Sin City: From the Comics to the Screen

March 31, 2005 9:08 AM

Sin City: From the Comics to the Screen - Film Rotation offers up a side-by-side comparison of stills from the movie's trailer to panels from Frank Miller's comics.
posted by Robot Johnny (59 comments total)

No wonder Rodriguez insisted on co-directing with Miller.
posted by JPowers at 9:12 AM on March 31, 2005

I know nothing of this film, but it appears it could just as easily be called MAX PAYNE.
posted by AMWKE at 9:14 AM on March 31, 2005

I hated it--it's a cynical, vicious piece of work. It looks good, but the violence is disgustingly over-the-top, and frankly, the stories aren't very good. Real film noir is something other than an endless barrage of severed limbs and heads stuffed in toilet bowls. My Sin City review.
posted by muckster at 9:18 AM on March 31, 2005

It's probably more accurate to say MAX PAYNE could be called "Sin City: The Game."
posted by Cyrano at 9:19 AM on March 31, 2005

Max Payne is a pale imitation of Miller's style.
posted by sonofsamiam at 9:20 AM on March 31, 2005

To combat the poor reviews above, consider it's Metacritic score of 71.
posted by JPowers at 9:24 AM on March 31, 2005

...and a Rotten Tomatoes score of 75
posted by Robot Johnny at 9:27 AM on March 31, 2005

The always-excellent Scott Tipton does a quick pre-movie walkthrough of the Sin City comics here, if you want to know a little bit more about where this all came from.
posted by COBRA! at 9:31 AM on March 31, 2005

Those scores are bound to drop once the heavyweights weigh in. So far, the only person on those pages I trust is J. Hoberman, and he panned it. I'd be surprised if Dargis, Edelstein, or Denby go for it, but ya never know...
posted by muckster at 9:33 AM on March 31, 2005

Time Magazine ("Sin City is brazenly, thrillingly alive.") and Variety ("For geeks, action freaks and sensation-seeking teenage boys of all ages, the price of admission will provide a one-way ticket to hard-boiled heaven.") aren't heavy weights?
posted by JPowers at 9:38 AM on March 31, 2005

I'll hold judgment until I see the movie, but the comparisons to the comics have me at least hopeful that despite anything else, the movie will be a treat for the eyes.
posted by Robot Johnny at 9:44 AM on March 31, 2005

NY Times review
posted by skwm at 9:49 AM on March 31, 2005

Sounds good. I love it when a film is gets either extreme praise or ridicule, it usually means a film is challenging and interesting.
posted by bobo123 at 9:50 AM on March 31, 2005

And if you liked "Sin City's" trailer, chances are you might get a kick out of Richard Linklater's latest, "A Scanner Darkly."
posted by JPowers at 9:51 AM on March 31, 2005

Looking forward to seeing the movie. It's pretty clear that this is a movie by comic geeks, for comic geeks. It's too -- er, "hard-boiled", I believe, is the word we're supposed to use? -- for broad appeal. If studios discover that they can make a movie like that and still get the ROI they need, maybe we'll see more superbudget kickass niche films from the heavy hitters.

Nah, that's basically saying "maybe Hollywood won't suck so much". I'll believe it when I see it.
posted by gurple at 9:51 AM on March 31, 2005

Roger Ebert gave the movie four stars, but his review is distressingly similar in tone to his four-star review for Sky Captain and the World of Tomorrow, one of the worst movies I saw last year ("In its heedless energy and joy," said Ebert, "it reminded me of how I felt the first time I saw Raiders of the Lost Ark. It's like a film that escaped from the imagination directly onto the screen, without having to pass through reality along the way.")
posted by Prospero at 9:53 AM on March 31, 2005

That's not the review yet, skwm. JPowers, those are not reviewers I'd place any trust in; they're boosters. And bobo123, if you want to see a challenging and interesting film this weekend, try Look at Me. It's just about the best thing I saw last year, and it's a shame that an honest, serious, sweet, funny, complicated and true movie like this isn't getting a shred of the hype that a piece of vile crap like Sin City is generating.

