It has been a while since I have seen a movie before it hits DVD. And I must admit, I had fairly high expectations for “Sin City” after hearing all the hype. Per the norm, I was let down. “Sin City” is a good movie that would have been great if only the story did not come across as convoluted as it does.
I am not familiar with the Sin City novels, but I have liked every single comic movie that has come out in the last few years. I really like the graphic style of “Sin City,” but I do not think it was quite as successful as a movie as the predecessors in the transition to film.
For those who do not know, “Sin City” is mix of three of Frank Miller's graphic novels. This is my biggest issue with the movie. Not only is it three stories being told, it is book-ended by Josh Hartnett's character “The Man.” There are a lot of questions I have about the story, but what really does not make sense is these two scenes with Josh Hartnett. Edit: It seems that this opening with Josh Hartnett was actually Rodriguez's test footage used to convince Miller, and is from a fourth novel, “The Customer is Always Right.” A bad movie if you ask me.
The movie does tie things up in the end, with the exception of Hartnett's character. I really have no idea what he is tied into.
As I do not know the print versions of Sin City, I do not have much to go on. I have heard and read that the movie is very faithful to the source material. This might be the movie's major flaw, as there are a lot of questions about character development and interaction.
There is no story buildup for any of the characters in “Sin City.” Even in “X-Men,” which is a very popular Stan Lee franchise, they used a lot of that movie to build the story behind the characters. Even “Hell Boy” had back story added into the movie. I don't know jack about “Hell Boy” (the comic) but I identified with the movie more then “Sin City” because they took the time to flesh out the characters in “Hell Boy” as well as “X-Men.”
The story buildup does not have to be as thick as “X-Men,” “Hell Boy” did not take a lot of time on the back story. Bringing comic franchises to the big screen is supposed to bring the story and characters to a bigger audience. If this means you need to “water down” some elements, then that is an option. But we have seen plenty comic book movies that have figured out how to broaden the audience without alienating true fans of the franchise.
Article comments
1 - TylerNewton
"As I do not know the print versions of Sin City, I do not have much to go on. I have heard and read that the movie is very faithful to the source material. This might be the movie's major flaw, as there are a lot of questions about character development and interaction."
In fact, that is the whole point. This is literally bringing several of the Sin City stories to the screen, panel for panel.
It is supposed to get people who have no exposure to graphic novels interesting in that genre.
I know many people who saw this movie and are very interested in reading the Sin City graphic novels.
I know more closed-minded folk who look at this flick, enjoy the movie as a movie, and not what it really is, and think nothing of it later when they are in a bookstore.
Which one are you?
2 - SFC SKI
The Sin City movie won't make me buy the graphic novels, but only because I get more books from the library than I buy to keep. If the DVD release offers a lot of needed extras like commentary, director's cut, etc. I will by it, because visually I really loved the movie (gunmolls in lingerie are a plus, too).
That being said, if Sin City had been shot in a normal manner, it really wasn't strong enough in plot or dialogue to be a good movie. It is definitely more than the sum of its parts.
3 - bob
if you had read the comics that the movie was based on you woudlhave relized there wasnt' any back story in them either...
4 - bpob
if you had read the comics that the movie was based on you woudlhave relized there wasnt' any back story in them either...
5 - Phillip Winn
According to Tyler, you can either be open minded and fall in love with both the movie and the comics, or you can be closed-minded and love the movie but not give yourself an opportunity to love the comics.
I'd hate to think about how he might describe someone who didn't care for the movie! :-)
6 - TylerNewton
"I'd hate to think about how he might describe someone who didn't care for the movie! :-)"
Haha. Someone who didn't care for the movie is merely someone who won't like the GRAPHIC NOVEL (don't call it a comic please).
You don't have to like the movie. But you need to understand that if you don't like the movie, you probably won't like the graphic novel, because this movie IS the graphic novel put on screen, as opposed to a mere "adaptation."
7 - TylerNewton
The only problem with the "Sin City" film is that it was marketed to a mainstream crowd who can't understand that this is 100% lifted from the graphic novels, and not just a "movie version" of a "comic book" like The Punisher movie.
Any complaints about this movie would have to be directed at the graphic novel itself. Since most of these people reviewing Sin City have not read these graphic novels, they have no basis upon which to give a review for the movie.
Back to my original point, this film, from a creative standpoint, would have been better served marketed to the independent film crowd who understands what is at work here.
But of course, this is all about the almighty dollar and the producers loved it's first weekend opening at #1 in the box office.
8 - visualsimplicity
I think you have a bit of elitist mentality going on there Tyler. I don't think it's necessary for someone to read the graphic novels to review the movie. If they have any complaints about the movie or think the movie doesn't work, then that's just what it is. The movie didn't work for them in this medium. They maybe the same, panel for panel, but they are different mediums. Perhaps, if people don't enjoy it in movie form, then in a way, didn't Rodriguez then fail to properly make a decent movie? Just because something is adapted exactly the same from one medium to another does not make it great. They are, after all, different mediums for a reason.
Keep in mind though, I don't agree with most of Ken's opinions. Sure the characters didn't get any back stories, but I don't think it was necessary. All the characters were cliche, but cliche in a way where it pretty much explained their back stories. This is a movie with style over substance, and the style more than made up for the substance. I enjoyed the movie. I don't think I'd read the graphic novels though, does that make me ignorant and close-minded? I think not. However, being an elitist would be close-minded though.
