Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: SIN CITY (2005)

This is topic SIN CITY (2005) in forum Film Handlers' Movie Reviews at Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE.

To visit this topic, use this URL:
https://ft-forum.com/ft/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=4;t=000908

Posted by Kurt Zupin (Member # 2751) on 03-31-2005, 09:16 AM:

Warning: THIS FILM IS NOT FOR EVERYONE!

Ok now that I got that out of the way, I thought this film rocked. What a great cast of people to get in too one film. I was a little skeptical about all the green screen work and how it would play off, I think it looked damn good. The black and white was another great thing about this film, when Robert used color in subtle areas it really jumps out at you.

For fun while you are screening Sin City, make sure you bring a fifth of your favorite hard stuff with you. Every time some one gets A)Shot in the crotch B)Kicked in the Crotch C)Grabbed in the crotch D)Knifed in the crotch you take a shot...and for fun we threw in the King Arthur references sense they were funny considering they were all said in the same scenes as Clive Owen. By the 5th reel you would be so hammered the rest of the movie wouldn't even matter [thumbsup]

SIN CITY, is destined to be a CULT classic. Its going to have its nay sayers and the people who will defend it to the death. I will be one of the people defending it...this film is probably one of the top 5 best films I've seen in the past two years.

I give it [thumbsup]

out of 4

Posted by Aaron Garman (Member # 1653) on 04-01-2005, 03:05 AM:

In a word...wow.

AJG

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 04-01-2005, 04:14 AM:

Hmmm... I'll have to rent this when it comes out on DVD.

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 04-01-2005, 04:47 AM:

Ah, the voice of the public speaks out! (In Joe's case I'll bet it isn't due to him knowing how quickly it will be out on dvd, but probably moreso that he really can get a better show at home. So sad.)

Anyway, it is definitely different, very much bizarre, has a great look that actually DOES work with it being shot on video and it has damn, damn, damn good sound! The only thing really wrong with it is that it is FLAT! (booo, hissss, you suck!!!)

Reels 2 and 3 are definitely the most entertaining part of the show. Thank god Rodriguez pulled his head out of his ass after making that stupid "Mexico" movie and those fucking "Spy Kids" movies.

4 out of 5 stars

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 04-01-2005, 06:19 AM:

Was it really shot on MiniDV? Or HD? If MiniDV I'm sure the DVD will be transferred from the film, which was made from the MiniDV instead of MiniDV straight to DVD. Studios are morons, after all.

Posted by Bill Gabel (Member # 1105) on 04-01-2005, 09:23 AM:

The film was shot with brand new Sony HFC-950 cameras. Which is the same camera Lucas used for "Star Wars: Episode III".

I ran all the New York critics screenings using a D-5 and it looked incredible on the screen.

Posted by R. Andrew Diercks (Member # 1725) on 04-01-2005, 12:58 PM:

4 out of 5.

I have not read the graphic novels, but my only wish was that the separate story lines more directly connected. Otherwise, loved the photography and art. For once I actually felt the narration added something.

Posted by Mark Lensenmayer (Member # 134) on 04-01-2005, 04:12 PM:

A bit too long..all of the stories, especially the second, needed some trimming. I got bored about 70-minutes in.

Brad is right about reels 2 and 3. That was fun.

I would like to have seen a few more splashes of color.

Best part of the film: Carla Gugino...ALL of her

Posted by Sam Graham (Member # 2889) on 04-02-2005, 11:38 PM:

CINEMA: Regal Cinemas Kansas City 18
AUDITORIUM: 6
PRESENTATION: Dolby Digital in a former THX-certified auditorium
PRESENTATION PROBLEMS: Image and masking were misaligned by several inches...maybe a foot...to the left. (The image played on the left side masking while about an equal amount of screen on the right side was blank)
RATING: 3 Stars (out of 4)

My thinking was I could see this in the DLP auditorium at AMC Studio 30 in Olathe. No dice. The conversation with the guy at "Guest Services" went something like this..."D-L-P...Digital projection. Oh...You're 'not using those right now'? Okay. By the way, how much is your matinee admission? No, I said 'Matinee' admission. Are you serious? Okay, thank you."

(Okay, so I made up the admission conversation, but if I'd thought of it at the time, I WOULD have asked just to be a smart aleck about it.)

I headed north to Kansas City 18, which is now officially charging double what they were when they opened for a matinee ticket...which is still a buck cheaper than Studio 30.