But I'm also looking forward to Scanner Darkly. That's because unlike Rodriguez, Linklater cares about his characters.
posted by muckster at 9:59 AM on March 31, 2005

It looks good, but the violence is disgustingly over-the-top,

Hoberman in the Village Voice had the same complaint:

The problem is that the humor is less predicated on violence than sadism. Limbs are sliced, jaws cracked, faces regularly beaten to a bloody pulp. There's an exceptionally graphic electric-chair scene—"Is that the best you can do, you pansies?" the executionee laughs as the top of his head sizzles off—and, in another quasi–money shot, Rosario Dawson bites a chunk out of a stoolie's neck.

I read similar objections to Once Upon A Time In Mexico, but it maintained a tone that worked for me. This sounds more like the tone of Hannibal, and I'd be inclined to give it a miss for the same reasons.
posted by Armitage Shanks at 9:59 AM on March 31, 2005

That's not the NY Times review, I think, it's a feature article about the film.

And I doubt it's rating will drop too far once the "heavyweights" turn up. In fact, I suspect it might even go up a little. Most of the negative reviews so far seem to be from people who disapprove of the film on some moral level - which is their perogative, or course, but not something that crops up too often amongst high-profile critics, who at the very least must give the impression of objectivity.

We don't get this in the UK for another two months. Yes, I am somewhat annoyed by this.
posted by flashboy at 10:01 AM on March 31, 2005

...it's a cynical, vicious piece of work...

Well...it is frank Miller, after all. Can't say I've ever been a huge fan of Miller's stuff, pretty much for those exact reasons, but I definitely will go see this.
posted by Thorzdad at 10:01 AM on March 31, 2005

Art criticism is nothing more then prejudice made plausible. I'll form my own opinion about the movie after I see it, thanks all the same mass media.
posted by Vaska at 10:18 AM on March 31, 2005

"You know you’re gone beyond run-of-the-mill movie violence you need to use the plural for 'castrations.'"

Hey, I still liked a certain other movie that dealt with the removal of ones "Johnson". Oh well, I'm still holding on to a shred of hope until tomorrow when I can make my assessment.
posted by thanatogenous at 10:24 AM on March 31, 2005

When is Gene Shalit going to weigh in on this one? I only see movies he recommends.
posted by helvetica at 10:36 AM on March 31, 2005

Muckster makes me want to see this flick more and more.
posted by angry modem at 10:37 AM on March 31, 2005

But I'm also looking forward to Scanner Darkly. That's because unlike Rodriguez, Linklater cares about his characters.

Dude. Keanu Reeves is playing Arctor. Keanu worst fucking actor in the history of film Reeves. How much could he possibly care? A Scanner Darkly is going to be worthless. At least Sin City, by all accounts, is a faithful representation of the source material, which I enjoyed reading. On preview, what angry said.
posted by eyeballkid at 10:46 AM on March 31, 2005

I'll see it with my grandmother.
posted by NickDouglas at 10:49 AM on March 31, 2005

eyeballkid: reeves is the latest in a series of bad casting by dickie linklater. dude put ben affleck in dazed and confused, and seems to think that ethan hawke -- the rod mckuen of thespians -- is talented enough to carry four movies. so the casting of reeves surprises me not a whit.
posted by pxe2000 at 10:50 AM on March 31, 2005

Blood, guts, and extreme violence... Rated R.

Some bush, a cock, and some lovemaking... Rated NC-17.

What a country!
posted by eas98 at 11:04 AM on March 31, 2005

Keanu Reeves is playing Arctor.

Plus Wynona. And it's based on a Dick novel. If only Christian Slater could have gotten in there we might have the preconditions of a movie that could face down Showgirls.

Poor, poor Philip and his mangled works.
posted by lumpenprole at 11:09 AM on March 31, 2005

I'll form my own opinion about the movie after I see it, thanks all the same mass media.

Mass media is grateful for your $10.
posted by Armitage Shanks at 11:23 AM on March 31, 2005

Hey I liked Sin City the graphic novel things when I was in school – we used to pass them around and while the narrative and characterisations were hardly intelligent (no, I am not being moralistic) the visual style had a wonderful expressionism to it. If only someone with an intelligent sense of narrative (or even anti-narrative) got a hold of it…fans of Jack Hill are not the right type.

