*** Official SIN CITY Discussion Thread (1 Viewer)

[TheLongshot]

I actually think the monologs would have been more annoying if there was less of them. The fact that it was the canvas the movie was drawn on. I certainly think "The Long Goodbye" wouldn't be nearly as enjoyable without Marv's dialog. To have it all work, you have to be consistant.

It also helps those who can't stand the violence to keep up with the story.

Jason

 

[Jefferson Morris]

Wall-to-wall voiceover is always considered a screenwriting no-no, and generally with good reason - it can easily become a crutch, encouraging writers to tell rather than show. I personally found the voiceover in Sin City to be quite unobtrusive. In fact, I didn't even recall the film as containing wall-to-wall voiceover after seeing it - as good a testament as any to how adroitly it was used.

Rodriguez and Miller address this issue in detail in the extended version of their NPR interview with Kevin Smith. It's about an hour, but well worth the listen.

--Jefferson Morris

 

[Matt Stone]

Agreed. I thought the voice-over was necessary and non-grating. If anything, the good voice-over made some of the actual dialog sound cheesy.

 

[Robert Anthony]

Okay, maybe I should make myself more clear.

I don't want there to be NO Narration.

I don't want there to be blocks of narration and then NO narration for equally long blocks at a time.

I want a little LESS narration, spread out equally. Give the movie a LITTLE more room to breathe.

Plus, it'd be nice if the dialog and the narration weren't often pretty bad, even, again, for noir-standards. Miller's never been all that great at dialog, and Sin City is some of his most overheated stuff. Of course, a lot of people say "Well, that's the charm" but a lot of people also say the stilted stentorian dialog in "Star Wars" is just as charming. The difference is that Miller and Lucas are both sort of just aping what made for GOOD dialog in the 30's and 40's. But they're simply not doing it as well.

And when you have a lot of mediocre rambling CONSTANTLY going on and on--it starts to drag.

But it's mostly just bad dialog.

Keep in mind, I DO Like the movie, and I WILL be buying the DVD. I just think this is something that can and will grate after a couple viewings.

 

[Matt Stone]

I disagree. For the most part, with some notable exceptions, I think the dialog is good and the delivery is as good as well. And, even though you preemptively disregarded...it is the charm. With Star Wars, I think the problem has been okay dialog delivered poorly. I had no problems with Sin City. Overbaked, yes. Off-target, no.

 

[Ruz-El]

I think the narration worked mostly because it didn't describe what was happening in the movie, it actually described what the charaters THINK is happening, like Hartigan talking about the stink of the Yellow Bastard as lingering with him all the way to the hotel, MArv's constant rolling in a confused state, etc...

I'd love to see "A Dame To Kill For" in the sequel, it's a great story, and really plays up the Noir aspect of the series, to show that it's not all about violence (well, mostly not all about violence). Lot's of great stuff in that one.

I can't see "Hell & Back" being done. It's a great story, but the best chapter is the full color hallucination issue that is a 22 page history of Frank Millers career, featuring characters owned by both Marvel and DC. It's a jaw dropping autobiographical sequence that would be horribly missed in the movie, and I couldn't see it being filmed as it would be a nightmare with the copyrights being owned by different companies. If we can't have a cameo of the likes of the Fantastic Four in a movie like Hulk, we sure as hell aren't getting Elektra and Batman in a Sin City Movie.

Of course, I would love to be proved wrong.

What I would like to see in the next movie is the WW2 based series that has been rumored for about 7 years now, before Frank did 300 and Batman Strikes Back. Could be a cool reimagining for the movie, and a neat book tie in.

 

[Robert Anthony]

Well, I'm the crazy one, I guess

 

[Ruz-El]

Or the only one that went into a movie based on a comic book and decided to evaluate it on it's own terms, not as an adaption.

Full discloser, I think the books are some of the best work in comics period, and to see that brought to the screen intact, as opposed to every other movie based on a comic where things get changed around mainly because someone wants to make it there "own", well hell, it was just fantastic! Every problem I have with pretty near every "comic" film is from deviations from the source material. Here's an interesting excercise for the dvd. Get Frank Millers Elektra Saga comics (found in Marvel Visionaries: Frank Miller Vol 2), and the Sin City Comics, read them all, than watch "Daredevil" and "Sin City" back to back to see how too and how not too adapt a comic book, (than do the same with American Splender, because it was damn brilliant also.) Millers work on Daredevil is the bases to the Sin City comics. Some critics have argued that the only thing that changed is that the Superhero capes got replaced with Trenchcoats.

