Ryan Day
Apr 2, 2005, 01:38 am
<img src="http://www.comixfan.com/xfan/images/movies/dh/sincitylogot.jpg" hspace="10" align="left" width="125">
<b>Directed by:</B> Frank Miller, Robert Rodriguez & Quentin Tarantino
<b>Screenplay by:</b> Robert Rodriguez
<b>Cast:</b>
Jessica Alba .... Nancy Callahan
Rosario Dawson .... Gail
Elijah Wood .... Kevin
Bruce Willis .... John Hartigan
Benicio Del Toro .... Jack Rafferty
Michael Clarke Duncan .... Manute
Carla Gugino .... Lucille
Josh Hartnett .... The Salesman
Michael Madsen .... Bob
Jaime King .... Goldie/Wendy
Brittany Murphy .... Shellie
Clive Owen .... Dwight
Mickey Rourke .... Marv
Nick Stahl .... Junior/Yellow Bastard
Marley Shelton .... The Customer
Arie Verveen .... Murphy
Contrary to the beliefs of my ex-girlfriend, there really is such a thing as being too faithful.
Adapting any work from one medium to another is going to be difficult. The most common problem is going from book to film; it's virtually impossible to tell a 500-page story in a 2 hour movie. Most films simply whittle material until all that remains is the essence of the story. A few films go the other way, maintaining almost a slavish devotion to the original text. The Harry Potter films are a prime example of directors adapting books so literally that the essence of the works themselves become lost amid irrelevant details and the need to cram in every single scene.
But a comic book is not a regular book. Unlike novels, they rely on pictures to tell the story, with text to fill in the blanks. Theoretically, adaptations of comic books shouldn't be as difficult to adapt, since the essence of the work is easily transferable.
However, it's hard to say in practice, since there have been exceptionally few comic book adaptations. Oh, there have been plenty of films <i>based</I> on comic books. But very few adapt specific stories; they're usually adaptations of characters, concepts and themes, perhaps loosely based on one or two original stories. Prior to <i><b>Sin City</b></I>, the only real comic book adaptations have been <i>Ghost World</i>, <i>Road to Perdition</i>, and perhaps <i>American Splendor</i>. Possibly From Hell, but I'd really rather forget all about that.
At a glance, Frank Miller's work on <i><b>Sin City</b></I> seems perfect for adapting to the big screen. Miller's gorgeous black and white art plays like art house cinematography on the page: Big entrances, dynamic action, great angles and intense emotion. More than one observer has compared the pages to movie storyboards, and director Robert Rodriguez clearly picked up on that as well. With <i><b>Sin City</b></I>, a director doesn't need to spend as much time planning shots and sequences; Miller's done it all so well himself.
But while the visuals are ideal for film, one has to remember that Miller's work is highly idiosyncratic. The world of <i><b>Sin City</b></I> is a highly stylized one: It's full of hard-boiled criminals, beautiful femmes fatale and tough guys with codes of honour that would make samurai blush. It's a world largely based on the pulp detective films and novels of the first half of the last century; when reading the books, it's not hard to hear the voices of Humphrey Bogart, James Cagney, Mary Astor and Peter Lorre speaking aloud. It's a dynamic, somewhat eccentric narrative style that works marvellously on the page.
Unfortunately, it works horribly on the screen. Dialogue that reads great on paper can come off as cheesy and cliched when spoken aloud. There are few actors who can say "dame" repeatedly without sounding ridiculous. But the dialogue really isn't the problem; Miller & Rodriguez can get away with a lot because of the style of the film. While there are a few actors who can't pull it off, most of them know their stuff well enough to deliver their lines with the proper tone and flair.
Rosario Dawson in particular stands out with her performance as Gail, the dominatrix of Old Town. It's such a ridiculous role that it would be easy to slip into parody, but Dawson nails it with just the right mixture of drama and humour. Benicio Del Toro's drunken fratboy cop is just about perfect, and Brittany Murphy makes for a nice sultry barmaid. Though she doesn't get to speak, Devon Aoki is quite effective as the silent and lethal Miho. Jessica Alba doesn't get to do a whole lot of acting, but she certainly looks nice.
The three leads - Mickey Rourke, Bruce Willis and Clive Owen - are effective, if unexceptional; playing a stoic tough guy doesn't allow for a whole lot of acting versatility. Meanwhile, Jaime King's performance in the dual role of Wendy and Goldie is absolutely abysmal. She's the most wooden and cardboard actor in the film; she doesn't even manage to act stoic or angry. Of all the actors in the film, she seems to have the least idea of what it's all about.
