Movie: Sin City

[poprock]

I think that's my point. Sin City proves (to me) that translating a comic directly into a movie is a shit idea. You need to adapt it, not copy it.

[Charlie Parker]

I was going back to edit that post...
The sin City comics are pulp fiction boiled down to its hoariest cliches and taken even further and thats what makes them so good. Just in the same way Mickey Spillane is so much fun.

[Jamesy]

I think that's my point. Sin City proves (to me) that translating a comic directly into a movie is a shit idea. You need to adapt it, not copy it.

To each there own i thought it was an excellent film and I liked the fact that it was pretty much a blow by blow adaptation of the comic, really well done too.


Edit: obviously translating a comic straight to screen wont always (or very rarely) work but i think this was the perfect one to do it and they pulled it off.

[TheEdgeCrusher]

I think that's my point. Sin City proves (to me) that translating a comic directly into a movie is a shit idea. You need to adapt it, not copy it.

Thats a bit harsh but partially true.

I think the characterisation seemed really poor, you (I) didn't seem to pick up on the reasosn for certain characters being the way they were. In movies thats one of the main reasons you get "timeless" characters that you can like for years. Maybe the city was just full of crazy fucking mental cunts, but it didn't really set it too well ?!

Later Edge

[poprock]

The sin City comics are pulp fiction boiled down to its hoariest cliches and taken even further and thats what makes them so good. Just in the same way Mickey Spillane is so much fun.

Fair point. I can imagine that being good fun in the right context. As a movie, it just pissed me off... The extreme camera angles, stop-start action, and hammy dialogue just managed to put me in mind of shit afternoon children's cartoons based on plastic toy franchises.

[MarkMono]

Can anyone tie up the reason for Josh hartnetts character just killing random birds? I take it you have to read the comic or something to findout exactly why he does that? Or was I just too sleepy when I watched it?

Later Edge

He's an assassin in the employ of mob boss Wallenquist, same as Manute (the huge black dude with one eye)

He kills the woman at the beginning because she paid him to and Beckys just a loose end from the whole affair with detective Raffertys head.

Loved it, still loving it. Stylistically it exists as a totally unique movie.

[poprock]

I think the characterisation seemed really poor, you (I) didn't seem to pick up on the reasosn for certain characters being the way they were.

Yep, I can go with that. Decent dialogue could have brought some of that out, the way a character speaks can round them out a lot. Having each and every one spouting the same platitudes and clichés in such a stilted fashion didn't allow for any depth of feeling. Maybe that was the point, but it stopped me from feeling engaged with any of it.

[Foxglove]

They lifted the dialogue straight from the novels as far as I am aware. Frank Millar was involved in making the film and maybe that was both a help and a hinderance. After all, he knew exactly why his characters had become as they are and how they got there. I didn't have any problem in working out the reason for events such as Josh Hartnett's character killing the girl at the beginning and looked at the film as a visual piece rather than a stimulating story or interesting dialogue such as is seen in Quentin Tarrantino scripts. This was never goingt o win Oscars for acting or script but it was a visual treat.

House of Wax tonight - and that should be corny as hell and gory to make up for the lack of good dialogue. Oh yes.

[bikuki]

as has been said numerous times in here (and in all debates on taste) - each to his/her own

I personally found it visually delightful and exciting. I agree that some of the diologue was stilted and hammy, but I got the impression that that was the POINT
I also got the impression that not much was said about the characters because they were supposed to be mysterious - either that or it was so we could fantasise about what we THOUGHT drove them and had moulded them

but that obviously doesn't suit everyone (and not in a bad way) - so i just shrug my shoulders and walk away from any debate

[poprock]

Hell, I wasn't starting a debate - just passing an opinion.

The whole thing surprised me. I'm usually such a fan of movies which are all style over substance. I'm a sucker for atmosphere, above all. I expected to like this, at the very least. I think I found it so poor because it's so very limited by it's slavish devotion to the comics. The comics already exist, why recreate them? It's like Gus Van Sant remaking Psycho scene-for-scene. It's analogous to the videogame producers who obsess over making games more 'movie-like'... they miss the point that games are intrinsically different to movies and that whilst they benefit from being informed by one another, direct copies do not work.

[Robb]

If there was a bastardised movie version of Sin City where Jessica Alba got do that slow-motion in the air kick thing and nail Yellow Bastard right in the balls only to go on and get sweet revenge herself whilst Bruce Willis hooked up with a wise-cracking african-american to take down the political heirarchy I would maul everyone involved.

Maul them to fuck.

I fucking loved this movie, it was refreshing to get back to basics with the dialogue and concentrate on the style and the action. Any changes would have been a big mistake and everyone knows that. Fuck, I even got a bit pissed off because Marv has a gripe about "foreign cars" instead of "Jap cars" as the comic says. I liked to see that side of Marv and it was the kind of stuff his character could get away with because he's such a big, dumb gladiator.

[bikuki]

It's weird, actually, cos I went to the cinema with two HUGE fans of the comics (and I myself have not read any of them, nor am I a particular comic fan) and eveyone enjoyed the movie immensely. I guess it's not down to whether you enjoy comics, or if you are already die-hard fans who want to see your characters come alive on screen - it just depends whether you think that comic translated well onto big screen.
Personally I found the style completely watchable and enjoyable, but alot of people will think differently.

However, on a side note, I read a review of the movie in a paper this morning (I think it was the Daily Mail, but I'm not sure) and the critic didn't 'get' the film at all! He just went on about how it wasn't good film noir...missing the point that it wasn't designed as film noir in the first place...

[poprock]

People confuse noir and pulp all the time.

[Foxglove]

No film should just re-enact an already established story without an embellishment. It does defeat the object somewhat. However, I was also with people who had enjoyed the novels and they loved it too.

What hope V For Vendetta and Doom! (apart from the music in the latter).

It is personal taste and if you enjoy a film then you never had to justify your enjoyment and if you don't then you don't need to explain to anyone why you did not.

Having said that - I was drunk watching it (hooray for business lunches on a Client's expense account) and there were lots of pretty colours which mesmerized me. Still, I did enjoy it and I don't really feel like analysing why as it might ruin the enjoyment!!

[TheEdgeCrusher]

It's like Gus Van Sant remaking Psycho scene-for-scene.

His movies actually give me the boke big time. Can anyone actually name a good movie by this dude?

Seen Elephant, Psycho and Gerry all made me cringe in horror at such a waste of time and money.

Later Edge