Finally dragged myself out of the house to see this and I'm glad I did...


I liked it. The movie was visually stunning and interesting to watch but some of the characters were like superficial cardboard cut-outs and their dialogue was a little too cliched for me...even for a comic book, film noir thing they were going for. Also, I thought that much of the violence was gratuitious too. If Miller had held back more of it I think I would have enjoyed it better.

I'm really interested to see the DVD when it comes out to see the whole thing. Man, Josh Harnett and Madsen were terrible in this...Rourke, Alba, Wood, and Willis were good though. And wow, Rutger Hauer looking seventy-years old...

Because it was so violent, or because you thought it sucked?

Josh and I went to see this friday night and we were talking about it last night. Now I'm a visual person so that's what was drawing me in to the film first and foremost. Then the cast. And now in hindsight, the music.

Josh has read some of Frank Miller's comics/graphic Novels and said that the film was completely faithful down to a T in the way it was put together and filmed.

The film was most definitely stunning and most of the cast was fabulous(I never paid much attention to Madsen's character and he was only onscreen so little time so I just don't care-same with Hartnett) especially Rourke and Willis. It was a gritty film, the violence wasn't done just because, it was in there because it was part of the novels themselves, it was what that city was about. It wasn't named "Sin City" for nothing. Saying it was too violent is like saying that Mobster flicks have too many guns.

Yeah there were a couple scenes that did make me want to vomit and I had to look away( scene with Wood and wolf and with Rutger Hauer later-ugh), but all in all the violence was expected.

Hell I was more grossed out and disturbed by the previews before the movie. Not kidding.

As for story or as some said, lack of. What? Are you kidding? No it wasn't one long story that kept unfolding, it was three stories that had their beginnings and as they went on they somehow intersected with a neat little wrapup at the end. Though the story with Clive Owen and ladies seemed to have gone a little too long. The only time I became restless during the film.

Otherwise I absolutely loved the film. And I really want to get the sountrack because the music was awesome.

I didn't think it sucked. I appreciate its technical achievement, and I think it absolutely and brilliantly captured the essence of the comic book (er, I mean "graphic novel"), which is why I find the acceptance of this movie so repugnant. The comic its based on is mired in the mindset of an early adolescent male with a profound fear of women (to put it mildly). In this universe women are nothing more than treacherous whores, and the only male defense against them is extreme violence and rape. The movie, for all its technical virtuosity, revels in that mindset, glorifying not only rape, but torture, mutilation, pedophilia, and all manner of human abasement. And as a society we're supposed to gladly accept this as entertainment because it's only "comic book violence." I say bullshit. In my opinion, Sin City is a dangerous form of pornography, irresponsible and malignant. And like all porn, I'm not surprised that people get a thrill out of it - that is its singular purpose, after all - but I'm disturbed and disappointed that our culture swallows it so gleefully.

saw it yesterday, and avoided this thread entirely because of that.
I remain unimpressed. Sure, it was an exact representation of Miller's dream, etc... but was it really even necessary to make this movie?

And here I thought it just wasn't that hot.

The Beast is supposed to be in X-3. Get prepared now...

and, as if it needed to be said again, I think this movie is fairly amazing...

Well I guess they could've just made "Big Momma's House 2".........oh wait.....

I agree that the main kicks of this movie are adolescent, and that it portrays women poorly. But I think that saying this movie glories in rape and pedophilia the same way it does in violence is equivocating. In the end, you're sympathetic with perpetrators of horrible violence because of the more horrible violence it's supposed to retribute, but while the movie is graphic in regard to the topics you mentioned, I wouldn't say it glorifies them in the same sense. Also, the movie/comic is set in an obviously debased and irredeemable universe. Sure, all of the women are violent whores or entirely unrealistic, but the picture is consistent in that there are no more nice qualities in the men. Which is maybe a feeble defense of misogynistic tendencies, but to enjoy a movie which portrays an awful alternate reality is not to desire that reality.

You seem to perceive that this is some new phenomenon. I don't disagree that it exposes a dark appetite in our collective ID, but it's been around forever.

The pulp novels of the '40s and '50s were as misogynistic and violent. The Executioner/Death Merchant/etc. series of the 60s and 70s were "worse".

The only thing, I think, that has changed is our willingness to view it on the screen. "Sin City" can take number one, whereas 30 years ago, the Ilssa flicks were underground, an a level with snuff.

Saw it this weekend. I read the comics back in their initial run and re-read the trade paperbacks they just released (the stories that were in the movie). I was EXTREMELY surprised/disappointed to find that I didn't enjoy the movie very much. I felt the faithful adherance to the source material hurt my enjoyment of the film. I did appreciate some of the shots and was pretty impressed with Frank Miller's turn as the priest. IMHO Three separate voiceovers was overbearing and the dialoge sounded cliched and cheesey after some time. Maybe on a second viewing at home will change my mind though.