Someone Left The Severed Head Out In The Rain
Posted on | April 7, 2005 at 6:55 pm | Comments Off
Yeah, I haven’t been around here much lately. Still busy playing Lumines on my PSP. But I thought I better check in with my Sin City review.
I loved this movie. But I knew I would from the first glimpse and details I saw of the production. I liked the graphic novels, and a couple of months ago, I reread the three stories that the movie is based on. It’s the closest experience I’ve ever had to seeing a living, breathing comic book up on the screen, and there’s a lot to be said for that. It’s pure eye candy and I loved it. I think the thing that most impressed me about it is that it makes it easier to believe that absolutely anything can be done on the screen these days, and can be done well. The all-star cast was a bonus, though I probably would’ve enjoyed it as much without the marquee names. Heck, Mickey Rourke isn’t much of a draw these days, yet he stole the show with his spot-on portrayal (beneath the layers of makeup and prosthetics) of poor, confused, demented, but loyal psychopath Marv. I’m glad it had your Bruce Willises and your Clive Owenses to bring in the people who ordinarily might not go to a movie like this, but I’m not really sure how necessary they were to the how well the film worked.
Okay, so what didn’t I like about it? Some critics (like my buddy mr. pathetic) complained of the portrayal of women (and men too) in the film. Admittedly, the archetypes and stereotypes portrayed make it hard to relate to any of the characters in the film. But as long as I distanced myself from thinking of them as real humans, and instead as playing pieces or props being moved around on a board, I didn’t really have a problem with it. In a way, it was like watching an historical epic about larger-than-life figures where you knew the filmmakers were taking massive liberties with the people and events. The movie and the comics are a fantasy, meant to appeal to a certain segment of the population, of which I admittedly am one. And I’m not ashamed of that. We all need a little Marv/ Hartigan/ Dwight/ Nancy/ Gail in our lives. Then we can go watch the Pope’s funeral.
So, with that out of the way, what were my real criticisms? Cuz you know I’ve got some. My main “problem” was that the movie didn’t really seem like a movie. It was a “moving comic book”. There’s a reason no one has ever adapted a comic book this faithfully for the screen before. What works in a comic doesn’t always work on the screen. But if you go thinking you’re going to watch a really-expensive-to-make comic book instead of a movie, you should be okay. At least the movie did make it clearer to me what was going on in some action scenes than the comic did. Speaking of which, yeah the movie is kinda gory – but the action and gore are very unreal, cartoony, and stylish and I was never really grossed out, except maybe when witnessing Kevin’s fate.
The other problem along these same lines is that though I really admired the artistry of the digital sets and am really looking forward to what this technology can accomplish in the future, the painted-in production design made the movie seem very claustrophobic to me. Again, I didn’t really think at any time that I was watching a movie. It felt more like a stage play. This was most evident to me in the tar pit scene from Big Fat Kill. I never once thought that scene was not happening on a small set. A lot of critics had this complaint about Sky Captain, but in some ways, I thought that movie did a better job of opening up the fake space. The outdoor scenes did not seem very outdoorsy, despite the really cool digital rain and digital snow. But those digital sets did get the look of the comic art down right.
“So which was it, Flasshe, a living comic book or a filmed stage play? Make up your damn mind!” I dunno, I just knew it didn’t really seem like a “movie”. But again, I’m not sure that’s a bad thing. At any rate, it sounds like Robert Rodriguez is going to make the movie even more like the comics for the eventual DVD release. According to this interview, he actually filmed every single scene from the comics, but couldn’t include them all in the movie because it would be too long for a theatrical release. The DVD will have the option of watching all three stories complete and by themselves, separated from the rest of the movie. Hmmm, if it’s going to be even more faithful to the comics, then Jessica Alba better be topless this time…
My other problem was with That Yellow Bastard (during which I caught my head drooping for a brief second, so Sin City gets a slight one on the Nod-O-Meter). When I read the story, I was just filled with emotion over what Hartigan went through and the sacrifices he made to protect those he loved. Everything that happened to him just seemed so much worse in the comic than in the movie. I don’t know if that’s the fault of Bruce Willis, or had something to do with the aforementioned non-reality aspect of the characters on-screen. But something was just wrong there. Maybe the restored deleted scenes on the DVD will give me what I wanted out of the story. (I will also say that I thought the missing scenes from the comics make the plot issues that mr. pathetic points out less problematic.)
And, of course, there was the most egregious change from the comics, which I alluded to above. The movie had no problem with nudity (witness Carla Gugino and Jaime King), and yet arguably the most important nude role, that of stripper Nancy, played by Jessica Alba, was curiously non-nude. I’m sure it was part of her contract and all, but really, what was the point? Her overt sexuality is a big part of the character. I’m surprised that strip bar was so popular if the strippers didn’t really… y’know… strip.
That’s my take. The good far outweighs the bad, but I realize there is no way in hell this movie is going to appeal to everyone. So, if this is the sort of think you don’t like, then you won’t like it and you shouldn’t go see it. Everyone else, go to town!
Latre.