I have not seen this film, nor intend to (except for free, like a few minutes on a plane or on tv, etc) as I do not want to support mainstream Hollywood with my money, but saw the posters for it plastered about. I’m not interested in how violent it is. It’s just that a film where Jessica Alba is near the top of the bill is dubious in concept. I doubt she could carry a 30 second cereal ad, much less even a minute of film

Firstly, anyone who directed Spy Kids 3-D under a name other than Alan Smithee deserves nowt but technical respect – and is as much part of the trash machine as Miss Congeniality 2. Just for a different demo. To compare it to Noir is pretty crude – the current structure of Hollywood makes such a transgressive genre impossible in the mainstream.

Robert Rodriguez is up on the tech and likes comics – big deal. Lots of people have the tech, just few are mates with the overrated Quentin. He can make commercial films cheaply – nobody should care as the likes of Mario Bava made better ones, with subtext and artistry, for less money, in another time.

(Phew. Sorry to rant. Its just I am a fan of real noir and a bitter film geek I guess. If you’re into this, don’t be offended – I’ve got mates into far, far more meritless movies!)
posted by The Salaryman at 11:55 AM on March 31, 2005

I'm still going to see this, but after reading the comics I'm convinced there still is no way they are going to make anything but the roughest translation to film. The fact is despite Rodriguez' best intentions, there are so many midtones and shades of grey (not to mention extra colors) that all he really is doing is shooting in high contrast black and white. This project should have been given to Linklater's team for computer-aided rotoscoping instead of trying to emulate the style with flesh and blood characters. Too many comprimises had to be made for this movie - but I have yet to see it, so I'm still hoping it will be at least decent.
posted by BlackLeotardFront at 11:55 AM on March 31, 2005

I was simply bored throughout much of it, which is too bad since I was really looking forward to it.

I have no problem with unflinching violence but it was without reason and the stories being told weren't interesting. The Clive Owen arc was the closest to having some kind of thought behind it other than "what if this guy kills a bunch of people. And the constant narration was annoying, they should just have gone all the way and use speech bubbles instead of actual dialogue.

I looked at my watch 90 minutes in certain that we were well past the two-hour mark.

Robert Rodrigeuz has an amazing sense of the visual, unfortunately Rodriguez isn't much interested in story. Some day I hope he ends up with a good one.

Every single woman was hot though.
posted by obfusciatrist at 12:01 PM on March 31, 2005

I just want to see Ben Hawkins get his murder on.
posted by robocop is bleeding at 12:04 PM on March 31, 2005

...should have been given to Linklater's team for computer-aided rotoscoping

No thanks. I can't stand that Flash-looking rotoscope stuff.
posted by Robot Johnny at 12:11 PM on March 31, 2005

Apparently Scanner Darkly was going to be a straight live-action piece. But then they thought if they did the paint over job they could actually get Keanu displaying some form of emotion.

I hope it's a single raised eyebrow. For every emotion.
posted by Navek Rednam at 12:13 PM on March 31, 2005

Has anyone who's looking forward to A Scanner Darkly both seen the trailer and read the book? Linklater's butchered it.
posted by kenko at 12:17 PM on March 31, 2005

I've read "A Scanner Darkly" a whole bunch of times and loved the trailer. Dick was not exactly renowned for character development, and how would you do the suits without some kind of animation/CGI?

pxe2000: have you actually seen Dazed and Confused? Affleck is only in it for five minutes, and it's one of his first roles (way before he became Ben Affleck, superstar). What's your beef?
posted by bobot at 12:37 PM on March 31, 2005

I loved it. I saw a sneak last week, and I thought it was an amazing piece of art. I think the bottom line is: if you think you'd like it, you probably will. If you think you won't, you won't.

It is slavishly faithful to the comics, so if you like those, you'll love this.

I'll have a review up later today on my Web site (shameless plug). In the meantime, I'm giving away a Sin City lunchbox and a "Death Row Marv" action figure.

I bought them on a whim before I was married. My wife has been after me to get rid of them for years. This seemed like a good time to give them away and have some fun at the same time.
posted by hipnerd at 1:21 PM on March 31, 2005

The problem with "Scanner Darkly", from what I can tell from the trailer, is the same problem with Linklater's other rotoscoped movies - it's animated, yes, but it doesn't look any different from a regular movie.

