm leaning towards intentional. either way it's pretty cool.
Definitely my favorite RR film by a loooong shot.

Yup, there sure is... I'm holding out for that one.

one further comment:
after this movie, Jessica Alba has joined the short list of stars that I'll see in just about anything. Except for FF2... maybe.

hasn't "into the blue" come out already? it's the one with her in bathing suits =).

As I think I said somewhere, I saw "Into the Blue" last winter (it's been on the shelf for a while) and Jessica is just...well, let's say worth waiting for. You guys won't be disappointed!

I can't see how it could go otherwise, unless of course, she's invisible for 75% of the movie.