As far as the dialog and naration, yeah, it's over heated, but than look at John Hustons "Asphalt Jungle", where every line is delivered like a threat, or "Gun Crazy" where the main guy creams his pants everytime a gun is fired. Sin City is following in the same tradition, nothin' really new in it actually, but the visual flare that strips everything down to the essentials, while heightening the visceral energy of the film as a whole. It also wallows in everything that the old noirs hinted at.

I loved this flick! My current movie of the year!

 

[Patrick Sun]

Yeah, the "narrations" are mainly thought balloons in cinematic form.

 

[Robert Anthony]

But following poorly, I think. Look, I'm a very big, BIG fan of the noir Genre. I even took that particular class TWICE in my short college career. I'm not saying that taking classes on film noir make me an expert, not at all, but I do think I've watched, studied and paid enough attention to know when something sounds and feels genuine to the genre and when it's more of a ham-handed, overdone attempt to mimic something genuine in the genre.

But since you think the Sin City books are the best Miller has done, I'm kinda at a disadvantage I honestly think it's Miller masturbating, to tell the truth. It's still good, but it doesn't work as well as his other works. It's better than 'Year One' But I wouldn't call it better than, say, 300, or Ronin, or Dark Knight.

So I figured I'd be giving it more of a chance if I discarded any of that baggage and just took the movie on it's own terms.

 

[Ruz-El]

You know what Robert, agree with you! It's easilly Millers most obsessive work, and I think that's why I like it. It's Miller doing only what Miller wants, with no concern to what others might think (this film is the only time another person has been allowed to collaborate on the Sin City world, aside from Lynn Varley doing some color work in the books, and the odd pin-up by another artist). He's been as harshly critisized for it as for his other works.

And I agree, 300, Dark Night and Ronin are great books in their own right and I would put "Give Me Liberty" on a list of Millers best work as well. I just dig the hard obssessive crime noir of the Sin City books, by a guy as obssesed as his characters.

 

[Quentin]

True. And, I had many of the same, and possibly more problems with the film than you had, Robert.

However, I don't think better dialogue/narration (I love Frank Miller, but come on...he's a Raymond Chandler wannabe who knows how to push fanboy buttons) would miraculously fix the problems with this film.

Of course, when I say "problems with this film", I mean AS a film...not as an adaptation/translation of the GN's.

And, while I like to normally judge films the same way you do, I think this film is a rare exception. I'm not sure you could approach it and try to make it work AS A FILM. I think Rodriguez was wise to make a near-pure translation of book to film because the source material is what it is, and it is popular enough "Miller masturbation" to work when regurgitated onto the screen. Trying to make it better won't work. In a way, I find Sin City almost parody of noir rather than homage, and I think the film works just fine on these levels.

I also think Dark Knight, Daredevil, and Year One are the best Miller has to offer. Mainly because he does more than just his hard-boiled imitation...he revels in the iconography of the characters. And, because they already have history and backstory built in, Miller is saved from his greatest weakness - strong characterization.

 

[Seth Paxton]

I loved the narration, mostly because it mimics one of the coolest aspects of film noir. I mean Sunset Blvd opens with a DEAD GUY talking to us (there is recent film that did this too, but it was not obvious in that movie, and to mention it would be a spoiler), as he floats in the pool.

No other style of film that I can think of really features this aspect, especially done in this "tough guy talk" way.

So the constant use here just plants it in noir that much more. And I agree with Matt and others, much of the writing was really outstanding. I like the intenionally cool to the point of being awkward deliveries you sometimes get.

Rourke by far had the best and coolest delivery of these types of lines. He obviously really understood it and where his character was coming from.

