Official Sin City(& Jessica Alba appreciation) thread =^).

[Marco Leavitt]

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.

[Marco Leavitt]

"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.

[Joshua Starnes]

<<<-- 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.

[Marco Leavitt]

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.

[Mitchell Stookey]

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.

[Barry Gribble]

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.

[Rob Lohman]

<<<-- 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.

[Marco Leavitt]

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.

[Yi Fong Yu]

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.

[Keith Loh]

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.

[Marco Leavitt]

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.

[Joshua Starnes]

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.

[Duane Smith]

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/adapti...ytimeline.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.

:-)

[Wayne Orr]

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.

[Yi Fong Yu]

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.