Logan Sork Film Reviews
Sin City
Sin City was a film that managed to intrigue me after viewing a couple of stills and clips from the film years before viewing it. It had such a unique feel and style that I couldn’t help but want to watch it. For the longest time I intended to, however life got in the way and prevented me from doing so. After a long while, I finally sat myself down to view Robert Rodriguez’ Sin City and I was entertained… well for the most part. On the one hand, the film has beautiful imagery, a unique use of CGI and digital sets as well as interesting vignettes with great performances anchoring each one. However, the film has several problems that prevent me from calling it a great movie, though there is still plenty of good to be found along the way.
Sin City is directed by Robert Rodriguez along with special guest directors Frank Miller and Quentin Tarantino and is based on Millers graphic novel series of the same name. The film is an anthology, featuring various stories of criminals and anti-heroes set in the heart of Basin City. Along the way we are introduced to several characters, each with their own score to settle. These include Marv (Mickey Rourke), a vigilante searching the underworld for his lost love, Hartigan (Bruce Willis), a cop who does everything he can to protect a child from a serial killer, and an ex-prostitute (Brittany Murphey) working to avoid her abusive ex-boyfriend with the help of her new love (Clive Owen). In each story, we learn the hardships, tragedies and () that come with living in a place like Sin City.
From a visual standpoint this film is absolutely gorgeous. Rodriguez utilizes green screens and very little practical set pieces to create a stunning recreation of Frank Miller’s iconic visual style. In doing so, the film looks both bleak and depressing yet starkly beautiful. Because the set pieces are entirely synthetic, the filmmaking team is able to manipulate each shadow and light source to ensure that each shot is absolutely perfect. And while the film is predominantly black and white, there are certain colors that are inserted and digitally exaggerated. These additions not only make for nice accents but also serve as subtle undertones depending on the stories being told. Because the set pieces, lighting and color are all digitally altered, there may be some time required in order for you to get used to this visual aesthetic. Once you are adjusted, you will enjoy every beautiful (and sometimes disturbing) noir image that leaps onto the screen.
The performances from the cast adds some nice contrast when compared to the visuals. Where as the visuals are over the top when it comes to the overall aesthetic of the film, the performances are much more subdued. The subtlety of each performance works not only to compliment the visual of the film but to ground the characters and make them more relatable as they work through their trials and tribulations. The real standouts of the film are Clive Owen, Bruce Willis and Mickey Rourke, as each actor really embodies each character whether it be though mannerism, makeup or sometimes both. There are also some standout performances from the supporting cast as well, most notably Rosario Dawson as a tough as nails defender of the underworld and Nick Stahl as a grotesque serial killer. Unfortunately, most of the female characters in the film are objectified in various ways. There are a couple of standouts that break that rule, but for the most part, the film’s depiction of women isn’t exactly pleasant. One could make the argument that that is typical of this type of story, but still- objectification is objectification.
This leads me into some to of the film’s other problems, most notably it’s many narratives and how they are presented. As mentioned before, the film is an anthology- meaning that there are multiple stories being told featuring different casts and characters. Films like this would do either one of two things- tell the stories as separate entities or have crossovers with one another. Here, the writers choose to do a little bit of both, meaning the stories are connected with each other… but they’re not. It’s difficult to explain, but there will be some stories that feel like they end only for them to pick up much later after having spent time with a completely different group of characters. Sometimes certain characters will pop up in other stories for seemingly no reason, leading to each perspective story feeling convoluted. As it stands, each individual story is engaging, but the filmmakers can’t find a way to balance the stories with one another. Had the stories converged with each other over the film it would’ve made for a much more interesting viewing experience, more akin to a puzzle, than a standard anthology piece. As it stands though, the stories while good are not told in the best way.
In the end, Sin City is an entertaining but flawed anthology film that tires it’s best to tell engaging personal stories with style and mostly succeeds. If you can get over the treatment of certain characters and the confusing way in which the stories are handled, you will find a film with great visuals, powerful performances and enough style to keep your eyes occupied even when the substance isn’t exactly great.
6.5/10