Sin City

Niveous · Post by **Niveous** » Tue Mar 15, 2005 12:56 pm

Being a big fan of the comic books, I'm excited about this movie. The cast is very....eccentric to say the least: Bruce Willis, Benicio Del Toro, Brittney Murphy, Jessica Alba, Mickey Rourke and others. The look is very interesting as it's the movie is mostly black & white like the comics. And Tarantino's got his hand in the project. So all together, it seems very interesting. What do other SF'ers think about it?

*If you are in the NYC area (or will be on April 1), I'm going to see the flick when it opens. CJ (Wife of Niveous) won't be going- it's just not her type of flick. So I figured I'd grab up a bunch of friends and go see it. If any SF'ers wanna join me, drop me a PM.

the Jazz · Post by **the Jazz** » Tue Mar 15, 2005 2:36 pm

I saw this trailer on TV yesterday and it looks pretty good. I've never gotten around to reading Sin City, but I enjoyed a lot of Miller's other work, so I'm mildly psyched about this movie. Although hopefully they didn't turn it into one giant mass of movie stars and big names. I'd like to think that with Miller directing it will have some integrity.

JonPorobil · Post by **JonPorobil** » Sun Mar 20, 2005 9:56 pm

I'm excited.

jute gyte · Post by **jute gyte** » Sun Mar 20, 2005 11:15 pm

this has huge potential. i'm excited.

fodroy · Post by **fodroy** » Sun Mar 20, 2005 11:33 pm

i want to see it. this has huge potential. i'm excited.

Niveous · Post by **Niveous** » Mon Mar 21, 2005 7:15 pm

So I go to see Constantine last night (not half-bad) and the Sin City trailer comes on. One second after, CJ apologizes and is adamant about wanting to see the flick.

I am very excited about this movie.

erik · Post by **erik** » Mon Mar 21, 2005 7:55 pm

Everyone in this movie is sexy like a heart attack.

jute gyte · Post by **jute gyte** » Sat Apr 02, 2005 6:20 pm

this movie is totally true to the comic, and is also totally wonderful. i am very happy with it.

c.layne · Post by **c.layne** » Sat Apr 02, 2005 8:28 pm

holy..... shit..... what a great film.

Post by jb » Sat Apr 02, 2005 9:08 pm

A- for style and Carla Gugino's lovely, lovely breasts.

But Rodriguez really needs to learn how to get natural (even though stylized, yes I know thankyouverymuch) performances out of actors.

WeaselSlayer · Post by **WeaselSlayer** » Sun Apr 03, 2005 5:52 am

Unfuckingbelievable. This movie had one of the most stirring climaxes ever, and the rest led up to it brilliantly. Definitely Rodriquez's best work, and maybe my favorite Bruce Willis role, although Korbin Dallas is a tough one to beat.

Adam! · Post by **Adam!** » Sun Apr 03, 2005 6:51 am

I agree with JB's A-. I love this movie, but sometimes that love treads too close to the kind of love I have for From Dusk Till Dawn, namely goofy dialogue and campy gore. This movie looked hot beyond all belief. Best casting ever, especially Mickey Rourke and Elijah Wood. I thought that the first and last segments worked best, while the middle segment seemed out of place and too Kill Bill-y. Very enjoyable. I sat next to two 85 year old men who laughed at all the most violent parts.

sparks · Post by **sparks** » Sun Apr 03, 2005 6:59 am

jb wrote:A- for style and Carla Gugino's lovely, lovely breasts.

But Rodriguez really needs to learn how to get natural (even though stylized, yes I know thankyouverymuch) performances out of actors.

JB, JB. You just made my point for me.

What the hell purpose would a "natural" line serve in this movie but to feel out of place?

mkilly · Post by **mkilly** » Sun Apr 03, 2005 12:07 pm

I rather liked it. Very effective, altogether well-done in every respect.

Post by jb » Sun Apr 03, 2005 3:40 pm

sparks wrote:
jb wrote:A- for style and Carla Gugino's lovely, lovely breasts.

But Rodriguez really needs to learn how to get natural (even though stylized, yes I know thankyouverymuch) performances out of actors.
JB, JB. You just made my point for me.

What the hell purpose would a "natural" line serve in this movie but to feel out of place?

Please take just 30 more seconds to read what I said and attempt to understand. Your comment implies that I can't tell the difference between dialogue that mimics everyday conversation and that of a gritty graphic novel film noir. Give me some credit. And the condescending "JB, JB" is offensive, like you were just WAITING for some idiot like me to feed you that line so you could shake your head and go "ah, he just doesn't understand like I understand. Probably nobody does."

*fart*

Yes, Virginia, the dialogue is stylized. But that means it must (it MUST) be delivered in a manner that is idiomatic to the genre. That's "natural".

