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

[Andy Sheets]

Yeah, that's correct. Miller once described Marv as "a psychotic Mike Hammer" (Spillane's most famous hero), which is saying a whole lot because Hammer already comes across like a batshit psycho in Spillane's novels. Also, Spillane was more of a male power fantasy writer, which also matches Sin City, compared to the more cynical and lonely Hammett and Chandler.

 

[Haggai]

Hmm, Spillane might indeed make more sense as a stylistic forerunner. Now, I've never read any of his books, and I've only seen one of the movies that was based on them. But the Chandler/Hammet-style noir films that I've seen don't seem quite as connected to Sin City as the one Spillane-based movie I did see, the absolutely insane Kiss Me Deadly. The plot of that one actually turns out to be quite a bit crazier than anything in the Sin City movie.

 

[Paul_Scott]

Kiss Me Deadly is LEAGUES ahead of Sin City.
really, anybody that thinks Sin City is an interesting represntation of (neo) Noir should check out Aldrichs film if they haven't seen it before.
its also a hell of a lot more 'adult' than this one.

Sin City really seems to me to be more of a slasher flick aimed at the 12 year old in all of us (OOO Cool! that guy has his legs cut off! Yeah! Shot him in the nuts, ha ha ha!), with just the superficial trappings of noir.
i enjoyed Rourkes performance and the visual look, and over the top attitude, was a novelty for most of the first story, but its old hat by the end of the film.
and two years from now the visual look won't be remembered as anything special, i'm prediciting.

 

[Quentin]

I think the opinions aired in this thread prove Rodriguez correct - as I said, he was wise to simply regurgitate the source material onto the screen. I think if he had tried to make it better and/or cooler (and, I'm not convinced Rodriguez is capable of it), he would have pissed off the one demographic who wanted to dig into this film.

The over-the-top nature of the source material, the subpar (IMO) dialogue, etc. are all part of the neo-hyper-noir quality of Miller's original work. So, the film gets a solid "B" from me - it is a perfect re-creation of the source, and I would give the books a "B" as well.

 

[Quentin]

Agreed. I think you've nailed it.

However, this does not mean I'm dissing the film. I think it nails what it is going for. It's just no classic.

 

[Andy Sheets]

The movie Kiss Me Deadly is in opposition to the original novel. Aldrich hated Spillane's writing and politics and he thought Hammer was a contemptible thug, so instead of doing a straight adaptation he subverted it (kind of similar to Paul Verhoeven's take on Starship Troopers). It's fun to compare the two

 

[Haggai]

Really, that's pretty interesting (re: Kiss Me Deadly), I'd never heard about that before.

 

[TheLongshot]

Yeah, it would bring out the 'purists' (irony abounds), who claim somehow, the director didn't understand the original vision, or that it sucks because they changed one aspect of the story.

I think it is what it is, and there is no pleasing everyone.

Jason

 

[Ruz-El]

Not just the purists. Every negative review of a comic book movie that I have read state problems that are not relevant in the source material. These deviations are not just fan boy pissing and moaning (okay, Elektra not wearing a red outfit can be fan boy pissing and moaning) but are typically major character and story flaws. In movies that stick to adapting the books with respect to the history of the characters or source material, your pretty much guaranteed a good movie, on par with the source material (be it comic book, or novel, or what ever). It can be considered "done right".

I agree, Rodriquez was correct in being a slave to Miller and the books, and for not allowing any of what could be "His" style to influence the movie, theres no room for it. Sin City is Frank Miller at his most base, and the movie reflects this. What we get out of it is totally subjective to us, of copurse. I dug it as much as the books, which is all I can ask for an adaptation.

 

[Seth Paxton]

Let me say that I also consider this not pure noir, but hyper-noir, comic-book noir as I called it in the review. The realism is stretched out of bounds to the comic area of bigger, badder, cooler, etc. I also said that it was stilted in its delivery. Sometimes by the actors, but often intentionally, for that affect.

I don't see it as parody or homage, just a new abstraction from the original genre.

My defense of the dialog is to say that having cool things to say, in spite of realism rather than in service to it, is one of the most fun things about noir and I love that Miller has brought that aspect over primarily.

See I just love hearing stuff like this

 

[Rick Rob]

Great discussion... I loved the movie and it was 100 times better seeing it for a second time!

My friend had this question:

When Hartigan was on the farm going after Junior, why didn't Kevin, who was reading a book on the porch, sneak up on Hartigan and kill him (he obviously heard the commotion). I explained it to him that the farm is where "bad things happen" and that Kevin probably did not want to get involved in Juniors/Hartigan's business. Is this right or is there some "official" explanation?

BTW, that "all or nothing days" line by Marv is an instant classic.

 

[Patrick Sun]

Perhaps Kevin was too wrapped up with the good book (appeared to be the bible, BTW) to be bothered with whatever commotion junior was conjuring on his own.

 

[SteveGon]

I'd have to look, but I don't remember seeing Kevin in the book with the Hartigan story.

 

[Rick Rob]

Have the book in front of me. It's definitely good ole' Kevin.

 

[Citizen87645]

Was it the glowing white cross on the cover or something else that gave it away?

I made the same assumption, since his "religion" tied in very strongly to his actions, that during his devotional time nothing disturbs him.

 

[Raasean Asaad]

He wasn't hungry....

 

[Ruz-El]

I figured Kevin ignored Hartigan because it wasn't his buisness. Kevin kills and eats hooker to swallow there souls and get closer to God. Marv was in the way of that. Hartigan was not affecting his "communion" in any way, and was therebye no concern to him.

If I remember correctly, Kevin in the book is a one panel cameo, a wink at the audience to show that the farm does have a history of badness. Every major story arc of the series is filled with such cameos. It also works to add a potential unknown threat to the story.

 

[SteveGon]

By George, sir, you are right.

 

[Oswald Pascual]

We needed more violence!!! This did not go far enough with the violence. Who would of enjoyed seeing a good rape scene ala "Irréversible", add some more torture ala "SALO", and maybe a multi-angle shot of a child rape scene. How about a slow motion shot of Kevin having his lunch! Maybe they kept it soft for the R rating. Maybe this stuff was left in the cutting rooms digital floor for a directors cut DVD. We need more violence in our movies and less hollywood endings. This would surely make the movie much more loved.

Rodriguez might be saving it for his next big flick" "Shark Boy & Lava Girl" in 3D.


Ozzie

 

[mike_frontier]

So how many stars out of 5 being perfect?