Stylish and entertaining. Loved the first and the third acts. The second act feels out of place.

A

Wow

Just saw the movie yesterday.

What a disgusting movie. However, I can't deny it moved me and I love it in some ways.

Spoilers-

I don't have much to state other than to comment on the faults and flaws of the movie. I felt like the whole Yellow Bastard story line made no sense. Why does Madison's character shoot Willis' character, but let him live? Why don't they just abduct Nancy when she is eleven? Why do Willis and Madison and Yellow Bastard's henchmen not age in 8 years, but Yellow Bastard looks like he has aged 30 years? I didn't understand the fact that Kevin was just reading on the porch, wouldn't he have liked to get in on the Jessica Alba action? I assume the finger sent in prison was one of his hooker lunches (or Lucille's but that seems to have happened later), so there was some cooperation between Kevin and Yellow Bastard. Also the fact during the Long Good-bye you know Nancy is ok, because Marv takes Wendy to him before he goes after Cardinal Roark. So that took away some of the suspense. The other thing that really bothered me is that Bruce Willis is supposed to be pushing 60 in the beginning of the story so he is at least 65 when he gets out. He doesn't look like any 65 yo ex-cop I have ever seen.

Otherwise a great movie all the actors gave A performances, Mickey Rourk, Clive Owen, Rosario Dawson, Britney Murphy, Elijah Wood, and Benicio Del Toro gave A+ performances. There are some scenes that beautifully captured that out of this world nightmare surrealism of great comics, especially Marv's death scene and Kevin's death scene.

End of Spoilers-

Miss Rand created the fictitious Roark based on the artistic principle of what men "might be and ought to be" -- meaning individualist like him -- Christopher Columbus, Galileo, Thomas Jefferson, Frank Lloyd Wright, Bill Gates -- can and do exist. Roark embodies what she coined the benevolent universe premise, "the conviction that joy, exaltation, beauty, greatness, heroism, all the supreme, uplifting values of man's existence on earth, are the meaning of life -- not the pain or ugliness he may encounter."

http://theai.net/passion.html

Was Cardinal Roark's name Howard Roark? I thought when Marv went to his statue he said his name was Howard Roark. Did I miss hear? Anyways the scene reminded me of the Fountainhead and the main character in the movie as in the book was Howard Roark. I tried to read the book, but it made me sick. I have seen parts of the Fountainhead movie and for some reason that scene reminded me of the Fountainhead. Was Miller critiquing Rand's superman philosophy: to allow powerful/great men the freedom of no constraints? It seems to me the Roark family is the embodiement of that philosophy gone berzerk, leading to destruction for themselves and misery for the society they supposedly serve. To me it seemed like Miller was implying with this movie that everyone needs to be held accountable or we end up in Sin City.

Awesome movie: A/A-

Yay, another fan of the awesomeness

C+

Very mediocre.

The visual style can't make up for a lame plot, poor writing, and halfway decent acting. Everything was very blahish. Had Sin City not been so visually fresh, I would have given it a D.

GO AWAY... :razz:

At any rate, am I the only one that thinks Sin City was better than ROTS?

Nope. Sin City is still the only film I gave an A to this year so far... ](*,)

Nope, Sin City is easily the better of the two

ooOOoOh man, what a HUGE letdown for me

im going with the minority, The visuals for sure were outstanding the acting and cast were great too, but the story was sooOooOOOOoo boring and ridiculously stupid..... *sigh* so unrealistic, i know its a comic but still, it didnt work for me


im so disappointed....

C >> Just because of the Visuals

=D> I'm with ya.

This movie was pretty crappy.

Uh im dissapointed to. Visuals are top nuff said. But the whole thing feels fragment and to long. Sure there were different Episodes told but I didnt really feel for a Char or anything. The violence is comic and I dont know what should be so extrem and be bad about it. (Frodo rocks though)
It could have been an epic gangsterstory in a damn sexy dress. So its only a nice movie to watch.......
So I give 6.5/10. Special yeah but that makes it not neccessarely an outstanding classic.
6.5/10

I agree that it is only really good for watching once. I liked it when i saw it in the theaters, but even then i felt it went on a little too long. The visuals were great but a movie can't last for 2 hours just by looking nice, there has to be more and Sin City didn't have more. I didn't care for the way that people didn't die unless they were shot like 3000 times and even then sometimes they lived while some others died from a few shots. The only character i really liked was Kevin and that may have been because he didin't go on and on and on with the voice-overs, plus he creepy and kicked ass. I was rooting for him and wanted Marv to die!

Saw this a couple months ago but thought I'd give thoughts.

All right, so basically half-way through, I knew this wasn't the film that I wanted it to be. Yes, it's very very pretty and the stylistic use of color is kind of interesting, if not a little too blatantly stylistic. But the stories just did nothing for me. Though I found each one entertaining on its own merit, I found none of them compelling, and while I thought the film would conclude with some type of thread that tied each of the stories together, that thread wasn't substantial enough to elicit any real interest from me. It all just felt very incomplete to me.

B-

Sensational. I'm a sucker for Film noir and this one did recreate the feeling perfectly. Plus it is visually a treat like no movie I've seen in years. How this one was not considered for the Oscar is beyond me. One of 2005's best. A-

Yeah, same here. The visuals were great at first, but after a while they seemed more like a gimmick. One of my least favorites of last year easily.

I agree with you on the visuals, but why wasn't it considered, might it be the repetitive/boring storylines and the back acting (Jessica Alba I am looking at you)?

Or the fact that it is one of the most over-rated films in recent memory?

Actually I thought that Alba delivered the only bit of bad acting in the entire film and considering such a big cast that is pretty good. Mickey Rourke deserved an Oscar nom.

I don't I think alot of people thought is was shite.

In the end I respect Robert Rodriguez more then Ilike him, as I have pretty much disliked most of his films. Once Upon a Time in Mexico, Sin City, and Spy Kids 3-D are terrible, Desperado is highly overrated and pretty damn dull save for a few scenes. Spy kids is hte only film of his I thin is decent, its a decent kids film but as an adult I found it dull, at 8 though I would have liked it and it had its moments. I love what Rodriguez does, making films outside Hollywood, cheaply and tkaing risks, but why can't he make a good film.

The scene with Josh Hartnett was by far the best part of Sin City, unfortunately the rest of the film did not live up to that scene which was released early and made me very excited for this film.

Shush, From Dusk till Dawn rocks!

And all Spy Kids films are average/bad.

I didn't see from Dusk till Dawn or El Mariachi.

I didn;t see Spy Kids 2, but at least the first one is better then alot of kiddie flicks, but for adults I found it dul and average. I want to like Rodriguez, I really do, but he just cannot seem to make a film I actually like.

I hear El Mariahi is good, when I start renting films again I will give it a chance.

FDTD is great, my favorite vampire film ever! You HAVE to see it!

Also, George Clooney is in it, so you have another incentive.

I'll consider it , it depends on how I feel about El Mariachi.

Sin City is at least better then Once Upon a Time in Mexico, one of the most boring films released in recent years.

I didn't mean considered for Best Picture, but for F/X, camera, editing, etc.

FDTD is boring

No, YOU are boring.