TPWW Forums - View Single Post

**Fox** · 04-02-2005, 05:03 AM

Just got back from seeing this movie, and I'm pretty divided to be honest.

First of all, amazing visuals. The black and white with splashes of color worked perfectly and was done to artistic perfection. Mickey Rourke's character (Marv) was amazing. Even with the strict comic-book style, lame-ish dialogue, his character was believable and I really didn't find his lines to be all that ridiculous. Hell, all of the actors involved in this story took the dialogue to a top notch level of believability, with the exception of Brittany Murphy, who I thought had no purpose of being in this film. The beginning and end with Josh Hartnett was brilliant.

My problem with the movie is that it isn't really a movie perse - it's three different stories rolled into one. Now, while Tarrantino uses this style to perfection, Rodriguez did not manage to pull it off so well. Quentin's movies are filled with great dialogue and great character build-up, while Sin City is filled with brutal violence, sex, and often ridiculous premises.

I have no problem with violence and see action choreography as an art, in its own way. But you can only watch a guy take ten bullets to the arms and torso and get back up before you get tired of it. You can only watch a guy's limbs get blown off so many times before you want something new. You can only watch someone's balls getting blown off so many times before it loses it's shock value. About half-way through the movie I found myself bored with the over the top violence, and trust me, there is A LOT of it. It makes up about 50-60% of the film.

Was it a good movie? Of course it was. It was a style that has never been done before with actors that played their parts to the hilt and stories that were fairly captivating.

Would I pay to see it again or buy it when it comes out? Probably not. Like a comic book, you can only watch this movie so many times until you know exactly what's going to happen in the next frame. For a film to have that again-and-again feel, there needs to be something that draws you back every time. The violence doesn't do it. The stories don't do it. The characters don't do it.

Good movie? Yes. A classic to watch again and again? No.

Worth my $8 and my Friday night? Definitely.

04-02-2005, 05:03 AM	#51
Fox "Ask him!" Posts: 10,075	Just got back from seeing this movie, and I'm pretty divided to be honest. First of all, amazing visuals. The black and white with splashes of color worked perfectly and was done to artistic perfection. Mickey Rourke's character (Marv) was amazing. Even with the strict comic-book style, lame-ish dialogue, his character was believable and I really didn't find his lines to be all that ridiculous. Hell, all of the actors involved in this story took the dialogue to a top notch level of believability, with the exception of Brittany Murphy, who I thought had no purpose of being in this film. The beginning and end with Josh Hartnett was brilliant. My problem with the movie is that it isn't really a movie perse - it's three different stories rolled into one. Now, while Tarrantino uses this style to perfection, Rodriguez did not manage to pull it off so well. Quentin's movies are filled with great dialogue and great character build-up, while Sin City is filled with brutal violence, sex, and often ridiculous premises. I have no problem with violence and see action choreography as an art, in its own way. But you can only watch a guy take ten bullets to the arms and torso and get back up before you get tired of it. You can only watch a guy's limbs get blown off so many times before you want something new. You can only watch someone's balls getting blown off so many times before it loses it's shock value. About half-way through the movie I found myself bored with the over the top violence, and trust me, there is A LOT of it. It makes up about 50-60% of the film. Was it a good movie? Of course it was. It was a style that has never been done before with actors that played their parts to the hilt and stories that were fairly captivating. Would I pay to see it again or buy it when it comes out? Probably not. Like a comic book, you can only watch this movie so many times until you know exactly what's going to happen in the next frame. For a film to have that again-and-again feel, there needs to be something that draws you back every time. The violence doesn't do it. The stories don't do it. The characters don't do it. Good movie? Yes. A classic to watch again and again? No. Worth my $8 and my Friday night? Definitely.