Sin City
Sin City (Directors: Robert Rodriguez, Frank Miller, and Quentin Tarantino)
Rodriguez has a lot of enjoyable films. My favorite is From Dusk Till Dawn, then you have three Spy Kids movies, and the OK series of El Mariachi, Desperado, and Once Upon a Time in Mexico. Some like The Faculty, I'm not one of them. This is not the first collaboration with Tarantino, either. You have the Tarantino-scripted Dawn, then there was the so-called "Sundance Class of '92" film Four Rooms co-directed by both with Alexandre Rockwell and Allison Anders. Frank Miller created the graphic novels of Sin City, and he didn't want it to become a movie until Rodriguez came along and filmed a segment in exact detail with his drawings--hence a movie that uses Miller's drawings as storyboards and Rodriguez' insistence he get a director's credit, something the DGA wasn't going along with, so Rodriguez dropped out of the DGA.
And boys, this ain't the classic I was hoping it would be, as is the Rodriguez MO for most of his films. A man with a lot of geek-boy talent, he made El Mariachi with no money and it has more thrills than some of his movies combined. The look of this film draws you in, it's ultra-cool, like Sky Captain did. It's got an incredible cast. It's got a Pulp Fiction pedigree, with the loosely connected stories. What's missing? Substance. Out-and-out substance. You'll read Harry Knowles' review on AICN and think that you're going to see the best film of all time, and he makes the curious statement of saying this is the best film in which either director has been a part, which is a huge disservice to Tarantino, where Fiction and Jackie Brown, the Kill Bills, and Reservoir Dogs trump this. Personally, I think El Mariachi and From Dusk Till Dawn from Rodriguez' own oeuvre beats this.
What we have here is a lot of posing. There's a lot of gee-whiz-that's-cool, imagine-the-possibilities type of stances here. There are cool scenes here. Lots of action, hardly any is important to the driving of the stories--where Fiction gets a lot of kudos. You can geek out all you want about how this looks, how cool the characters are, but ultimately, story trumps everything. And there's not any kind of story here that could enjoy a legendary status. Film this without the green screen and put it on location, and you see where the flaws of this movie are.
Yes, I like Mickey Rourke's Marv character--he's a frickin' badass, out to avenge the death of his hooker sweetheart Goldie (Jaime King). He seemingly dies a hundred times only to come back, as you'll find with most of these characters. I really liked Elijah Wood's Kevin, who is the most fascinating character but doesn't really get his own story--he's like Travolta in Pulp Fiction but with no side story.
Another story involves Benecio Del Toro as Jack Rafferty, who has a thing for the hookers--played by Rosario Dawson, Alexis Bledel, Jaime King, and Devon Aoki (another badass--is there anyone who isn't?). Clive Owen's Dwight, currently dating Brittany Murphy's Shellie, has a run-in early on with Rafferty, and gets in the middle of a hooker-police-mob war. This leads to the Tarantino segment with Owen talking to Del Toro in a car on the way to the Le Brea Tar Pits.
Then you have disgraced cop Hartigan (Bruce Willis), who protected 11-year-old Nancy Callahan (Makenzie Vega) from the pederast senator's son Junior (Nick Stahl), who is framed and given 8 years in prison, and afterwards hoping to find the grown-up Callahan (Jessica Alba) and once again have to protect her from the reincarnated Junior, now Yellow Bastard.
Where the film really missed out, and possibly the novels, since it's apparently pretty faithful, is introducing mystery or mysterious characters and not developing them. The intrigue comes from the opening scene, with The Salesman (Josh Hartnett) and The Customer (Marley Shelton). The Salesman's story bookends the film, and I wished to have more. I wanted more Kevin in this, his eyes glowing white with a sci-fi buzz. Instead, the movie is all sensation, killing, and this floats a lot of people's boats--but not mine. When you attach these names to a film, you expect, and should get, more--in this case...dammit, story!
It's a movie that has its thrills, I could see it again--which is saying more for this than your typical movie like Guess Who. It's better than most films, just not better than what you'd hope, and in that way, it's a strange, happy, failure.
posted by Chris @ 3/31/2005 12:09:00 PM
4 comments
4 Comments:
Man, I've been waiting all day (and checking the blog every few minutes) for your review of this film...as you had previously told me you'd be watching it last night.
I gotta say, I'm disappointed, but not surprised. It certainly has a lot of buzz and good word of mouth, but it seems that most of that is due to the visual flair. You make something look cool enough, and a lot of people will ignore the problems it has (and that goes for more than just movies too).
Oh well. Sounds like there's still a ton to enjoy, and I'll probably still see it. But I've seen enough movies with you to know that 99% of the time we agree.
Question: Why is Pixar the ONLY studio who has figured out the all-important status of the story?! What, at the end of the day, is the point of blistering visuals, mind-blowing effects, and superb animation...if there's no story?!
Pixar could put out a movie with just the freeze-frame storyboards and early temp-track voice-work and it would still tower above other films...because of story.
If Rodriguez wants to get all jazzed about certain shots or about reinventing comic-book cinema...then he should just be an effects artist, or a cinematographer...not a director and writer. Am I making any sense?
The comments being made about this film are a lot like SKY CAPTAIN, only with Rodriguez you're getting those people who are completely off their rocker and have lost impartiality. Rodriguez and Richard Linklater have a lot in common, only Linklater is looking to experiment with story and narrative while Rodriguez wants to experiment with technology (witness this and SPY KIDS 3D). I think he SHOULD be an effects artist. Story hasn't been a strong suit for Mr. Rodriguez.
I will be checking out this movie, but I have a feeling you've hit it dead on, Chris. But after my previous posted experiences this year at the cineplex, a good visual flair might actually be enough to put me in a better mood.
I would also like to add I've gone back and read your other reviews from this year, and you are now like my favorite reviewer. You rank right up there with the likes of Roger Ebert and even the late Pauline Kael in the sense that you actually make reviews fun to read. I'm not saying I always agree with you. Hell, you've been a lot nicer to films this year than I would ever think of being. But to each his own. I mean there's always someone who will like "Hide and Seek," and always someone who will like "Club Dread." That's what makes the world go round I guess.
You both make great points about Rodriquez. Even in his best film to date, "From Dusk Till Dawn," the best part is the first half and you almost have a sense that Tarantino directed that more than Rodriquez did. But I will say this about Rodriquez, the man makes likable films; what they lack in the story department they almost make up for sometimes in the energy and excitement he displays in his work. This is a man who truly loves what he does; hell, he can't stop working. He makes usually two movies a year it seems like. That doesn't necessarilly make him a great movie maker, but it's nice to see the love he has for film squeezed in to every frame of his films.
Post a Comment
<< Home