There's wrong and there's wrong and then there's this---9/10.

Rating: 9/10 (5 April 2005)

In a film where the lead characters continually absorb the effects of bullets to the body like mere mortals deflecting verbal insults to the ego, 'Sin City' will never ask you nicely to suspend belief for two hours; it will demand that you do so. Once you're able to pass this belief hurtle, the only other obstacles remaining are those that make up 'Sin City's' lifeblood, and very likely, the main obstacle to whether you will love or hate this movie; that is, the relentless violence that is regularly brutal, occasionally gruesome, and at times, surprisingly comical.
How 'Sin City' succeeds in displaying such horrific scenes of violence is that it never becomes stale or boring in the way the images are brought to life. Every frame of 'Sin City' is alive, sleek, clear and beautiful. Never before has the cinema seen such vibrancy and life in the images of darkness and death.
However, the idea of two vastly different tastes being brought together as one is nothing new. Think of any disaster to occur in the world at any time, natural or otherwise, and you'll see that Hollywood has not only made a movie about it, but more than likely, a love story. It should really come as no surprise that someone has finally made a stunningly beautiful black and white film, like say, 'Last Year in Marienbad' and introduced pedophiles and machete's into where there once was love affairs and broken hearts. The American masses will always flock to see a love story set aboard a sinking ship or a doomed air flight, just as long as the lovers are young and hot. And whereas Marv (Mickey Rourke) isn't really much of a looker, 'Sin City' can still boast of featuring some very fine looking women, most notably an angelic Jessica Alba as Nancy. So if the Hollywood love story formula can work for Leo and Kate in 'Titanic', then it can work for Clive and Rosario, Bruce and Jessica, and most importantly, Mickey Rourke and Jaime King in 'Sin City'.
Detractors of the film will be quick to point out that the film glorifies violence and portrays women as nothing more than hookers or strippers. I can't really defend that claim, as much as I would want to. But I would ask, is it misdirected misogyny or simply a virginal veneration? Sure, the female's in the film are either hookers or strippers, but the lead men in 'Sin City', namely being Marv, Hartigan and Dwight, are looking to protect these women, or in the case of Marv, to avenge their murder. Both Marv and Hartigan say at separate times in the film that they don't want the women they're protecting to see the damage they're going to inflict on the males responsible for their crimes against these women. These acts of chivalry constitute the loving heart of 'Sin City'. Yeah, I know, it still doesn't address the misogyny issue, but I never said 'Sin City' was perfect.
Although 'Sin City' is likely to be ignored by the Academy this year, largely due to the rash decision from its maverick director, Robert Rodriguez to include Frank Miller as a Co-Director of the film, make no mistake, 2005 will go down in the film history books as the year of 'Sin City'. 2005 will play itself out as a repeat of 1941. That was the year when the Academy grossly ignored another beautifully filmed black and white masterpiece, 'Citizen Kane'. I'm not saying that 'Sin City' is as good as 'Citizen Kane', but rather that like 'Sin City', 'Citizen Kane' was also snubbed by the Academy due in large part to the brazen indifference its maverick director, Orson Welles showed towards the Hollywood movie making machine. Welles made a film without compromise and paid a heavy price in doing so for the rest of his life. Rodriguez, at the time of the release of 'Sin City' has resigned from the Directors Guild in order to make his film his way, not Hollywood's. I would have to think that Rodriguez won't be ruined by Hollywood, you see, Hollywood has too much to lose. As a side note: I find it terribly amusing that for such a violent movie, Rodriguez's movie isn't one he has necessarily directed, it is a film that he has 'shot and cut'.
Also, how ironic is it that in a film where Mickey Rourke makes a successful comeback, he is all but unrecognizable underneath layers of prosthetics? Tough break Mickey, but you're used to it.
'Sin City' is a grim and breathtaking shot in the arm for the film industry. It is an anomaly of its time, comparative to the type of commercial films being made today. However it should be noted, this shot in the arm will leave track marks, maybe even a festering scab. I love that 'Sin City' exists, but I can't believe a commercial film like this can even exist in the theaters of today.
As it is whispered by Josh Hartnett in the opening segment of the film, "I see a crazy calm". He could've been referring to the character of Kevin as played by Elijah Wood, but it could also be the 'crazy calm' before the storm. In a nation full of scared soccer moms, sound bite Senators and as always, the highly impressionable youth, this movie could end up being the fall guy for all that is ailing America. I almost hope that scenario plays itself out so I can eventually hear our Commander in Chief speak out to the former first lady, "Cover your eyes, Nancy, I don't want you to see this".
And while it's true that there is bad, and there will always be bad, at least for now there is this.
9/10. Clark Richards