Sin City

[timepiececlock]

Just watched about 45 minutes of Sin City. I started with the beginning, stopped right around the time we first see Jessica Alba's apartment, post wolf-eating-legs scene.

That's about when me, my mom, and my dad collectively decided we were

a) bored
b) bored
c) put off visually and as thinking intelligent people who expect something of value in dialogue
d) not getting anything whatsoever out of this experience
e) so willing to ridicule the idiocy on screen in front of us that watching anymore would be cruel & unecessary damage to our braincells and sense of judgement.
f) bored

Some of the comments thrown about during the timespan we did last:

dialogue: "I still don't know what she was running from."
commentA: "You asshole."
commentB: "This scene just proves that no matter what he does I can't take Josh Hartnett seriously."

"Is every woman in this movie a hooker?"

"Why is his head not concave after that?"

"Oh please."

"Is every woman in this movie a hooker AND in need of rescue by a big strong violent man?"

"Wouldn't the blood have washed off his face if he just went under water?"

"Okay, this show is starting to lose me."
"I don't think it ever found me."

"I thought Elijah Wood was supposed to be scary and creepy and stuff? This isn't scary, it's almost making me giggle."

"::derisive snort::"

"The wolf was the most interesting thing so far, and that's not saying much."

"You know, I appreciate the artistic effort that went into composing some of these shots, but the rest of it especially the script is so mindnumbingly stupid, boring, and annoying that I just don't care about watching more."


Rashaka: ::standing:: "Okay, I think I'm done now. I'm going to get ice cream."
ShakaDad: "Me too. ShakaMom, what do you think?"
ShakaMom: "I've had enough."
ShakaDad: "Where did you put our property tax papers? I want to look at them with you."
ShakaMom: "They're on the table. Here..."

Comments

[donna-c-punk.livejournal.com]

The visuals were the only thing I liked about Sin City. I read the graphic novel a couple of days ago (a friend lent it to me) and it did nothing to enchance my appreciation of the movie. It only fleshed out the background on "Hooker Town". I noticed that most of the people who're catching SC on DVD/video don't like it, and for the same reasons I didn't.

[rashaka.livejournal.com]

I seem to remember you'd seen it, but couldn't remember if you liked it or not. I'm glad you didn't, to be honest.

Visually it's interesting to look at for a while... there's a sort of super-realism look to the film despite the black and white with red accents. I don't know what kind of filming process they used or enhanced the final product with, but it's certainly exotic looking.

Unfortunately, visuals couldn't sustain the movie for me and I got tired of the visuals pretty quickly anyway.

I was ready to to turn it off a few lines into the opening scene, just because the dialogue was so ugh. I stuck around for as long as I did because my parents were curious about it.

The whole thing feels like it was written for adolescent boys who dream of nothing more than shooting thugs and then fucking and then stabbing women who possess large breasts, not necessarily in that order.

[donna-c-punk.livejournal.com]

Definitely, the visuals could not carry an entire film, but it was the only aspect of it that remained me with after I saw it. When someone mentions Sin City, that's about the only piece I can recall from it. That and "Absurd" by Fluke (since it was used in the movie, but during a part you never saw).

The dialogue wasn't so much a turn off for me. It only felt "out of time", like something out of a flick from the 30s or the 40s. Like a James Cagney movie punched up with weird coloring, foul language and more horrific street violence. Now, really, if I want to see a James Cagney flick, I'll watch The Public Enemy. Much more interesting, to say the least.

Nevertheless, I'm effing BAFFLED that so many people on my Friends List (besides you, kenzier, dracschick, and one or two others) swear by this movie. Like it was the greatest film released since the first Lord of the Rings. Um. No.

[rashaka.livejournal.com]

LOTR? ::gasp:: ::shock:: ::awe:: ::collapses dead at the mere idea of such an implication::

[rashaka.livejournal.com]

I got that "out of time" feeling more from Sky Captain and the World of Tomorrow than I did here. And that movie was bad too (also hard to look at), but at least I finished that one and got a few smiles out of it.

To be honest, I'm baffled by the positive response as well. And most of these people usually have overlapping tastes with mine, so it seems weird. Actually, just last Saturday I was talking with my coworker and he was telling me how interesting he found the symbolism in this movie, and how impressed he was by the end, and how he thought it got unfairly criticized by the film critics. I suspect we'll have something to talk about tomorrow.

