#68 at time of writing.This film received very mixed reviews when it was released, so I didn't bother watching it at the cinema. Later, I was surprised to see it in a lofty position on IMDb's Top 250 list. Well, that piqued my curiosity, so I rented it out.
It's the most extreme example of style over substance that I've ever seen in a film. It looks awesome, it feels pitch dark, and it's absolutely rubbish.
I've always struggled with graphic novels. I love the idea of them, I love how much work and imagination obviously goes into the best of them, but I've always found them too disconnected - they don't flow. Too many interruptions and loose ends. This film felt exactly the same. So I understand why graphic novel fans might laud it, but it totally didn't work for me.
As if to emphasise the disconnects, some of the cast members did not even meet each other until after the film was made - for example in the scenes between Marv (Mickey Rourke), Cardinal Roark (Rutger Hauer) and Kevin (Elijah Wood), Hauer and Wood were added in post-production - they weren't even cast when Rourke shot his scenes.
Posts
Sin City is a fantastic example of revolutionary new film styles being utilized. Hollywood needs a change-up from boring old remakes, rehashes disguised as sequels, and "based on a true story" films. Sin City is on my Unmissables list. It is well-acted, well-directed, and offers something new to the movie industry.
ReplyDeleteCheck out my top one hundred and my take on films at www.filmfancy.blogspot.com
Hi, well everyone is free to choose their favorite movies, but i have to agree with something, Sin City is a movie for a very selected audience, very artistic and unique in its kind... I like it a lot but if someone is going to watch it, must be prepared because is slow, and with a very abstract argument
ReplyDelete