Sin City was a waste of time and talent

Rating: 1/10 (7 April 2005)

Why the hell do people like this so much? Sure, the cinematography was cool to an extent -- it looked way better in the commercials than in theaters -- but the movie itself bored the hell out of me. Now let's reiterate that I am a fan of the three-act paradigm; that is, introduction to movie and characters with some character development, culminating in a conflict that must be resolved. The middle part of the movie (act 2) consists of working towards that resolution, and is usually referred to as the plot. And then finally the the characters arrive at the resolution, and you get a conclusion.
Sin City tried to do this by fitting 3 or 4 different stories together in one movie. I lost count because rather than have 4 subsequent stories, they inter-weaved between the stories so often that I honestly sat in my seat just hoping that the next fade-to-black would bring end credits, yet thinking "Well how could they do that? There's no resolution, is there?" When the movie finally did end, rather than end on the note of a resolution reached in a storyline involving Bruce Willis' character - which would've left a better taste in my mouth and seriously affected my overall rating, they ended it with bringing back a character not seen in over 2 hours for the most anti-climatic ending this movie could possibly have concluded with.
I give it 2 out of 5 stars. Why not one? Because each story on its own wasn't so bad and might have succeeded on its own as its own movie. But when I find myself being tossed back and forth and not even knowing that I am coming back to a previous story, having been lead to think it had ended, I then find myself just wanting it all to conclude.
2 out of 5