The biggest problem is the narration. In the books, Miller's narration adds depth to the characters. Internal monologues allow the reader to learn more about their motivation, and it can fill in the blanks between static panels. In the film, though, it just gets in the way. There's almost a constant stream of narration for two thirds of the movie, and most of it is unnecessary. We don't need to hear characters telling us that they're upset, sad or angry; even the most amateur actor can handle that. We certainly don't need the characters telling us what is happening on screen: It's perfectly clear when an actor is reaching for a gun, coughing up blood or hitting somebody, yet all these things are explained.
Beyond the redundancy, though, the narration really does get in the way. Everyone keeps talking. They talk and talk and talk, and while some of it is relevant and interesting, eventually one just gets tired of listening to everyone talk. There's just as much, if not more narration in the books, but the nature of a comic book means it never gets in the way. The captions are off to the side, acting almost as an addendum to the images. In his attempt to be ultra-faithful to the original <i><b>Sin City</b></I> stories, Rodriguez has lost sight of one of the most important aspects: That Frank Miller is an exceptional visual storyteller. Miller never really <i>needed</I> words to tell his stories; they were just icing on the cake.
Despite the fixation on narration, Rodriguez is still an excellent storyteller himself. The visuals of <i><b>Sin City</b></I> are just as good as you'd expect from the combination of Miller and Rodriguez. They've truly given life to Sin City - the characters and setting all seem like they've been ripped from the pages of Miller's books. They occasionally stray too far towards caricature - Mickey Rourke gets lost behind Marv's prosthetic forehead and scars, and the titular Yellow Bastard looks a bit too silly to be truly menacing. But otherwise it's a dazzling visual adaptation, with exceptional design and some outstanding action sequences.
The nature of the visuals - the actors did their work in front of green screens, and CGI backgrounds were added in later - results in some problems. The backgrounds work, but other components don't: Despite everyone standing around in the rain and snow, no one's hair seems to get very wet. A few get slightly damp, but certainly not "walking around in the pouring rain for an hour" wet. Otherwise, the digital touches are nicely done: Certain aspects of characters - clothing, jewellery, glasses - are emphasized, and the touches of colour are dazzling against the grainy black and white.
It all looks great; if only everyone would shut up long enough for the audience to appreciate it. It's no surprise that the most effective sequences are those which cut back both on dialogue and narration; when Miller and Rodriguez let the story tell itself, instead of imposing an artificial and clumsy narrative, the movie really takes off.
The root of the problem - beyond a bizarre compulsion to tell the audience when a character is smoking a cigarette before he's even started smoking it - is that Miller and Rodriguez have been too ambitious in their scope. In amalgamating three of Miller's stories into the movie, they've clearly bitten off more than they can chew. Fitting three stories into two hours doesn't allow for any character development or natural evolution. The plot points are forced to come hard and fast, one after another. Like the excessive reliance on narration, this, too, is contrary to Miller's original work; he allows scenes to play out naturally, for characters to spend several pages doing simple things.
But here, there's no time to relax. There's no time to get to know the characters, either: No time to look at who these people are, or why they're willing to die for their respective causes. It's difficult to form any sort of emotional bond with these characters. Consequently, <i>The Big Fat Kill</I> portion of the story plays out the best, as it's the least reliant upon emotional reactions.
The shifting time frame is also somewhat puzzling. Those who've read the books won't have any problem, but newcomers to Miller's work may wonder why Marv and Kevin are seemingly re-appearing in Hartigan's section of the movie. They do so, obviously, because that's how the book was written, but there's no need for it in the movie.
It's curious, though, that for all the devotion to the original material, there are still a couple of odd deviations. For one thing, Bruce Willis doesn't look like he's sixty years old. He doesn't look like he's sixty-eight, either, and he certainly doesn't look like he could be Jessica Alba's grandfather. One would think that the simple solution would be to either a) cast another actor or b) change the script to reflect the fact that Bruce Willis is fifty, not sixty. One must also wonder why Kadie's, a country and western bar where strippers wear cowboy hats and play with lassoes, is playing electronic dance music.
Robert Rodriguez tried to do a very good thing. He found a work that spoke to him as an artist, and worked with the original author to create a film that genuinely respected and revered the source material. Unfortunately, he made two significant mistakes: He tried to do more than he should have, and he forgot that while they share many similarities, comics and films are still two very different mediums. He clearly had the best intentions, and one can hope that Rodriguez and other filmmakers will still see the value in respecting and properly adapting comics to the screen; there surely must be a happy middle ground between <i><b>Sin City</b></I> and <i>League of Extraordinary Gentlemen</i></b>. <i><b>Sin City</b></I> is a fascinating and ambitious experiment, but ultimately a disappointing one.