In some ways I want to compare this movie to Kill Bill. Both had bright, garish coloring and artistic direction, both had outrageous, comic-book-like characters, and both had extremely bloody and over-the-top violence. And yet... Kill Bill worked for me in every way this movie WASN'T working for me.

[sunlit5.livejournal.com]

Oh hell yea! Cagney rocks!

Sun

[pepperlandgirl4.livejournal.com]

I don't know if you noticed, but nobody is credited with the screenplay. I never read Sin City, but I think the dialogue was lifted directly from the graphic novels. I'm assuming if you aren't into reading graphic novels, the movie might be a bit difficult to get into.

It was definitely a Robert Rodriquez flick though. Fun, nicely shot, but more than a little pointless. (I love Once Upon a Time in Mexico, but that's not a good movie, anyway you look at it.)

[donna-c-punk.livejournal.com]

It's almost word for word dialogue from the graphic novel.

[rashaka.livejournal.com]

In that last part, I disagree. Once Upon A Time In Mexico managed to hit that balance of cartoonish violence and well-acted drama. It was over the top in an epic western sort of way, the but just enough to make it fun, not enough to make me completely put off or rolling my eyes. I was able to have that precious suspension of disbelief for Once Upon A Time In Mexico, and hold onto it cheerfully through the entire movie. The jokes were funny, the violence enthusiastic but not completely absurd, and the villains were as fun and snarky as the protagonist was broody. Mixed in where they could shine from the corners were actual heroic characters like the ex-FBI agent, who didn't come off as cartoonish at all, and gave balance to the cartoonish characters like Agent Sands and El Mariachi.

However, for Sin City my suspension of disbelief was never broken-- because it didn't happen in the first place. I was disbelieving from pretty much the first time the first actor opened his mouth.

I'm assuming if you aren't into reading graphic novels, the movie might be a bit difficult to get into.

Actually, I read a lot graphic novels, but they usually aren't the noir kind this looks like its trying to be, so maybe that's different. Even so, the graphic novels that I have read don't usually have dialogue sounding this...bad.

I'm glad you found it fun, at least. It'd be good not to be a total waste for everyone.

[pepperlandgirl4.livejournal.com]

I should probably amend to I'm assuming if you aren't into reading graphic novels like Sin City. I don't read graphic novels, except the occasional Batman one, and I know I wouldn't read any at all if that sort of dialogue was par for the course.

The first time I watched Once Upon a Time in Mexico, I had a whole essay in my head about why the movie worked despite the fact that it's almost, by definition, a bad movie. In a lesser director/editor/writer's hands, it would have been MST3K bad. Unfortunately, I didn't actually write this down anywhere, and since it's been a long time, I don't really remember my points.

I think I found Sin City fun because a part of me always enjoys cartoonish, over-the-top, drama-for-the-sake-of-drama violence and sex. It's a guilty pleasure, but I've learned to embrace it.

[rashaka.livejournal.com]

I had a whole essay in my head about why the movie worked despite the fact that it's almost, by definition, a bad movie. In a lesser director/editor/writer's hands, it would have been MST3K bad.

For that I'd have to know the parameters by which you define "bad movie", but I definitely agree that with a lesser director, and with a lesser script, OUATIM could easily have been MST3K bad. I mean, the fake third arm thing? By all rights that SHOULD have been horrible, but instead it was great.

Actually, when I watched it the first time, "Desperado" felt more cartoonish for me than when I later watched OUATIM, but that's a discussion for another day. :)

[donna-c-punk.livejournal.com]

Robert Rodriguez's movies - no matter how over the top they may be - work for me. I'm pretty sure it's because he's not taking himself seriously, therefore, we understand this as a viewer. Look at the Spy Kids trilogy. I'm a HUGE fan of those movies, and they're by no means masterpieces of cinematic theatre. Just fun. You can jump onboard with the story/characters from the get-go, because they make it clear in the opening scenes they're not taking it seriously.

(And I use my Gerti Giggles icon for this comment.)

[rashaka.livejournal.com]

It's strange-- I really liked Spy Kids 1. I've seen about 80% of the movie, and I liked it. I thought it was funny and I loved the thumb minions. Just the idea of a person made entirely of giant thumbs was my kind of silly humour. But I tried watching the second movie and... it just fell flat with me. I stopped after about 15 minutes or so.

[sunlit5.livejournal.com]

And hello? Alan Cumming as Floop!


Sun

[sunlit5.livejournal.com]

Good God! I felt the same way!


Sun