9 - Matt Paprocki
I haven't seen Sin City, but if the movie doesn't work, it doesn't work. You shouldn't have to have some knowledge of the novel to understand/enjoy the film. The movie should stand on its own, introduce the characters, pull you in, etc. If it doesn't do that, it's not a good movie, period. I don't care if every single shot mimics the novel. That doesn't instantly make a good movie.
Still, I'm looking forward to seeing this one on DVD when it finally comes around.
10 - TylerNewton
"The movie should stand on its own, introduce the characters, pull you in, etc."
That assumes the movie is for closed-minded idiots who would never read a graphic novel. Ever think the film is for people who have READ the graphic novel and want to see its seamless transition to screen?
You can not like the movie. BUT since its a pure lifting from the graphic novel, you MUST read the graphic novel before you can comment on the movie.
"erhaps, if people don't enjoy it in movie form, then in a way, didn't Rodriguez then fail to properly make a decent movie?"
You wouldn't know that unless you read the graphic novels. People may not enjoy in movie form, but if that's the only form they know (and the original, which its based on 100%, is a graphic novel form) THEY HAVE NO BASIS FOR AN OPINION.
This is not like "The Punisher" movie. You can watch that movie, never read comics, and hate it. But if that was panel for panel from Punisher Comics, then you must read the comics and say you don't like the comics for your opinion to carry any weight.
If the comics = movie 100%, then any problem you have with the movie you NECESSARILY have with the comic.
11 - visualsimplicity
If the comics = movie 100%, then it would be a comic, not a movie. Get it?
12 - Phillip Winn
Tyler strikes again! Now people who won't read the comic are "closed-minded idiots."
No, Tyler, I don't think that people spent as much money as they did in order to limit the audience to those who have already read the comics.
If the comic works as a comic, bully for the comic. If the movie works as a movie, bully for the movie. However, something could easily work in print that doesn't work on film, and then the fault lies with the director for not realizing that and making the necessary changes.
13 - TylerNewton
"However, something could easily work in print that doesn't work on film, and then the fault lies with the director for not realizing that and making the necessary changes."
That's the point. Making changes would then not make it a panel for panel movie. Other than being for comic book/graphic novel geeks, this movie was supposed to inspire people to read comics/graphic novels. But I guess in that sense, it didn't work.
14 - TylerNewton
"If the comics = movie 100%, then it would be a comic, not a movie. Get it?"
Then PLEASE stop calling what you saw in the theater a movie. It's just the graphic novel in a form, 100% TRUE TO THE ORIGINAL, that doesn't require reading. NOT A MOVIE.
15 - visualsimplicity
Oh the hypocrisy. I guess you don't get it then. I give up.
16 - TylerNewton
No, I guess you don't get it. *I* give up.
17 - Ken Edwards
Well, I think I struck a chord. I come home and there are 16 comments to read. Lets start:
TylerNewton: I am now interested in reading Frank Miller's novels now, yes. But I doubt I will.
But the friend I watched the movie with, who is not a comic book fanatic like me, was more confused then I was about the story and character development. That is just not good. You have a very pessimistic outlook on things though. Being closed minded usually has something to do with ignorance, not opinions.
You are, however, correct about how it was marketed. That is a good point. But if it was not marketed to that mainstream audience, then people who may just see the movie on a whim might not have given it the time of day.
I think that it HELPS that most people who are reviewing Sin City the movie HAVE NOT read the graphic novels. After all, wasn't that the point of bringing Miller's work to the big screen? I think that is more a base for anything to give the movie a fair revue. Don't you?
I really like the "closed-minded idiots" line, thats great. So if someone does not read the novels, they are "closed-minded idiots," I see. Well perhaps I do read one of these novels. And I do like it in THAT form. I believe it might just work better in print then it did on the screen.
I agree with visualsimplicity in saying it is style over substance, it really is. And I do fault Rodriguez, not Miller, as this was really Rodriguez's baby in every respect. He even quit the Directors Guild just to put a co-director line on the movie!
18 - Phillip Winn
So I read one of the comics last night. As if it wasn't obvious to everyone but Tyler already, the film is not a frame-by-frame panel-for-panel version of the book. Some panels were dropped, thousands of frames were added (hence no jump-cuts from still shot to still shot), dialogue was dropped or changed, and so on. You could *amost* call it a scene-for-scene adapation, but that's as close as it comes.
And I stand by what I said before: what works as a comic doesn't necessarily work as a movie. Internal dialog is one example: comics are full of it. Most print media is full of it. It's the nature of print media. And yet movies rarely have as much internal dialog (or voice-over, in film-speak) as books or comics. It's almost awkward... but not quite. It worked in this movie because a decent chunk of it was cut out. Had Rodriguez included Miller's internal dialog word-for-word, it would have dragged the film down into the abyss. SO points to Rodriguez there.
Anyway, I liked the movie, and found the comic interesting, but if you've seen the movie, I hardly see any point in reading the comic.
I'd spend a bit of time highlighting how many times Tyler has contradicted himself, but it would make this comment way too long. :-)
P.S. Yeah, I keep calling it a comic to annoy the purists. It's fun.
19 - Victor Plenty
Q. What's the difference between a "comic book" and a "graphic novel"?
A. Usually, five to ten dollars.
20 - Rodney Welch
I thought Sin City was like watching a two-hour "Itchy and Scratchy" cartoon -- albeit without the laughs.
21 - Phillip Winn
Itchy and Scratchy had nudity? I missed that.
22 - Rodney Welch
i Sin City
had nudity? Gee, my dick must have fallen asleep too.