SCRIPT
http://www.comixfan.com/xfan/images/reviews/hellfull.jpg http://www.comixfan.com/xfan/images/reviews/hellfull.jpg http://www.comixfan.com/xfan/images/reviews/hellnone.jpg http://www.comixfan.com/xfan/images/reviews/hellnone.jpg http://www.comixfan.com/xfan/images/reviews/hellnone.jpg
CINEMATOGRAPHY
http://www.comixfan.com/xfan/images/reviews/hellfull.jpg http://www.comixfan.com/xfan/images/reviews/hellfull.jpg http://www.comixfan.com/xfan/images/reviews/hellfull.jpg http://www.comixfan.com/xfan/images/reviews/hellfull.jpg http://www.comixfan.com/xfan/images/reviews/hellhalf.jpg
ACTING
http://www.comixfan.com/xfan/images/reviews/hellfull.jpg http://www.comixfan.com/xfan/images/reviews/hellfull.jpg http://www.comixfan.com/xfan/images/reviews/hellfull.jpg http://www.comixfan.com/xfan/images/reviews/hellnone.jpg http://www.comixfan.com/xfan/images/reviews/hellnone.jpg
SPECIAL EFFECTS
http://www.comixfan.com/xfan/images/reviews/hellfull.jpg http://www.comixfan.com/xfan/images/reviews/hellfull.jpg http://www.comixfan.com/xfan/images/reviews/hellfull.jpg http://www.comixfan.com/xfan/images/reviews/hellhalf.jpg http://www.comixfan.com/xfan/images/reviews/hellnone.jpg
OVERALL
http://www.comixfan.com/xfan/images/reviews/hellfull.jpg http://www.comixfan.com/xfan/images/reviews/hellfull.jpg http://www.comixfan.com/xfan/images/reviews/hellfull.jpg http://www.comixfan.com/xfan/images/reviews/hellnone.jpg http://www.comixfan.com/xfan/images/reviews/hellnone.jpg
Like the movie and want more? Disappointed and want to look at the books again? Read our Sin City reviews! (http://www.comixfan.com/xfan/forums/showthread.php?t=32936)
<b>Directed by:</B> Frank Miller, Robert Rodriguez & Quentin Tarantino
<b>Screenplay by:</b> Robert Rodriguez
<b>Cast:</b>
Jessica Alba .... Nancy Callahan
Rosario Dawson .... Gail
Elijah Wood .... Kevin
Bruce Willis .... John Hartigan
Benicio Del Toro .... Jack Rafferty
Michael Clarke Duncan .... Manute
Carla Gugino .... Lucille
Josh Hartnett .... The Salesman
Michael Madsen .... Bob
Jaime King .... Goldie/Wendy
Brittany Murphy .... Shellie
Clive Owen .... Dwight
Mickey Rourke .... Marv
Nick Stahl .... Junior/Yellow Bastard
Marley Shelton .... The Customer
Arie Verveen .... Murphy
Contrary to the beliefs of my ex-girlfriend, there really is such a thing as being too faithful.
Adapting any work from one medium to another is going to be difficult. The most common problem is going from book to film; it's virtually impossible to tell a 500-page story in a 2 hour movie. Most films simply whittle material until all that remains is the essence of the story. A few films go the other way, maintaining almost a slavish devotion to the original text. The Harry Potter films are a prime example of directors adapting books so literally that the essence of the works themselves become lost amid irrelevant details and the need to cram in every single scene.
But a comic book is not a regular book. Unlike novels, they rely on pictures to tell the story, with text to fill in the blanks. Theoretically, adaptations of comic books shouldn't be as difficult to adapt, since the essence of the work is easily transferable.
However, it's hard to say in practice, since there have been exceptionally few comic book adaptations. Oh, there have been plenty of films <i>based</I> on comic books. But very few adapt specific stories; they're usually adaptations of characters, concepts and themes, perhaps loosely based on one or two original stories. Prior to <i><b>Sin City</b></I>, the only real comic book adaptations have been <i>Ghost World</i>, <i>Road to Perdition</i>, and perhaps <i>American Splendor</i>. Possibly From Hell, but I'd really rather forget all about that.
