Sin City

I was really looking forward to Sin City, partly because of the advertisement that thundered that there hasn't been anything like it before, and also because so many well-known actors were involved in this miracle... I mean film. That's why the final form disappointed me. Robert Rodriguez didn't understand the fundamental difference between the two media, and his admiration for comic book material completely blinded him. It's as if someone decided to film a novel word for word, sentence by sentence. It would be a monstrosity, as these are two completely different media. The same applies to the relationship between comics and films, even though they are closer due to the emphasis on visual elements. Sin City lacks what makes a film a film - a film script. The comic reader imagines the story between the panels, so the author works with exaggeration and the comic stimulates the imagination. This doesn't apply to the film, which requires more dialogue and character development so that they don't remain flat figures. Sin City is nothing more than a moving comic. It cannot satisfy fans of either medium. Certainly, it is visually interesting, even captivating at first glance, and the women embody the erotic fantasies of many men. But that's just not enough... Overall impression: 55%. (26.08.2007)

When a devoted director decides to adapt my most beloved comic book, frame by frame, with such an array of talented actors, it can only result in the highest rating. Bruce Willis and Clive Owen were simply born for Hartigan and Dwight. (16.04.2006)

SIN CITY is the first faithful conversion of comics as a pop art genre to the silver screen. Unlike the overwhelming majority of episodic film narratives that borrow the story and certain typical features of comics, Rodriguez subdues the "language" (stylization of the narrative) to the original platform for which the stories were created. Apparently, the author of the comics, Frank Miller, has the lion's share of the film's suggestiveness and persuasiveness, thanks to which SIN CITY really feels like the moving strips of his noir rhapsody. Add to that an unusual share of descriptive monologues and truly gourmet work with color, and we have on the autopsy table the most formally perfect remake we have ever seen. And the content? It works, Oh My God! The bleak world of criminals, pimps and scarred people has the proper magnetism, and while the stories are usually very perceptible and marked by illogical things that are not issues in the comics, SIN CITY maintains an incredibly intense atmosphere, mixing noir roughness and naturalism, bordering on sadism. The psychology works, and all three main representatives give their best, each on their own, each flawlessly. I'm a little sad about the self-purpose of Marva's story... there is simply a strong poetic moment missing, such as Valkyrie’s revenge or Hartigan's solution to the stalemate. But the truth is, I have to work hard to find mistakes. I' did have to ask myself from time to time what it's all about, what it’s leading to... but that's an irrelevant question. Just to the film itself. To mature and rugged poetics that have no competition... In its own perverted way, SIN CITY is a caricature of today's world, and a smile at its black humor tends to freeze on one’s lips. The enjoyment of postmodern decadence - the City of Sin! (23.07.2005)

What a great experience! Captivating comic-book stylisation, great characters and a very entertaining story. With someone dying almost every minute, there’s a constant parade of new characters, but it doesn’t come with the problems associated with the need of introducing someone new all the time, it comes at neck-breaking speed. I don’t know why I postponed watching this film for so long. 9/10 (06.06.2009)

Black and white paper cut-outs in action. So far the most faithful, but unfortunately not the best ever comic book adaptation. Unlike the hard copy version, this lacks atmosphere. The extreme imbalance between all parts of this adds to the disappointment - especially the fluctuating quality of separate tales and of acting performances are particularly frustrating. What works in the comic book looks at best “interesting" here, if it doesn’t actually annoy you (for instance the monologs - less is more or, put otherwise: why repeat what killed the original version of Blade Runner?). Up until the end of “The Hard Goodbye", there isn’t much to fault, but then things go haywire, and everything turns 180 degrees. It’s certainly worth watching, the creators did it their way and, if they learn from their mistakes before the sequel, next time it really could be what we are waiting for. (17.04.2005)