Sin City

I saw Sin City yesterday, and it completely lived up to my expectations. I had high hopes, too, as I’m a big fan of the Frank Miller comics. As widely reported, Robert Rodriguez’s film stays incredibly true to the source material—not just in terms of plot and dialogue, but also in terms of look. The movie is virtually a shot-for-shot remake of the graphic novels, and the novels are quite graphic.

I think the film gets away with a lot of the violence because of the black-and-white (with occasional splashes of colour) look of the film and the cartoonish over-the-top scenarious in which the violence occurs. This film is easily as violent and hardcore as Pulp Fiction, but the violence in Pulp seemed so much more real. Still, this isn’t a movie for the faint of heart. With numerous decapitations and amputations (not to mention cannibalism), there’s plenty to keep the squeamish wriggling.

The performances were satisfactory across the board—it’s pulpy, hard-boiled noir dialogue, so it’s a feat merely to make it come off as natural and not corny. Bruce Willis shines as a wrongfully-disgraced cop trying to save a little girl from a violent pedophile. Clive Owen does cool aloofness to a tee. Most of the women aren’t given much more to do than look hot, but they do that well. I even liked Josh Hartnett in this film, and I hate Hartnett. But it’s Mickey Rourke who really shines, playing a homicidal-yet-noble brute named Marv. It’s Mickey’s best role in years by far, and anyone who knows me knows how thrilled I am to see Mickey return to form as a captivating, eminently watchable star (despite his grotesque visage in this film).

This film won’t be for everybody. The violence will make it hard to swallow for some, while others won’t buy into the neo-noir storylines and dialogue. My guess is that the wholly unique visual look will be a turnoff to many mainstream moviegoers. It’s something that can only be fully appreciated when having read the comics.