Advertised showtime: 4:20pm. I arrive just in time to see the pre-show video wrap up. Then a static Regal Entertainment Group logo image thay says "Your feature will begin momentarily" displays until the film starts. At 4:25pm, 'momentarily' hasn't happened. Some girl in the "crowd" (fewer than a dozen) exclaims "This is the longest 'moment' of my life!" Then a cell phone beeps and somebody else mimicks the "Silence your cell phone" announcement made at the end of the pre-show, to much laughter. Then some guy decided to complain. "No, Scott! Don't go! As soon as you do, it'll start and you'll miss the best part!" "Yeah, just hang out, dude." Scott isn't having any of this and is halfway down the stairs when, at 4:28pm. the trailers finally begin. "See? We told you!"

I agree with Brad...The sound mix was outstanding. I found myself forgetting this was largely animation at all (or even largely in black-and-white) and just getting into it. Ultimately, I did find it to be about a half hour too long, though. I don't know that it bored me so much as it drained me. It was like listening to too much death metal at one time...You just start to get a headache.

But no complaints about style here. Very very cool. Sure to have a cult following.

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 04-03-2005, 03:14 AM:

quote: Sam Graham
PRESENTATION PROBLEMS: Image and masking were misaligned by several inches...maybe a foot...to the left. (The image played on the left side masking while about an equal amount of screen on the right side was blank)

Sounds more like projector misalignment to me. Someone probably bumped into it when they were moving prints or wrestling.

Posted by Jason M Miller (Member # 2597) on 04-03-2005, 07:40 PM:

I thought this film was Excellent, I love how they kept the comic book feel to it [thumbsup]

Posted by David Stambaugh (Member # 1102) on 04-03-2005, 08:00 PM:

3:05PM today at Regal Cinema World 8 in Eugene, house #4. No noteworthy presentation problems -- looked & sounded great. Perfectly framed and image centered on the masking too. [thumbsup]

Attendance maybe 125.

This is pure eye and ear candy and succeeds on that level, but only on that level. Unfortunately eye and ear candy alone doesn't necessarily make for a great *movie*.

The opening and Act 1 works well, really grabs the viewer and holds on. But then Act 2 drags on far too long. It was putting me to sleep. The only thing that saves that middle section is the women. I was starting to look at my watch and yawn because it seemed like that was never going to end. If not for Bruce Willis' very timely return for Act 3 I might have left early.

This looked fantastic on the screen. I'd love to see it in DLP for comparison. The sound was *very* loud, which is a good thing in my opinion, but it sounded kind of harsh at the high end. That's not usually the case in this particular house.

Posted by Sam Graham (Member # 2889) on 04-03-2005, 11:02 PM:

quote: Joe Redifer
Sounds more like projector misalignment to me. Someone probably bumped into it when they were moving prints or wrestling.

That makes perfect sense here. The masking looked like it was correct, the picture was just projecting sligtly to the left. But I wouldn't know how possible it would be to bump a projector out of alignment...how bolted down and fixed-positioned everything in the booth is.

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 04-03-2005, 11:04 PM:

It's not bolted down, but it is heavy enough to take a good KNOCK to move it. Odds are the aperture got knocked just a little bit *or* the turret stop settings have drifted. Since it did not affect top or bottom and only the sides, this screams aperture on most every projector (except Christies).

Posted by Tracy Bellar (Member # 3049) on 04-04-2005, 12:58 AM:

The only thing really wrong with it is that it is FLAT! (booo, hissss, you suck!!!)
Yes, That was horrible. When I carried the film cans in I was thinking well we will have to change over to scope for this one. A movie as visually impressive as this should have been in Scope.
The B/W with occasional splashes of color was Great. I loved the way only things that were Sexy,Emotional,tragic,or terrifying had color.

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 04-04-2005, 10:41 AM:

quote:
The only thing really wrong with it is that it is FLAT! (booo, hissss, you suck!!!)

The "native" aspect ratio of the Sony HD camera used is 16:9 (1.79:1). Cropping the top and bottom of the image for 2.39:1 would further compromise sharpness.

Remember, although the camera CCD sensors are 1920 x 1080 pixels, the needed anti-aliasing filtration reduces the resolution to less than half of that.

Posted by Wolff King Morrow (Member # 2226) on 04-04-2005, 02:11 PM:

I thought anti-aliasing used an interpolation of pixels to smooth the edges without sacrificing resolution? I know that on my image rendering work I do, I can enlarge the image and then resample it down to the original resolution to remove jaggies.

