Sin City (2005) by The Critical Movie Critics

Movie Review: Sin City (2005)

Wow. Another comic book . . . err, I mean graphic novel to movie adaptation. Which one am I talking about now? Sin City of course. An obscure graphic novel by the man who single-handedly made Batman cool again — Frank Miller. Although, most of the latest comics to movies have sucked ass (see “Elektra,” “Daredevil”), I was looking forward to this movie, since I knew Mr. Miller produced gritty, balls-to-the-wall, in your face stories.

I was not disappointed. Sin City delivers. This movie is not for the faint of heart. It is rough. It is gruesome. It will make some peoples assholes clamp up. My kind of movie. I’m sure Frank Miller was happy to see his art faithfully recreated on screen.

One first notices the cinematography. Artsy. All black and white with splashes of color. A woman’s piercing blue eyes. Cherry red lipstick on a dying woman’s pouting lips. All used for dramatic effect. And used quite effectively. I was intrigued. I especially liked the way blood was portrayed. No color here. Instead, it’s bright white — almost fluorescent.

Which leads us right to the next attribute of the movie. It is violent. Did I mention it is violent? There isn’t a moment in this movie that doesn’t have someone getting shot, stabbed or beaten the shit out of. This is one hell of a city! No need to remind me to not bring the kids there for a visit . . . I won’t forget. But the good thing about the anger and violence, it isn’t gratuitous. The director didn’t just add it for the hell of it. The cruelty shown on screen, has to be shown. It is the only way to actually tell the story of these individuals.

Which leads us to another well thought out part of the movie. The casting. I don’t think better actors could have been cast in this movie. Mickey Rourke (whom I didn’t even recognize) plays a superb Marv. Benicio Del Toro is great as Jackie Boy. Even Jessica Alba (who I don’t particularly like) portrays Nancy Callahan well. All around the characters (bit to lead) are engrossing.

Best of all is the storytelling. Sin City opens temporary portals into the lives of each of the individuals within the city limits. Each person, whether they know it or not somehow influences the actions of the other people. Most alluring is the fragmented way the movie is served up. Scenes are not necessarily in order. Very similar to “Pulp Fiction” (no surprise Quentin Tarantino was involved). This forces us, the movie-goer, to think. Piece things together. What may not make sense 15 minutes into the movie, will makes sense one hour into it. Ultimately, several passes at the movie are needed for one to catch all of the foreshadowing and nuances. Luckily, for those of us who aren’t schmucks, you can follow 90% of them if you just pay attention.

There is no doubt this movie is entertaining. Even if you don’t like violent, in your face types of movies, I think you’ll enjoy Sin City.

Critical Movie Critic Rating:
5 Star Rating: Fantastic


Movie Review: D.E.B.S. (2004)
Movie Review: Robots (2005)

The Critical Movie Critics

I'm an old, miserable fart set in his ways. Some of the things that bring a smile to my face are (in no particular order): Teenage back acne, the rain on my face, long walks on the beach and redneck women named Francis. Oh yeah, I like to watch and criticize movies.

'Movie Review: Sin City (2005)' have 9 comments

  1. The Critical Movie Critics

    May 3, 2005 @ 9:32 pm Cannabis Corpus

    First off, I would want to start off by saying this movie blew me away, even though I knew fully well, this movie is going to be packed with violence and grit.
    The film prodigy behind “El Mariachi” & “Desperado”, Robert Rodriguez has re-invented two genre’s at once!(Noir and Comic Books) with the soon to be instant classic- “Sin City”.
    The source material comes from the graphic novels of renowned artist Frank Miller, who doesn’t hold back adapting his lurid tales of revenge, despair, and violence to the screen. Rodriguez has meticulously transferred Miller’s B&W images from the page to the screen, and his lathered fanboy love for Miller’s work shines like a diamond throughout the film. Rodriguez sticks hard to Miller’s vision, which means that “Sin” is devastatingly violent. Shootouts, beheadings, cannibalism, and the occasional genital mutilation are all part of the average day in Basin City.
    Stylistically, “Sin City” is cool. Shot in black and white with certain objects in each scene highlighted in color, it’s MTV slick visually. The cast is well put together and the performances, given the material, are very good.
    Based on some background information on the movie I heard, it’s based on 3 graphic novels which explains why “Sin City” has 3 different hard-boiled heroes staring in 3 different stories none of which mesh together other than being tied together loosely by the locale. Beyond the visual style what they are filled to the brim with is sadistic violence. To some degree, it can all be forgiven for being comic book silliness like the Road Runner blowing up Wiley Coyote but it’s done with a sickening graphic realism unlike anything Chuck Jones attempted. In “Sin City” all of the heroes get off on torturing in the most sadistic methods possible (e.g., a wolf eats the flesh of a victim, another victim gets his brains bloodily bashed in until they’re mush, a victim gets his genitals ripped off, etc.) and we get to watch the entire show in more detail than most emotionally healthy people care to see. Off the top of my head, I can’t recall any movie as sadistically violent as “Sin City”.
    This movie is definetly not for everyone. If you have never read a comic book on the more darker side or seen an anime film than you are not going to enjoy this film. There are moments when the violence is grotesque and very explicit. Also if you are a feminist do not watch the film as most of the women in Sin City are not painted in the best of light (i.e. the most innocent character in the film is a stripper)
    Overall I would say it was a good movie, but it looked a bit derived in places. Some of the violence was over the top, in a manner similar to the scene with the crazy eighty-eights in Kill Bill 1. There were some nice overlaps, similar to Pulp-fiction, where you get to see how one story ties into the others. All this being said, however, it might have been nice if Quentin Tarantino had LESS of an influence on this movie- and it was allowed to be something entirely different.
    I rate this movie B+.

