PDA

View Full Version : Review: Sin City (* 1/2)


Steve Rhodes
April 8th 05, 12:10 AM
SIN CITY
A film review by Steve Rhodes

Copyright 2005 Steve Rhodes



RATING (0 TO ****): * 1/2



Watching SIN CITY, along with my large and nearly comatose audience, who
were clearly anything but entertained, gave me an intense sense of sadness,
not about the story but about the movie and what it says about the current
state of the motion picture industry. This lifeless film, which is based on
"a graphic novel," i.e. a hyper-violent brand of comic book, is never about
anything other than its look. Filmed exclusively against a blue screen, the
backdrops were all computer generated. The resulting cinematography had the
colors stripped out, leaving only blacks and whites. Some color was then
reintroduced, especially lots of red blood. The result, as it was in the
similar appearing SKY CAPTAIN AND THE WORLD OF TOMORROW, is a stylized and
lifeless depiction of humanity.



The only notable attribute of the film, other than its appearance, is its
preoccupation with violence, lots and lots of gratuitous violence. This
NC-17 movie, which the once again brain dead MPAA gave an R rating,
disturbed some of the younger members of our audience, especially a three
year old who didn't like seeing human heads smashed like pineapples with
baseball bats and dogs eating the guts from barely alive victims. Even if
everyone in the audience had long since graduated from college, it would
still have been extremely sad to me to see viewers paying good money to view
this violent pornography on the screen.



The script didn't make me sad, but it almost made me laugh, since it has so
many clichéd lines that it sounds like it was generate by a computer, and
who knows, maybe it was. It features lots of "dames," "broads," "dolls,"
and "fall guys" in just about every other sentence. I guess it is supposed
to be so cheesy that it would be fun to laugh at. But fun was something I
never had in SIN CITY, no matter how many stars it had. I found it about as
enjoyable as being bludgeoned to death, which was exactly how I felt when I
finally left to again breathe the fresh air of real life, 126 long minutes
later.



SIN CITY runs 2:06. It is an NC-17 movie which the MPAA has rated R for
"sustained strong stylized violence, nudity and sexual content including
dialogue" and would be acceptable for college kids and older.



The film is playing in nationwide release now in the United States. In the
Silicon Valley, it is showing at the AMC theaters, the Century theaters and
the Camera Cinemas.



Web: http://www.InternetReviews.com

Email:



************************************************** *********************



Want free reviews and weekly movie and video recommendations via Email?

Just send me a letter with the word "subscribe" in the subject line.

lenny fackler
April 8th 05, 04:44 PM
Steve Rhodes wrote:
> SIN CITY
> A film review by Steve Rhodes
>
> Copyright 2005 Steve Rhodes
>
>
>
> RATING (0 TO ****): * 1/2
>
>
>
> Watching SIN CITY, along with my large and nearly comatose audience,
who
> were clearly anything but entertained, gave me an intense sense of
sadness,
> not about the story but about the movie and what it says about the
current
> state of the motion picture industry. This lifeless film, which is
based on
> "a graphic novel," i.e. a hyper-violent brand of comic book, is never
about
> anything other than its look. Filmed exclusively against a blue
screen, the
> backdrops were all computer generated. The resulting cinematography
had the
> colors stripped out, leaving only blacks and whites. Some color was
then
> reintroduced, especially lots of red blood. The result, as it was in
the
> similar appearing SKY CAPTAIN AND THE WORLD OF TOMORROW, is a
stylized and
> lifeless depiction of humanity.
>
>
>
> The only notable attribute of the film, other than its appearance, is
its
> preoccupation with violence, lots and lots of gratuitous violence.
This
> NC-17 movie, which the once again brain dead MPAA gave an R rating,
> disturbed some of the younger members of our audience, especially a
three
> year old who didn't like seeing human heads smashed like pineapples
with
> baseball bats and dogs eating the guts from barely alive victims.
Even if
> everyone in the audience had long since graduated from college, it
would
> still have been extremely sad to me to see viewers paying good money
to view
> this violent pornography on the screen.
>

No criticism for someone who would take a 3 year old to a movie like
this?

This guy sounds more like Michael Medved with every review.

Hierophant
April 11th 05, 06:22 AM
What do we suspect is the damage done to the three year old?

lenny fackler
April 11th 05, 02:58 PM
Hierophant wrote:
> What do we suspect is the damage done to the three year old?

Who's 'we'?
I don't believe viewing a movie in itself is necessarily harmful but I
wouldn't take a 3 year old to an adult movie. Images of sex and
violence are likely to be confusing and difficult for the child and
parents to deal with. A child won't understand or likely care at all
about the plot and dialogue of an R rated movie.
That issue aside, if a movie reviewer can't deal with material because
it's inappropriate for a toddler then their opinion has become
completely irrelevent to me.