At a glance, Frank Miller's work on <i><b>Sin City</b></I> seems perfect for adapting to the big screen. Miller's gorgeous black and white art plays like art house cinematography on the page: Big entrances, dynamic action, great angles and intense emotion. More than one observer has compared the pages to movie storyboards, and director Robert Rodriguez clearly picked up on that as well. With <i><b>Sin City</b></I>, a director doesn't need to spend as much time planning shots and sequences; Miller's done it all so well himself.
But while the visuals are ideal for film, one has to remember that Miller's work is highly idiosyncratic. The world of <i><b>Sin City</b></I> is a highly stylized one: It's full of hard-boiled criminals, beautiful femmes fatale and tough guys with codes of honour that would make samurai blush. It's a world largely based on the pulp detective films and novels of the first half of the last century; when reading the books, it's not hard to hear the voices of Humphrey Bogart, James Cagney, Mary Astor and Peter Lorre speaking aloud. It's a dynamic, somewhat eccentric narrative style that works marvellously on the page.
Unfortunately, it works horribly on the screen. Dialogue that reads great on paper can come off as cheesy and cliched when spoken aloud. There are few actors who can say "dame" repeatedly without sounding ridiculous. But the dialogue really isn't the problem; Miller & Rodriguez can get away with a lot because of the style of the film. While there are a few actors who can't pull it off, most of them know their stuff well enough to deliver their lines with the proper tone and flair.
Rosario Dawson in particular stands out with her performance as Gail, the dominatrix of Old Town. It's such a ridiculous role that it would be easy to slip into parody, but Dawson nails it with just the right mixture of drama and humour. Benicio Del Toro's drunken fratboy cop is just about perfect, and Brittany Murphy makes for a nice sultry barmaid. Though she doesn't get to speak, Devon Aoki is quite effective as the silent and lethal Miho. Jessica Alba doesn't get to do a whole lot of acting, but she certainly looks nice.
The three leads - Mickey Rourke, Bruce Willis and Clive Owen - are effective, if unexceptional; playing a stoic tough guy doesn't allow for a whole lot of acting versatility. Meanwhile, Jaime King's performance in the dual role of Wendy and Goldie is absolutely abysmal. She's the most wooden and cardboard actor in the film; she doesn't even manage to act stoic or angry. Of all the actors in the film, she seems to have the least idea of what it's all about.
The biggest problem is the narration. In the books, Miller's narration adds depth to the characters. Internal monologues allow the reader to learn more about their motivation, and it can fill in the blanks between static panels. In the film, though, it just gets in the way. There's almost a constant stream of narration for two thirds of the movie, and most of it is unnecessary. We don't need to hear characters telling us that they're upset, sad or angry; even the most amateur actor can handle that. We certainly don't need the characters telling us what is happening on screen: It's perfectly clear when an actor is reaching for a gun, coughing up blood or hitting somebody, yet all these things are explained.
Beyond the redundancy, though, the narration really does get in the way. Everyone keeps talking. They talk and talk and talk, and while some of it is relevant and interesting, eventually one just gets tired of listening to everyone talk. There's just as much, if not more narration in the books, but the nature of a comic book means it never gets in the way. The captions are off to the side, acting almost as an addendum to the images. In his attempt to be ultra-faithful to the original <i><b>Sin City</b></I> stories, Rodriguez has lost sight of one of the most important aspects: That Frank Miller is an exceptional visual storyteller. Miller never really <i>needed</I> words to tell his stories; they were just icing on the cake.
Despite the fixation on narration, Rodriguez is still an excellent storyteller himself. The visuals of <i><b>Sin City</b></I> are just as good as you'd expect from the combination of Miller and Rodriguez. They've truly given life to Sin City - the characters and setting all seem like they've been ripped from the pages of Miller's books. They occasionally stray too far towards caricature - Mickey Rourke gets lost behind Marv's prosthetic forehead and scars, and the titular Yellow Bastard looks a bit too silly to be truly menacing. But otherwise it's a dazzling visual adaptation, with exceptional design and some outstanding action sequences.
The nature of the visuals - the actors did their work in front of green screens, and CGI backgrounds were added in later - results in some problems. The backgrounds work, but other components don't: Despite everyone standing around in the rain and snow, no one's hair seems to get very wet. A few get slightly damp, but certainly not "walking around in the pouring rain for an hour" wet. Otherwise, the digital touches are nicely done: Certain aspects of characters - clothing, jewellery, glasses - are emphasized, and the touches of colour are dazzling against the grainy black and white.
It all looks great; if only everyone would shut up long enough for the audience to appreciate it. It's no surprise that the most effective sequences are those which cut back both on dialogue and narration; when Miller and Rodriguez let the story tell itself, instead of imposing an artificial and clumsy narrative, the movie really takes off.