  2. The Critical Movie Critics

    May 4, 2005 @ 3:23 pm Mr. White

    I’m confused. Basically, you have agreed with my initial review of the movie and you give it a B+. But your last line, and I quote, “All this being said, however, it might have been nice if Quentin Tarantino had LESS of an influence on this movie- and it was allowed to be something entirely different.” Something entirely different? Although, I too would like to know how much of an influence Tarantino had on the making of this movie, I just don’t see it playing out any differently. The cinematics capture Frank Miller’s vision in it’s entirety.
    Lastly, I would suggest all feminists see this movie. Strippers and prostitutes need love and understanding too. Who better to give it to, than them?

  3. The Critical Movie Critics

    May 5, 2005 @ 7:53 am Cannabis Corpus

    Mr.White, it looks like you have some sort of antagonistic feeling towards me for pulling up issues with me, even though all through out the review I kept agreeing to most part of your review.
    Now in reference to your comments….
    The reason I gave it a B+ is because all through my review I kept saying its very violent, if not for the excessive demented and twisted violence, I would have given it an A. Its my mistake for not explaining it very thoroughly the reason for giving it a B+.
    As for your second comment, I meant the whole filming of this movie could have been different and resemble any movie like Pulp Fiction style. Not to forget this was a warped-out Schindler’s List cinematography. I did not at any point make any comments on the story being not true to Frank Miller’s vision or for that matter not sticking to the comic books.
    As for the last comment, personally I loved the movie for being too cool and even sicker than most movies. I don’t care what the feminists really think about the movie, for its hopelessly arrogant and self-congratulatory theme. But I thought I would give a fair warning to any who is even marginally being a feminist to stay away from watching this one.

  4. The Critical Movie Critics

    May 5, 2005 @ 11:54 am Mr.White

    Cannabis Corpus, I don’t have any feelings towards you. None whatsoever. All, I asked for was clarity on your remark that that movie should’ve been filmed in an entirely different way and yet you basically rated the movie an A.
    Personally, if done correctly (as this movie was), I actually prefer the fragmented way of storytelling. It forces the movie-goer to pay closer attention to the plot which draws them into the film in a more pronounced manner.

  5. The Critical Movie Critics

    May 6, 2005 @ 8:47 am Cannabis Corpus

    I’m glad we cleared up on our “feelings” part. Clearly I was very sensitive about it. Whats wrong in rating the movie an A. With the particular category it falls under(Action/Thriller/Noir/Comic Adaption), an A is the best rating I could give since my personal preference for movies lies in a different category. I’m hoping with this last post it would put our differences to some agreeable platform.

  6. The Critical Movie Critics

    May 6, 2005 @ 1:53 pm Mr.White

    I apologize for hurting your feelings. I didn’t realize you were a chick!
    I am glad you rated the movie as high as you did. I only questioned the high grade coupled with the remark that you would like to see the movie be entirely different. I’m still confused by your stance, but alas, that’s what makes this country great…the ability to express differing opinions (even if they’re confusing and illogical).

  7. The Critical Movie Critics

    May 7, 2005 @ 3:01 pm Cannabis Corpus

    Are you saying men dont have feelings? Now lets not have a paradigm shift and venture into an entirely different planar.
    As for your confused state, well I’m confused over your confused state, since I explained clearly why my rating was B+ and what I meant by saying “seeing the movie something entirely different”.
    Now let me know which part of my explanation did you not understand that you would like me to clarify to you.

  8. The Critical Movie Critics

    May 8, 2005 @ 11:04 am Mr.White

    Men do have feelings, indeed. Men, as a whole, should be thicker skinned than females. At no time should your feeling have been hurt by comments. I don’t have feelings one way or another. I am an unbiased creature.
    I think we have covered the part of your review I was confused about. I think you have tried to convey the message that you really don’t want the movie to be entirely different…just not as fragmented, or as you say, less Pulp Fictiony. Have I understood your critique correctly?

  9. The Critical Movie Critics

    May 9, 2005 @ 11:51 am Cannabis Corpus

    I’m not sure if I should just simply agree and move on or keeping on this mission to make you fully comprehend what I was hoping to get it across. In any case, I’m opting to agree with what you said and move on to other battle grounds ready to wage war.

Privacy Policy | About Us

 | Log in

Advertisment ad adsense adlogger