Sin City...
Apr. 9th, 2005 11:53 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
shadowkatJust got back from seeing Sin City with ![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
cjlasky tonight.
Not a bad flick. Half way through, I realized what it made me think of: a male romance novel. Okay, let me explain: a friend of mine a while back was telling me about her experience reading Ian Fleming's Bond books that they were
"male romances". Never occurred to me before. But makes sense. Female gender is physically idealized. The guys are super-strong and capable of doing anything. At any rate - The Fleming Books are sort of noirish and have a lot in common with Sin City. Also the dialogue - could be lifted directly from those type of books. Dime store romance dialogue. [As an aside the same friend
knew Frank Miller and hung out with him in the bar where he eventually meet Rodriguez and chatted about doing a movie of Sin City. I know this, because sometime last year she asks me if I've ever heard of someone named Frank Miller because he's this guy she's been sort of friendly with and he told her sort of sheepishly that he wrote graphic novels. Sigh. I told her he was only one of the leading graphic novelists in the industry. Haven't met him - don't want to, meeting famous people makes me edgy.]
Well - this movie is written like a male version of a romance novel, complete with the flowery prose, the overly idealized versions of the opposite gender (here female) and the melodramatic endings. Some of the dialogue made me laugh out loud, and there were some nice one liners. Here's a lovely one: "She didn't so much as cut his head off as make a pez dispenser out of it." Or, "it was like a pailsey victim trying to do surgery with a pipe wrench." All the women were lovely things with perfect breasts, unblemished skin, wide eyes, youthful, flowing hair and wearing little more than a thong a good percentage of the time. (In female romance novels the guys are bare-chested, have long flowing hair, unblemished skin, and wearing little more than a loin cloth most of the time, well at least on the covers. Also have perfect big hairless chests. For some reason Western society has a thing about perfect big hairless chests? And long flowing hair? )
That said? The visuals were possibly among the best I've seen in a film in a very long time. Amazing cinematography and design. It was akin to watching a graphic novel come to life on a screen. (Now if I could only turn off the cheesy dime store novel dialogue...although, I'm not unconvinced that dime store novel quality of the dialogue wasn't intentional.) Splashes of color used sparingly here and there in a completely black and white film stock. To much better effect than Spielberg did in Schindler's list.
The film gave a whole new meaning to the term noir film or black film. It was black film - with white overtones. Hard to describe - you have to see it for yourself.
Was it noir? Well yes and no. Outside of the Marv and the Josh Harnett character (who bookends the tales and MArv who is sort of the second tale) there really weren't any "anti-heroes" here. Also the Clive Owen tale ended on a positive note. The other two, well, they also ended far more positive than true noir should. Noir, fortunately or unfortunately depending on your point of view, has gotten a tad watered down over time. Or become more optimistic. Angel S5 was darker than this. The world that the stories take place in on the other hand, couldn't be darker or gritter.
Is SIN CITY a good film? It's certainly a fascinating one. The visuals are stunning. The acting top-notch, with the possible exception of maybe one or two people. The art direction flawless. But, it suffers from some of the same problems other films of its ilk suffer from - style over substance battle. The Hulk, House of Flying Daggers, Hero, Sky Captain and The World of Tommorrow - all had the same problem. Cool visuals, but the writing and story are weak. The style overwhelms the substance. Instead of being equal to it.
That said? I enjoyed it and do recommend it. It is gory though with lots of cartoonish and graphic violence. (Male pulp romance novel remember - male romance novels have tons of graphic outlandish violence, female pulp romance novels have tons of graphic outlandish sex..) Did wince during several scenes and almost covered my eyes during a couple. Didn't. The black and white style
tones it down a bit. Also tends to drag a bit in the third act - right after the Clive Owen tale...when I checked my watch. The problem I think is that the stories are too similar in tone, there's not enough shift. You get tired.
It is also set up as an anthology of tales - and the difficulty with short stories is characters do not move from one state to another, they aren't really transformed. Instead they just accomplish said task and either survive or die, unchanged emotionally. Marv, Hartigan, Dwight don't change. They are the same men they were in the beginning of their tales as they are at the end of them. Nor do you care all that much about them - at least I didn't. I found them interesting though.
The movie is also worth watching to see how much Whedon and his crew were influenced by Miller's Sin City. Spike's characterization in S2 and S4-5 is to a degree lifted right out of the Marv tale, complete with flowing black duster and snark. The whole jacket bit certainly is. Saw it immediately. Angel's character was also to some degree influenced by Sin City and Marv. Marv is possibly the only true anti-hero in it and the one who may change the most and has the most grisely end.
To sum up: Dialogue? So-so. Actually funny in places. But very eye-rolling.
Music? Very good. The great Graeham Reville is involved - he did the original Crow soundtrack. Normally don't notice music in these things. But fan of Reville's. Visuals? Amazing. Worth seeing the film just for that. Best damn cinematic visuals I've seen. Any fan of noir film needs to see these visuals.
Ignore the dialoge and just look at how they frame these shots. I honestly think Frank Miller is a far better graphic artist than he is a writer. And this baby brings his graphic noir art style to life. Now if we could have just gotten Alan Moore, Quentin Tartinto or Joss Whedon to write the dialogue. Tartantino does do the dialogue and direction for one wonderful scene in the film - possibly the best - a very dark comedic scene that reminds one of
Resevoir Dogs and Pulp Fiction. It's between Clive Owen and Benico del Torro.
Worth seeing for that - but it is a tad on the gruesome side.