The root of the problem - beyond a bizarre compulsion to tell the audience when a character is smoking a cigarette before he's even started smoking it - is that Miller and Rodriguez have been too ambitious in their scope. In amalgamating three of Miller's stories into the movie, they've clearly bitten off more than they can chew. Fitting three stories into two hours doesn't allow for any character development or natural evolution. The plot points are forced to come hard and fast, one after another. Like the excessive reliance on narration, this, too, is contrary to Miller's original work; he allows scenes to play out naturally, for characters to spend several pages doing simple things.
But here, there's no time to relax. There's no time to get to know the characters, either: No time to look at who these people are, or why they're willing to die for their respective causes. It's difficult to form any sort of emotional bond with these characters. Consequently, <i>The Big Fat Kill</I> portion of the story plays out the best, as it's the least reliant upon emotional reactions.
The shifting time frame is also somewhat puzzling. Those who've read the books won't have any problem, but newcomers to Miller's work may wonder why Marv and Kevin are seemingly re-appearing in Hartigan's section of the movie. They do so, obviously, because that's how the book was written, but there's no need for it in the movie.
It's curious, though, that for all the devotion to the original material, there are still a couple of odd deviations. For one thing, Bruce Willis doesn't look like he's sixty years old. He doesn't look like he's sixty-eight, either, and he certainly doesn't look like he could be Jessica Alba's grandfather. One would think that the simple solution would be to either a) cast another actor or b) change the script to reflect the fact that Bruce Willis is fifty, not sixty. One must also wonder why Kadie's, a country and western bar where strippers wear cowboy hats and play with lassoes, is playing electronic dance music.
Robert Rodriguez tried to do a very good thing. He found a work that spoke to him as an artist, and worked with the original author to create a film that genuinely respected and revered the source material. Unfortunately, he made two significant mistakes: He tried to do more than he should have, and he forgot that while they share many similarities, comics and films are still two very different mediums. He clearly had the best intentions, and one can hope that Rodriguez and other filmmakers will still see the value in respecting and properly adapting comics to the screen; there surely must be a happy middle ground between <i><b>Sin City</b></I> and <i>League of Extraordinary Gentlemen</i></b>. <i><b>Sin City</b></I> is a fascinating and ambitious experiment, but ultimately a disappointing one.
SCRIPT
http://www.comixfan.com/xfan/images/reviews/hellfull.jpg http://www.comixfan.com/xfan/images/reviews/hellfull.jpg http://www.comixfan.com/xfan/images/reviews/hellnone.jpg http://www.comixfan.com/xfan/images/reviews/hellnone.jpg http://www.comixfan.com/xfan/images/reviews/hellnone.jpg
CINEMATOGRAPHY
http://www.comixfan.com/xfan/images/reviews/hellfull.jpg http://www.comixfan.com/xfan/images/reviews/hellfull.jpg http://www.comixfan.com/xfan/images/reviews/hellfull.jpg http://www.comixfan.com/xfan/images/reviews/hellfull.jpg http://www.comixfan.com/xfan/images/reviews/hellhalf.jpg
ACTING
http://www.comixfan.com/xfan/images/reviews/hellfull.jpg http://www.comixfan.com/xfan/images/reviews/hellfull.jpg http://www.comixfan.com/xfan/images/reviews/hellfull.jpg http://www.comixfan.com/xfan/images/reviews/hellnone.jpg http://www.comixfan.com/xfan/images/reviews/hellnone.jpg
SPECIAL EFFECTS
http://www.comixfan.com/xfan/images/reviews/hellfull.jpg http://www.comixfan.com/xfan/images/reviews/hellfull.jpg http://www.comixfan.com/xfan/images/reviews/hellfull.jpg http://www.comixfan.com/xfan/images/reviews/hellhalf.jpg http://www.comixfan.com/xfan/images/reviews/hellnone.jpg
OVERALL
http://www.comixfan.com/xfan/images/reviews/hellfull.jpg http://www.comixfan.com/xfan/images/reviews/hellfull.jpg http://www.comixfan.com/xfan/images/reviews/hellfull.jpg http://www.comixfan.com/xfan/images/reviews/hellnone.jpg http://www.comixfan.com/xfan/images/reviews/hellnone.jpg
Like the movie and want more? Disappointed and want to look at the books again? Read our Sin City reviews! (http://www.comixfan.com/xfan/forums/showthread.php?t=32936)