An Honest Objective Review

Rating: 6/10 (9 April 2005)

I thought that Sin City was a decent noir film, but nowhere near as good as the hype would indicate. Seems like the same audience that loved Kill Bill is falling over Sin City. Violence for the sake of violence. Is there any kind of commentary either Rodriguez or Tarantino are making about violence through the evisceration-a-second action? In the case of both, I don't think they let their work become too intellectual. It's like they put the violence in a pill for you to swallow and you absorb it and dump it a few hours later, end of story. Films like these don't really stick with me because they are a more concerned with reaching the pinnacle of style and being cool.
Mickey Rourke had the most sincere performance stand out from the muddle. Perhaps it is because Rourke starred in one of the greatest noir films of all time, Angel Heart. He didn't have to reach very far, which is not to say he is dialing in his performance, but he excels in the genre. Clive Owen, Rutger Hauer, Rosario Dawson and Benicio Del Toro were the second tier. Everyone else falls somewhere below for the following qualities: posing like a filmed storyboard, acting like an over-directed stand-in with lines, or simply failing to rise above the material, which is not that great to begin with. Classic film noir with a lot of shock value and a slick new film look.
The look is most certainly unique. No doubt that many people will imitate its style in the coming years in a variety of media; print ads, commercial spots, other noir-type films, TV shows, etc.
I suppose if there is any positive to come out of Sin City, it's that murdering a religious figure or corrupt Father through a confessional is the proper radical response to some of the unethical religious intervention in the current political landscape.