All in all? Worth ten bucks.
cjlasky tonight.Not a bad flick. Half way through, I realized what it made me think of: a male romance novel. Okay, let me explain: a friend of mine a while back was telling me about her experience reading Ian Fleming's Bond books that they were
"male romances". Never occurred to me before. But makes sense. Female gender is physically idealized. The guys are super-strong and capable of doing anything. At any rate - The Fleming Books are sort of noirish and have a lot in common with Sin City. Also the dialogue - could be lifted directly from those type of books. Dime store romance dialogue. [As an aside the same friend
knew Frank Miller and hung out with him in the bar where he eventually meet Rodriguez and chatted about doing a movie of Sin City. I know this, because sometime last year she asks me if I've ever heard of someone named Frank Miller because he's this guy she's been sort of friendly with and he told her sort of sheepishly that he wrote graphic novels. Sigh. I told her he was only one of the leading graphic novelists in the industry. Haven't met him - don't want to, meeting famous people makes me edgy.]
Well - this movie is written like a male version of a romance novel, complete with the flowery prose, the overly idealized versions of the opposite gender (here female) and the melodramatic endings. Some of the dialogue made me laugh out loud, and there were some nice one liners. Here's a lovely one: "She didn't so much as cut his head off as make a pez dispenser out of it." Or, "it was like a pailsey victim trying to do surgery with a pipe wrench." All the women were lovely things with perfect breasts, unblemished skin, wide eyes, youthful, flowing hair and wearing little more than a thong a good percentage of the time. (In female romance novels the guys are bare-chested, have long flowing hair, unblemished skin, and wearing little more than a loin cloth most of the time, well at least on the covers. Also have perfect big hairless chests. For some reason Western society has a thing about perfect big hairless chests? And long flowing hair? )
That said? The visuals were possibly among the best I've seen in a film in a very long time. Amazing cinematography and design. It was akin to watching a graphic novel come to life on a screen. (Now if I could only turn off the cheesy dime store novel dialogue...although, I'm not unconvinced that dime store novel quality of the dialogue wasn't intentional.) Splashes of color used sparingly here and there in a completely black and white film stock. To much better effect than Spielberg did in Schindler's list.
The film gave a whole new meaning to the term noir film or black film. It was black film - with white overtones. Hard to describe - you have to see it for yourself.
Was it noir? Well yes and no. Outside of the Marv and the Josh Harnett character (who bookends the tales and MArv who is sort of the second tale) there really weren't any "anti-heroes" here. Also the Clive Owen tale ended on a positive note. The other two, well, they also ended far more positive than true noir should. Noir, fortunately or unfortunately depending on your point of view, has gotten a tad watered down over time. Or become more optimistic. Angel S5 was darker than this. The world that the stories take place in on the other hand, couldn't be darker or gritter.
Is SIN CITY a good film? It's certainly a fascinating one. The visuals are stunning. The acting top-notch, with the possible exception of maybe one or two people. The art direction flawless. But, it suffers from some of the same problems other films of its ilk suffer from - style over substance battle. The Hulk, House of Flying Daggers, Hero, Sky Captain and The World of Tommorrow - all had the same problem. Cool visuals, but the writing and story are weak. The style overwhelms the substance. Instead of being equal to it.
That said? I enjoyed it and do recommend it. It is gory though with lots of cartoonish and graphic violence. (Male pulp romance novel remember - male romance novels have tons of graphic outlandish violence, female pulp romance novels have tons of graphic outlandish sex..) Did wince during several scenes and almost covered my eyes during a couple. Didn't. The black and white style
tones it down a bit. Also tends to drag a bit in the third act - right after the Clive Owen tale...when I checked my watch. The problem I think is that the stories are too similar in tone, there's not enough shift. You get tired.
It is also set up as an anthology of tales - and the difficulty with short stories is characters do not move from one state to another, they aren't really transformed. Instead they just accomplish said task and either survive or die, unchanged emotionally. Marv, Hartigan, Dwight don't change. They are the same men they were in the beginning of their tales as they are at the end of them. Nor do you care all that much about them - at least I didn't. I found them interesting though.
The movie is also worth watching to see how much Whedon and his crew were influenced by Miller's Sin City. Spike's characterization in S2 and S4-5 is to a degree lifted right out of the Marv tale, complete with flowing black duster and snark. The whole jacket bit certainly is. Saw it immediately. Angel's character was also to some degree influenced by Sin City and Marv. Marv is possibly the only true anti-hero in it and the one who may change the most and has the most grisely end.
To sum up: Dialogue? So-so. Actually funny in places. But very eye-rolling.
Music? Very good. The great Graeham Reville is involved - he did the original Crow soundtrack. Normally don't notice music in these things. But fan of Reville's. Visuals? Amazing. Worth seeing the film just for that. Best damn cinematic visuals I've seen. Any fan of noir film needs to see these visuals.
Ignore the dialoge and just look at how they frame these shots. I honestly think Frank Miller is a far better graphic artist than he is a writer. And this baby brings his graphic noir art style to life. Now if we could have just gotten Alan Moore, Quentin Tartinto or Joss Whedon to write the dialogue. Tartantino does do the dialogue and direction for one wonderful scene in the film - possibly the best - a very dark comedic scene that reminds one of
Resevoir Dogs and Pulp Fiction. It's between Clive Owen and Benico del Torro.
Worth seeing for that - but it is a tad on the gruesome side.
All in all? Worth ten bucks.