I mean, if you're working in animation, you have free rein to make the characters and the sets look any way you want - and he makes them look, well, pretty much like they already are. If you're gonna do that, then what's the point of animating? Cheap special effects?

As for Sin City, I give Rodriguez props for having the vision, patience and industry clout to pull a look like that off. That said, his movies are boring and mindless as all fuck.

(Disclosure: I had a couple of college film classes with Rodriguez, and he was every bit the egomaniac you'd expect. But I'm sure that's an advantage in Hollywood.)
posted by fungible at 2:47 PM on March 31, 2005

bobot: where i'm from, five minutes is too much. [grins]

i was trying to think of another example of linklater: stunt casting nightmare. this came instantly to mind. i should have stuck with keanu, winona, and ethan "shutcher piehole, cockface" hawke.
posted by pxe2000 at 5:19 PM on March 31, 2005

Sin City thusfar seems to have the look, feel, and violence of the Frank Miller stories. Good enough for me.

Another butchering of a Philip K. Dick story featuring a cast I don't particularly care for. Damn. I'll probably see it, anyway. True, he's not so great with the character development, but Reeves? Graaaagh!

Someday, someone's going to make a true-to-the-book movie based on a Dick story. With good actors.

Someday.
posted by The Great Big Mulp at 5:34 PM on March 31, 2005

Wow, my site has been MeFi'ed!

Color me flattered...
posted by mediamelt at 8:02 PM on March 31, 2005

Manohla Dargis:

The soporific vibe isn't helped by the fact that "Sin City" has the muffled, airless quality of some movies loaded with computer-generated imagery. The film feels as if it takes place under glass, which makes conceptual sense, since the characters don't bear any resemblance to actual life: they don't have hearts (or brains), so there's no reason they should have lungs or air to breathe. At the same time, Mr. Miller and Mr. Rodriguez's commitment to absolute unreality and the absence of the human factor mean it's hard to get pulled into the story on any level other than the visceral. When stuff goes blam, you jump like someone who's landed on a whoopee cushion. But then you just sit there, wrap yourself in the dark and try not to fall asleep.

posted by muckster at 8:06 PM on March 31, 2005

Re: the "co-directing" thing, when you see the movie, you'll notice that Rodriguez actually gives Miller top billing. As in,

"Directed by Frank Miller
and
Richard Rodriguez"

Oh, and William Gaines gets a thank you along with Jack Kirby, et al, at the end. I think that matters, for all you, "oh, it's so *cynical*" types who can't see humor in violence.

For what it's worth, I thought it was one of the better mainstream movies I've seen in a long time.
posted by mediareport at 8:10 PM on March 31, 2005

Er, Robert, not Richard.

*rips off own testicles with bare hands*
posted by mediareport at 8:12 PM on March 31, 2005

Yes, but he gives himself "Shot and Cut by Robert Rodriguez." Frank Miller gets half of whatever is left after that.
posted by muckster at 8:59 PM on March 31, 2005

Still seems like an unusually generous division of spoils, muckster. In a very clear way, Rodriguez gave Miller top billing, and there aren't a whole helluva lot of directors who'd bother doing *that*.
posted by mediareport at 9:16 PM on March 31, 2005

Bob Arctor was described as intentionally bland when out of his druggie character, right? I haven't seen the trailer yet (can't see it right now), but considering that Bob Arctor's two roles are druggy and bland guy, it seems like Reeves is actually a pretty good choice.

And, on rereading, I realize that it sounds like I'm making a really sarcastic dig at Keanu, but that isn't the case. I do think he's bland, but I'm being sincere in saying that he seems like a good choice for Arctor, as opposed to a lot of people who would ham it up where ham is anathema.
posted by bugbread at 9:31 PM on March 31, 2005

I don't disagree, mediareport; just added that for accuracy's sake. I respect that Rodriguez dropped out of the Director's Guild to give Miller the credit, too. If only the movie were better....
posted by muckster at 9:39 PM on March 31, 2005

I'd be surprised if Dargis, Edelstein, or Denby go for it, but ya never know

So far: Edelstein loves it, Dargis is bored by it. Denby still M.I.A. as far as I can tell.