Anyway, this film looked noticably sharp. Combined with the film cleaner I hooked up with film guard saturation, it was probably the sharpest picture I've yet seen (and on my largest screen to boot).

I also give it 4 out of 5 stars.

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 04-04-2005, 02:28 PM:

Anti-aliasing filtration makes sure there is no image detail sharp enough to visibly interact with the pixel array to produce jaggies or moire. You have traded away image sharpness.

Don't mistake true sharpness (i.e., the ability to resolve fine detail) with edge-enhancement that gives the appearance of sharpness if you sit far enough away from the screen.

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 04-04-2005, 03:16 PM:

quote: John Pytlak
Cropping the top and bottom of the image for 2.39:1 would further compromise sharpness.

As does projecting anything in the 35mm flat format vs. the larger frame area of the 35mm scope format! [Razz]

Posted by Aaron Garman (Member # 1653) on 04-04-2005, 06:48 PM:

I figure if it is native 16:9, it'd look better that way instead of being cropped to 2.39:1. Now if we're talking anamorphic negative, then that is a different story. Even Super35 can look AWFUL in scope. That'd be nice if they develop a cinemascope lense of sorts for HD cameras that would work like real cinemascope, except without the film.

AJG

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 04-04-2005, 07:13 PM:

Super 35 can also look fantastic. It's all in how it's done.

Let's take this into a new thread in FHF since we are way too off topic here. The next reply can start it and link back to this thread.

Posted by Richard Greco (Member # 2032) on 04-04-2005, 08:43 PM:

Agreed....WOW

This was freakin awesome! Definately a DVD buy. I saw this at an indoor so I could hear the DTS and it sounded great too. Does anyone know what scene Tarantino directed?

4.5/5

Posted by Sam Graham (Member # 2889) on 04-04-2005, 08:54 PM:

***SPOILER...sort of...***

Mr. Ebert says Tarantino's scene is "the scene in the car with (Clive) Owen and (Benicio) Del Toro, who has a pistol stuck in his head".

Posted by Richard Greco (Member # 2032) on 04-04-2005, 09:09 PM:

You know, I can see him behind the camera in that one. It was twisted enough to be him. Awesome Flick

Posted by Dean Kollet (Member # 1789) on 04-07-2005, 09:54 PM:

I loved this movie, but I wish the stories connected a little bit better....

4.5 out of 5

Carla Gugino is hot

Posted by Richard Greco (Member # 2032) on 04-09-2005, 12:01 PM:

One thing I did notice is how bad Michael Madsen acted in his scenes. All his lines seemed forced. Still a kickass movie though.

Posted by Kurt Zupin (Member # 2751) on 04-10-2005, 12:06 AM:

Madsen is natorious for crappy acting if he dosn't want to do the film...or if he dosn't believe in the character, he was in Sin City as a favor to some of his friends who were in the film as well as RR and QT

Posted by Richard Greco (Member # 2032) on 04-10-2005, 02:45 AM:

Yeah, he seemed to really be Budd in KB. He also was great in Resivoir Dogs, but not here.

Posted by Robb Johnston (Member # 239) on 04-10-2005, 12:29 PM:

I all the comics, there is not as much overlap to connect the stories more. perhaps some gaps will be filled in when and if the other stories are brought to film (via digital camera) For one, there is another story for clive owen's Dwight character that fills in the info about a whole new face. Did they have him referring to Ava when they cut to him in the Marv storyline (I reread the comics since seeing the film so I forget some of what was lef tin and cut out)That one is called "A Dame to Kill For."

To artificially add connections to stories so true to the source material would have weakened the piece for me.

Posted by Emma Tomiak (Member # 1862) on 04-10-2005, 08:10 PM:

I agree Rob, I think that keeping the stories separated works best for someone who has read the graphic novels. I loved that the movie stayed so true to the books. That's very rare in any comic book based movie. For the viewer who hasn't read the books, though, perhaps a bit more connection between the stories might have made the whole film run more smoothly.

The only reference to "A Dame to Kill For" was Dwight talking about his new face. He didn't metion Ava at all (at least I think he didn't--I've watched it 3 times, but a fourth time just to check wouldn't hurt [Wink]

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 04-10-2005, 11:44 PM:

I watched "Sin City" this evening and liked it quite a bit for various reasons. The story was pretty cool, true to its graphic novel roots and a bit unconventional. I think the movie did just enough to connect the three different storylines to establish proper sense of timeline and location. The non-chronological narrative reminded me a little of "Pulp Fiction."

