Frank Miller's Sin City (the movie)

[Eliza Hodgkins 1812]

Glad I misunderstood your inital post then. Thanks for clarifying.

As for the books this movie is based on, they're less bloated because they're serial, and not forced into a 2 hour film. I enjoyed the frenzied energy, which is what made the transition from panel to film work for me, as it allows the movie to be its own thing. They used the books as the movie's storyboard, but the film still managed to move beyond the panels to become its own thing. I understand why others would find it to be more is more, and more ain't better. But I've found myself a fan of this filmmaking style, loving both parts of Kill Bill as well.

I stand by <i>Sin City</i> as being Noir, though certainly a different brand of. It's punk rock, for sure. And though the violence and sexualization of the characters were more pornographic than, let's say, <i>The Big Sleep</i>, older noir films certainly were violent and the type of woman Bacall played certainly was classy, but she was also a man's idea of what classy and sexy are. Not that I'm complaining. But I like Bacall's dames *and* the brand of mad bitch dame realized by Rosario Dawson. That, and I also think Miller's dialogue is very clever pulp fiction writing.

[LSPoorEeyorick]

Originally Posted by Eliza Hodgkins 1812

I understand why others would find it to be more is more, and more ain't better. But I've found myself a fan of this filmmaking style, loving both parts of Kill Bill as well.

I think we've hit upon our basic difference in taste in this realm. Remember how I walked out of Kill Bill the First kind of nauseated? It's not violence that bothers me, it's graphic violence, even if it's cartoonish. I dig a subtler shade of shadows-and-light-theatre, forties pictures are delicious to me, while the yanking of testicles? Not so much.

[Not Afraid]

When I saw Sin City, I wasn't at all prepared for what I was about to see. I am not familiar with the novels - and probably will never read them due sheer lack of interest; I don't like violence and covered my eyes a lot; and I dislike Bruce Willis as an actor. But, after the first 1/2 hour of over-the-top, cheesy lines I stopped taking it seriolusly and had a good time watching and enjoying. It wasn't Noir for me. The look was vaguely noir, but the noir stopped there. It was comical, silly, excessive, and visually beautiful and raw. I won't be buying a copy, nor seeing it again, but I liked it a lot more than I expected.

I don't understand the love of comics just as many people don't understand my love of contemporary dance. Oh well......

[€uroMeinke]

I enjoyed the film, like the "look" - but also was dissappointed that the stories didn't all tie together. As for Noir, I was fine seeing this as "comic-book noir." There was lots of cliche and gratuitous sex and violence, but I think that kept it true to it's genre and enabled me to laugh out loud to situations of partial decapitation and emasculation.

But as I left, I wanted to see the Coen Brother's "Man who Wasn't There" - that to me is a great contemporary Noir tale in the classic tradition.