As I tend to agree with Edelstein's reviews (with some exceptions) I'll probably see it.
posted by Kattullus at 7:34 AM on April 1, 2005

Kattullus, I was very surprised by Edelstein's review. Stephanie Z seems to dig it, too.
posted by muckster at 7:43 AM on April 1, 2005

When is Gene Shalit going to weigh in on this one?

I like when Rex Reed calls anything "a delightful summer romp."

I'm headed off to see it tonight - anyone who's read the graphic novels (and enjoyed them) who's seen the movie like it?

I'll admit, it's noirish (the comics) not noir. But "A Dame to Kill For" is noir.
It's just the new stuff.

I'd say a noir for this century would be old cyberpunk, but that's a bit out of fashion (Matrix sequals messed them up with the mystic tripe).

Miller's (comic) visuals are stunning. But the stories do have value and there is depth of character despite being low on transformation.
I actually enjoyed the sparce nihilism there (and the violence of course) it points up the desparation. Too many writers (comic & Hollywood) are too kind to their characters.
...whether this translates well to the big screen, well, I'm off to see.
posted by Smedleyman at 5:49 PM on April 1, 2005

Hey, for what it's worth, I loved it. I hadn't read Sin City, nor really knew what it was about, but I came away really pleased with the experience. Of course, I'm into that kind of thing....
posted by malaprohibita at 8:15 AM on April 3, 2005

Saw it...

*SLAM* [head slamming table]

The visuals were great. But the stories lost most of their heart.
They're mostly stories of very bad men trying to do good things in the bad way they know how.

And the kinetic action didn't translate. Too...cartoony.
Also TOO MUCH COLOR.

It's LIKE when you USE CAPITALS FOR EMPHASIS. If you USE CAPITALS TOO MUCH IT stops being AN ACCENT AND STARTS BEING IRRITATING.
Not that there's any GLARING EXAMPLES OF THAT IN THE MOVIES IN RECENT MEMORY (schindler's list *cough*)

I suppose I can't blame anyone but the system. Miller isn't a movie maker. Some of the stuff worked.

Marv lost all his pathos though. Mickey Rorke...sigh.

Too cartoony - too superheroic. Marv was tough only because he was 7 and a half feet tall.
He didn't have some kind of super powers. The high powered action could have been done without using the bugs bunny schtick or becoming X-Men noir.


Just viewing on it's own, as a movie...it was worse.

It was watchable, but all the worse for that.

I keep hearing from people that Star Wars 1 wasn't good because people were comparing it to childhood memories.

That's crap. I saw Star Wars again recently, still holds up. Some big holes, but still a very likable movie.

Sin City was the inverse. Brilliant, but no heart.

....what's the story with Hollywood movies lately being technically miraculous (Aviator comes to mind) but ultimately heartless?
You have to give them credit for flawless performace, but one can be technically perfect and still not have the....oh, say character to be a concert pianist.

Same music, same technique, but a true artist gives it something better.

Ah well, I'm going to go cry in my beer.
posted by Smedleyman at 7:35 PM on April 3, 2005

I've never read Miller's books, and I didn't have much of a preconceived notion of what the film was about going in.

I loved it.

Sure it was a little hammy at times, but that's part of the retro-style.

No complaints here, I'm buying the dvd when it's released.
posted by Radio7 at 1:33 AM on April 4, 2005

I disagree with the Star Wars comment, if anything it no longer has heart. The whole epic hero myth was destroyed by Lucas. He needs to be killed. Or castrated.

As for Sin City, I think it's respectable if only for the fact that it transforms comics to film better than any other movie before it. I liked the color accents and I like the overall style of the movie. Granted, some of the stories were a little lackluster, but I thought it was entertaining and somehow beautiful.
posted by craven_morhead at 8:04 AM on April 4, 2005

Eh.

Dark Knight, had it been given this treatment, would have been far superior.
posted by ZachsMind at 9:23 AM on April 4, 2005

Read Sin City several years ago, saw the movie yestersday.

I think it is the best "film" adaptation of a comic ever.

My girlfriend and I were on the edges of our seats, cringing and flinching with each new disgusting facet...

Kudos Robert Rodriguez and Frank Miller!
posted by schyler523 at 11:13 AM on April 4, 2005