Speaking of Sin City…
Yes, what you’ve heard is correct. This is an extremely violent movie. It’s about the people living in a city where violence is commonplace. However, this film certainly accomplished a couple of things.
It’s the first time I’ve felt that a Frank Miller story really came through on the screen. I found myself wishing that they had chosen to do “The Dark Knight Returns” instead - a somewhat less violent Miller story with an aging Batman as its main character. From his performance here, Mickey Rourke would have made a halfway decent Dark Knight.
There’s a lot of acting talent in Sin City. There’s a lot of narration (it’s a comic book, after all). Amid the graphic violence, there are a few genuinely horrific cinematic moments, which is a good thing if that’s what you’re looking for. And there are engaging characters. There must be a heck of a lot more to the tormented hulk of Marv (Rourke) than they revealed in this story. And Dwight (Clive Owen) refers to his past a number of times. If you like the idea of a of prostitute-assassins, you’ll love Devon Aoki’s Miho. But if they had spent all their time on one story, maybe we could have gotten a little more depth. Hinting at it makes for some rich segments, but give me one, good story that is going to stick with me. If you’ve got the depth, please use it.
I find myself agreeing with some of the reviewers who said that Bruce Willis’ storyline (Hartigan) was the weakest story. Hartigan is a cop who saves a girl from a serial rapist/murderer and then takes the fall for the crimes because of a corrupt government. When he gets out, he finds that a few things have changed. There’s wrong, and there’s wrong, and there’s this. Hartigan is a decent character, but he doesn’t stand up against the two other major storylines: Marv’s steam-engine rampage to find Goldie’s killer, and the prostitute’s efforts to keep the truce of Sin City in place (with the help of Dwight).
Fans of Jessica Alba: this role does not feature much in the way of effort on her part, and her appearances are brief.
The real accomplishment here, I think, is in making the comic-bookishness believable. Your brain eventually compensates for the stark contrast, except for those moments where the director injects color for dramatic effect. But style shouldn’t be a gimmick. It isn’t a gimmick here if you consider that it allows the story to be told without seeming as graphic.
I can’t decide whether that’s a good thing or a bad thing. But to the violence here… is it really any worse than The Bride’s rampage in Kill Bill? No, I don’t think so. And, in the end, this film didn’t sit with me like Kill Bill: Vol 1 did the first time I saw it. Much of the film delivers its story nonchalantly, and even the soundtrack is relatively subdued (unlike the music you hear in the trailers). I kept expecting to hear the trailer music, but it never materialized. Perhaps the film makers are trying to tell us they don’t expect us to cheer on the violence and get all worked up.
I give Sin City an “of some interest.”
Posted by James at April 30, 2005 11:12 AM