 

[Paul_Scott]

that sums up my opinion about the film and Miller pretty well, too.
i'm watching the movie , and within the first two minutes i'm laughing at it.
and as it goes on i'm thinking "obviously they can't be for real...i think i need to be looking at this as a parody of Film Noir"
but that really wasn't correct either, because the longer it goes on, the more serious it takes itself.

now i know why, even though i am a huge comic book (and was a big Miller) fan, why i've never been tempted to buy or read any of the Sin City material.
my assumptions about it were, Miller was using over the top Noir in a masturbatory way and as a vehicle to explore, and be challenged by, the limitations of low cost (two color printing) graphic storytelling.
and since everyone is saying how close a translation the film is to the source, i feel like i was spot on all the time.
i don't understand how or why someone would find this to be Millers best work, when it is pretty damn thin stuff.

 

[Ocean Phoenix]

If Sin City is "noir lite", or "over the top noir" I'll take this bastardized version over the real thing any day. At least Sin City had more humour, intentionally cheesy dialogue, and creative action/gore to make it more entertaining than it would be with just the rambling voiceovers and uninteresting mysteries that dominated the noir movies I've seen.

 

[Chuck Mayer]

Is this a common opinion? I didn't think the film (nor the comics) takes themselves that seriously at all. It's not camp or parody, but it certainly doesn't pretend to be reality. I thought the film managed to walk the fine line between taking itself seriously enough to work, and reveling in the outrageousness.

I love the black and whiteness of Sin City. I recognize that I am watching the same story over and over. Hard boiled guy saves/defends bad girl (who's a good girl) from corrupt official forces, almost always patriarchal. It's not original, but his take is unique.

Take care,
Chuck

 

[Seth Paxton]

Well the arrow joke definitely comes late in the film.

I don't see how this dialog/VO is somehow more corny than it is in Double Indemnity where the whole premise is that the hero/villain has come into his office to record a confession, and is doing it that hipster-tough guy style of classic noir.

I happen to like that style, I eat it up in spoonfuls. Well, I don't eat it up here because seeing someone's nuts brutalized makes me lose my appetite, but otherwise...

 

[Robert Anthony]

Because it feels AUTHENTIC there. It feels like grotesque pantomime here. That's the major difference. It's why me, Quentin and Paul all feel it comes off more like a parody of noir than an homage to it.

Granted, the books AND the movie still work even if it's approached as half parody--but I don't think you can easily confuse the dialog for REAL noir stuff. There's a quality to that old Chandler/Hammett stuff that Miller can only try to capture, but it's like Miller's reading it off a funhouse mirror. It might be fun, but it doesn't make it THE SAME as that old stuff.

 

[Jefferson Morris]

Not the only one. I had no familiarity whatsoever with the comics, and I loved the movie.

Sin City can be enjoyed on its own merits, by someone with no particular affinity for comics or noir.

--Jefferson Morris

 

[Ruz-El]

I agree, although, based on an interview I read with Miller from a few years ago, he listed Mickey Spillaine (SP?) as a major influence. I've never read Spillaine, but I thought he was considered to be the lesser of the detective writers, often imphasising brutality, compared to the more polished Chandler and Hammett. If this is true, than it might explain why Sin City plays as it does to you, a lesser film noir, done in an over the top style. If Spillain was guilty of over doing it, and Miller is romanticizing Spillains work into his own, I can easilly see how you could find fault in how overbearing the dialog/ naration is. And I don't dissagree with you. I just see it as part of the films/books charm, as opposed to a fault.

Tarantino took a bit of the similar heat with the Kill Bill movies: in that they didn't offer anything new, just rehashed and hyped up situations of what has come before (actually, Tarantino has been quilty of this for his entire career). the thing is, with Tarantino, and with Millr/ Rodriquez no Sin city, is that, noone else is doing films like this, or are doing them in such a personalized way. To me these variations of established genre are great examples on how to renew old ideas. Everything hinted at in the classic period of Film Noir is expicitly shown and hammered in Sin City. I find it hard to beleive that one of the classic Noirs would of been done similarly in the 40's if they didn't have to sneak around the code. Now, this sneaking around isn't a negative on the classics, it's what makes them so facinating, just like the over-the-topness of Sin City shouldn't be a negative.

Than again, my only nit-pick with the film was that they didn't do a visual effect in the movie that they did in the book, different things affect different people, and I think everyone here is pretty much unanimous in thinking that the film was pretty great.