It's as if (many of) the actors couldn't hear this stuff in their heads as gritty, spat-out, and over-the-top as it needed to be. Rourke knew, and I thought his performance was the best of the bunch. Willis knew to an extent, but he has trouble (always has) slowing himself down far enough for his character. He's a smart-ass at heart, and here that needed to be stifled-- he alllllmost managed it. But then he usually allllllmost does.

Everybody in this flick is an archetype of one sort or another, and they need to be played very broadly, almost like dour schtick. And a lot of the actors didn't quite hit the mark-- and that's the director's fault, because he really makes the difference where the performances are concerned. The director's job is deciding which take goes in the can. "No, do it slower. Do it again. Spit it out more. Take a break between those lines."

Everything in this movie was in service to the visual style. There were shots when it was clear that the actor wanted to move his or her head when delivering a line, but was apparently forbidden to do so. And time wasn't allowed for them to get used to such strict stage direction in order for them to assimilate it naturally into the performance.

All these young actors playing in such an old style, and nobody seemed to have helped them to "get" it. (They probably actually had a lot of discussion about line delivery, but it didn't help quite enough. I think they didn't assimilate it.) It's completely alien to what we've seen them do before, and they're handicapped by their own life experience. Alexis Bledel, Rosario Dawson, Jamie Pressley, Nick Stahl. They needed to "punch" their lines more, in a classic B-movie film-noir style. Nick Stahl for example has been playing a lot of characters who seem like they're always out of breath. That's certainly not who he had to be here; Yellow Bastard is pretty hyper and manic. I thought he did a pretty good job, but he should have NAILED it. The older actors came off a lot better. Clive Owen did well, but was very very busy keeping his American accent straight, and that didn't help him push some of the big lines through. Like the "make sure it has a big trunk" line that the preview is in love with.

Some more deft camerawork could have helped them out, but they were completely restricted by the graphic novels, I guess, in what the shots could be. This just made it that much more important that the acting be dead solid perfect.

Tarantino is a lot better with actors, as far as helping them achieve a natural performance with very unnatural material. His scene in Sin City didn't really stand out, but it was one of the funnier, more interesting scenes I thought. I sometimes get the impression that Rodriguez is a little too far on the "that'll do" side for my tastes.

This is all just my opinion, and I did give it an A-, so bear that in mind. It's good, but it's not everything I hoped it would be.

JB

thehipcola · Post by **thehipcola** » Sun Apr 03, 2005 6:53 pm

awesome...everything I've read here just serves to make me ask myself why I haven't gone to see this yet.... cool.

Niveous · Post by **Niveous** » Sun Apr 03, 2005 9:48 pm

jb wrote: Jamie Pressley

Jaime King is in Sin City. But I can clearly see why you'd get 'em mixed up. That and the fact that men's magazines use them interchangeably.

I still haven't seen the flick, damn lack of a babysitter.

Post by jb » Sun Apr 03, 2005 9:54 pm

Niveous wrote:
jb wrote: Jamie Pressley
Jaime King is in Sin City. But I can clearly see why you'd get 'em mixed up. That and the fact that men's magazines use them interchangeably.

Huh, yeah I forgot which one flashed by in the credits.

sparks · Post by **sparks** » Sun Apr 03, 2005 10:32 pm

jb wrote:*fart*

JB, JB, jaybee, jaybee my man, jaybeejaybee... okay, I'll stop!

There's nothing that gives me a good read like getting you riled up, even if it wasn't my intention.

I missed your point. It was understandable. Most people, even intelligent people, having made your post would mean exactly what I presumed you to mean.

I agree that adapting the delivery more closely to the style would have helped the movie a good deal. It seems to me that most of the flaws in delivery were the result of the actor shooting for the wrong sort of pulp, or aiming at pulp and falling short in the performance of it.

And I have to hop on the wagon and agree with the A-.

Post by jb » Sun Apr 03, 2005 10:50 pm

sparks wrote: aiming at pulp and falling short in the performance of it.

WeaselSlayer · Post by **WeaselSlayer** » Sun Apr 03, 2005 11:33 pm

I hope this puts the comic book movie fad to bed for a while. I feel like now any comic book movie will immediately be overshadowed by this one. Bottom line is: the guy who did Daredevil (one of my favorite characters) also wrote Grumpier Old Men. And now he's going to do Ghostrider (another one of my favorites). Fuck that guy, seriously. And fuck the Fantastic Four. In general. I always rooted for Doom.

Eric Y. · Post by **Eric Y.** » Sun Apr 03, 2005 11:44 pm

WeaselSlayer wrote:I always rooted for Doom.

who didn't?