Sin City 2005 looks rubbish

I liked it more the 2nd time I watched it but I only give it a 6/10 and I've never seen it a 3rd time.
Unlike 300 and watchmen, I found that having no prior knowledge of the graphic novel meant that it was a very boring film.
There was no background, no reason, it was a dull movie & was far too long. The middle section with 'Hank' and the Hobbit was good and I thoroughly enjoyed that section but then Clive Owen popped up and was his usual unintresting self. The Bruce willis sections were so far spread apart that I'd actually forgotten how the film started by the time he was onscreen again.

From what I remember, the stories don't intertwine at all except for one (unseen) character's name being mentioned in each story and the fact that they are all in the same bar (which indicates that their stories are happening at the same time)
 
I've heard the Directors cut makes a better fist of it, fills in a few blanks.
No more faithful to the book though.

Back to the Res.
I liked Sin City and didn't have any problems with the CGI, probably a 7/10 and I watch it if it's on the box.

I haven't seen 300, any good?
 
Guy once challenged me to a fight when I opined that "Sin City" was average at best, but he didn't follow through on his threat.

My problem with it didn't really lie in the visuals. It's a good looking, sui generis style they brought to it, shame about the plot which is so remote, cold, and empty that I just couldn't become engaged in it.

Elija Wood was really good, although I'm not sure how much that was down to the digital artists on the flick. Wood's performance derives so much from just his creepy smile, and as the IMDB trivia will tell you, his face was remoulded by the special effects gurus.
 
I thought it was absolutley AMAZING, 10/10, All 3 stories are brilliant. So many great performaces, Mickey Rourke, Bruce Willis and Clive Owen are class, it probably is the best adaption from a graphic novel. I love the narration it works so well, a bit like reading a comic/graphic novel.

I know that Watchmen has been mentioned earlier, but if they wanted a perfect adaption of that it would have to be about 7 hours long, I thought the adaption of that was very good, lot better than people imagined. Roll on the Extended Edition and Roll on Sin City 2...........if it ever gets made, lol.
 
In that case blame the novels, that's the way they are.

Also, compared to Watchmen, Sin City flows better to most people because essentially Sin City is just a collection of Short Stories which are linked by few characters and the city itself unlike The Watchmen which is one long epic story which no matter what, content would have to be cut and scenes dragged out. Sin City on the other hand, they went with a Pulp Fiction style set up of doing multiple stories in one film and only cutting small scenes from the original comic which makes it remain very faithful to the comic but also a nice flowing film.
 
Back
Top