The visual look of the film was very cool. This movie and "The Incredibles" are the two most visually compelling movies I've seen in the last couple of years. The animated silhouettes, colorizing effects and other high contrast shots added much to the movie. The look of buildings and unusal choice of vintage cars and contemporary ones helped the show defy timing it to a given period. Even the opening titles for "Sin City" were cool. Helvetica for the closing ones -bleh, but everyone's leaving the theater then.

About the only thing I can knock at all is the show being shot on videotape. Sometimes the imagery appeared just a tad bit soft, such as hairs on an actor's head. Overall, its a minor gripe. I'm still going to add this movie to my DVD collection a few months from now.

Posted by Christian Volpi (Member # 2370) on 04-11-2005, 12:13 AM:

It's Crap. Needed less shooting and more script.

Posted by Pravin Ratnam (Member # 1417) on 04-13-2005, 11:03 PM:

Saw it at Regal Perimeter Pointe Atlanta. Top bottom masking. So I was glad this movie was flat since the screen size was reasonably decent. Movie seemed to be projected OK.

Easily the best movie of the year so far for me. After a stiffly acted opening 10 minutes with Hartnett, willis and madsen (way too obvious comic book dialogue and delivery which seemed more forced) , the movie really gets to be an experience.

Welcome back Mickey Rourke. He was the man in the movie.

Nick Stahl plays probably one of the most disgusting villains ever. I wish his death scene was even more prolonged. The way they filmed Elijah's Wood's character was one of the best comic book looks in a movie ever. Watching his scenes was like reading a great graphic novel. Really these two bad guys were major filmmaking highlights in this movie. None of that DIck Tracy like cliched trying too hard to emulate a comic book shit.

Carla Gugino's opening scene is proof that Robert ROdruguez hasn't lost his libido even after making those Spy Kid movies.

They say Clive Owen's character had his face changed. So was he supposed to be someone else shown in the movie?

Only downside was we had a bad crowd. Very dull people and two strangers in the audience and I seemed to be the only people laughing at some of the dark humor in the movie.

MINI SPOILER: Too bad they show Alba's backstory first, so one would have a tough time ogling her ample assets and spend more time wondering how she ended up in the bar like that after what she went through. They should have shown the Hartnett opening, pan over to the bar with alba's dancing scene, then go back into the Willis-Madsen flashback.

Posted by Darryl Spicer (Member # 711) on 04-13-2005, 11:36 PM:

quote: Christian Volpi
Needed less shooting and more script.

quote: Pravin Ratnam
(way too obvious comic book dialogue and delivery which seemed more forced)

I watched a 15 minute segment on 60 Minutes 2 (Wednesday) tonight that talked about the fim and how they made it. Essentially there was no script. They took everything straight from the comic books.

They also talked about how they shot the movie with just a green screen and no locations with just a few props. Everything else was created with computers. Yet they talked like that had never been done before. Guess they didn't see Sky Captain.....

Posted by Pravin Ratnam (Member # 1417) on 04-13-2005, 11:45 PM:

Darryl, to be fair, my comment only referred to the first 15 min of the movie. There was more comic book type dialog the rest of the way too, but it seemed to fit in well in the movie medium .
Madsen in particular was awful in his initial scenes.

Posted by Charlie Frisby (Member # 2927) on 04-15-2005, 07:56 PM:

5 out of 5

Best Comic adaptation ever!!

As a comic freak I am bias, but the only line i noticed, not in the graphic novels was "You bet your ass" spoken by Marv.

On the subject of scope

Being completely Green screened helped the movie to maintain its comic look, and also kept everything consistent. I wonder if the flat issue is due to the rendering times. Don't be a skeptic.

If I was rendering a movie, in which 7 reels(exception credits) had to be rendered in LightWave 3D, and had minimal bg plates, and i could cut the aspect ratio down. I would do it. I am not sure exactly what the ratio is from flat and scope, but thats a lot of polygons that don't have to be triangulated.

What I am getting at, flat is more cost effective, as well as time affective in a movie with so much CG. That may not be the reason for it, but its a possibility.

After regular FG, the film was had the best picture i had ever seen in a theatre, especially ours.

Frisby

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 04-25-2005, 12:09 PM:

I didn't like the movie (it's just not my kind of movie) but I agree, the picture sure did look great. Colors more vibrant than a lot of color films!