Frank Miller's Sin City - The Movie

[LGM]

I've discovered the film is in an episodic format, which accounts for so many Goddamn characters! lol. SO the film is cut up, following Willis at one point, Del Toro at another, and that weird-looking guy whose name I can't remember..

But Eric, Quentin directed one scene in the film, as did Robert in Kill Bill Vol. 2. This was discussed before.. He was paid a grand total of $1. RR was paid $1 to do original music for KBV2.

[MrColossal]

Yes, but I don't remember them saying "Special Guest Director Robert Rodriguez!" on kill bill 2 commercials...

[LGM]

Does it really matter? Obviously just a marketing scheme. It worked for Hero to tag Quint's name on it, why not for Sin City? bleh. Oh well.

It won't make a difference in the end, because this movie will rock hardcore

[Kweepa]

[EDIT] Doh! Just noticed page two. Never mind.

[evenwolf]

nothing to talk about, really.

You haven't convinced me Sin City will be a bad movie yet.

[MrColossal]

Well, I'm not trying to convince you, but maybe this will help:

http://movies.channel.aol.com/franchise/exclusives/sin_city_movie

[evenwolf]

maybe I'm going through some sort of genesis, but there are certain Big Dumb Movies that I love.  X Men 2, namely, reintroduced my love for mainstream cinema.

Watching the audience react to explosive moments or delivery of dialogue - that screening of X Men 2 is when I slowly descended back to earth after having been a film snob.

Whatever you watch its always images and its always story. That's all there is, and Sin City has my faith.

[MrColossal]

I'm not a film snob, I'm just kidding around.

However I think Sin City is dumb looking.

But I will agree that I enjoyed xmen 2 [except for the fact that Cerebro was in the bad guys plan AGAIN!] and I enjoyed when Wolverine went berserk.

[stuh505]

XMen 2 was an exception.  It was a much better movie for it's own sake I think than any of the others in this new cartoon genre -- like spider man 1,2, the hulk, xmen1, etc...

Sin City COULD be great...it could also be average or horrible, it really depends all on the plot and acting and well, the features that you rate a movie on...which we can't rate yet!

[LGM]

I know Sin City will look great no matter what. That's half the battle. Now you just have to keep the audience interested with good characters, action, and of course, dialogue. It needs a plot too, but that doesn't look like it'll be a problem.

[tom ate you]

Well, I'm a Miller-junkie, so my judgement may be questioned, but they had me at Frodo gliding in with those utter white glasses. Sweeet.

..cause I've been missing subjective imagery in movies. It's all about the effects and such, or temperature color filters, but the impact of subjective imaging can not be ignored forever muahahah!

But alas, I think they'll fudge it up. Cause you can't do good film out of good comics. Not when money is involved.

[c.leksutin]

I've never read this comic, nor do I know anything about Frank Miller,  But from the few previews I've seen of this film, it looks amazing.  I've always been a fan of super stylized movies and I'm thrilled to see them making there way into the mainstream.

That being said:  Robert Rodriguez has done anything that stands out in my mind.  The only film of his I've ever actually seen was Once Apon a Time in Mexico, which was just "meh"  and I know he did Spy Kids which I'm sure I'll never see.  I'll wait to reserve judgement of the actuall directing of the film untill after I see it, but I'm already a fan of the look of the film, and will go see it just for that.


C.

[Helm]

Sin City the comic is stylistically very interesting. It is also, in my opinion, very badly written (getting worse with each successive volume, as frank miller spirals towards inevitable and complete insanity). So I except both of this qualities to make it to the film.

[Ionias]

Frank Miller? I'm there. He's a bit of a hero of mine. Having turned Batman from that campy crap comic to the Dark Knight and all.

I'm a comic book movie whore. I'll go see anything, and I must say this movie is looking good. I seen the trailer on the big screen the other day. Most of the time main stream movies, big budget thrillers tend to lose the spark somewhere along the way. Batman and Batman Returns were great movies IMHO, but then they kept making sequels.Ã,  But then there is something to be said for just sitting back and shutting off your brain and just enjoying a big budget film.

Wait. I take that back. I didn't go see Catwoman.

[evenwolf]

OK, just saw a midnight screening at the coolest movie theater in the world (undisputed), the Alamo Drafthouse.

Mickey Rourke is the best you could ever ask for. 

Ebert gave this movie 4 stars and I totally see why.  There is just so much style and so many characters to watch with bedazzle.  As for the story and the performances, well they're not the strongest.  But the package is good.

And according to numerous friends, the movie is dead on accurate to the source material.

[Daz]

Yay, another comic movie to get over-hyped about. Jeez, i'd hate to see the film industry in 5 years time, remakes of remakes, films written about books that were based on films. Damn Hollywood.

Hey, maybe they'll even make the Alien vs Predator vs Terminator movie. I might just write a storyboard and sell it!

[stuh505]

Argh -- sold out

[dgunpluggered]

It's ironic because it seems like the movie-going public want remakes and sequels. Even in this forum, I remember we've had threads for Spielberg's War of the Worlds, The Grudge, The Ring 2, etc, which are all remakes. I, Robot was a crappy imagining of Asimov (much like everyone's displeasure at comic book adaptations) and we had a thread for that too. In these threads, most people seemed very interested in seeing these movies.

To be fair, we also had a thread for Eternal Sunshine, one of the most original movies I've seen in a long time, and The Motorcycle Diaries. But my point is I think the movie-going public (including many people on this forum) more so like seeing remakes and gung-ho adaptations than the "original" and "serious" films. And when you think about it, it's not always Hollywood that over-hypes these films, but also it's people who participate in threads for The Grudge, The Ring 2, War of the Worlds, I, Robot, etc, etc.

[Snarky]

Sin City the comic is stylistically very interesting. It is also, in my opinion, very badly written (getting worse with each successive volume, as frank miller spirals towards inevitable and complete insanity). So I except both of this qualities to make it to the film.

I'm with you on that. I bought the first four volumes in anticipation of the film, and although they look kinda nice, they are among the worst written comics I have ever read. It's like some adolescent's wet dream after watching too much film noir and reading too much Ellroy. They epitomize the worst of the 80s-and-on wave of "dark", "mature" comics.

It pains me that Miller is often mentioned in the same breath as Alan Moore. At the same time Milller was doing Sin City, Moore was doing From Hell. For that matter, Neil Gaiman was doing Sandman. Miller doesn't even begin to approach those two series in quality.

The film is getting a slating, too. I'm not sure I want to go see it now, even though I usually enjoy Rodriguez's movies.

[Las Naranjas]

The art style in Sin City was cute...for an issue.

The writing was bad, and got worse....I'm sure you could make a cute short film out of Sin City, but the source material isn't very interesting to begin with. The Comics Code Authority created an environment where showing hookers make a work groundbreaking, and Sin City, unfortunately, is a product of that.