could have been great, RUINED with ridiculous violence.

Rating: 6/10 (3 April 2005)

I'm at the point where brutal and repulsive violence for the sake of entertainment doesn't work for me. Sin City is the most original looking movie I've ever seen, and I enjoyed the faithful translation of Frank Miller's stark and beautiful artwork. The old-time film noirish dialog was well done and a pleasure to listen to. Mostly the actors did a great job in their roles, especially Mickey Rourke, and I enjoyed his story the most compared to the other 2 or 3 in the movie. It's disappointing that Sin City could have been a spectacular film achievement but was ruined for me because of the ridiculous violence. I'm not usually squeamish or a pansy , and I realize that the violence is in the graphic novels, but seeing it on the big screen is different. I think it's a cop out. It's easy to emotionally affect the audience with increasingly inventive human physical suffering, but making something entertaining through dialog, character and story is hard. Violence as entertainment is lazy. I realize that it's over the top and cartoonish, and that it obviously doesn't bother many others as we can see from the reviews here. Still, why is chopping someones arms and legs off and then letting a dog eat at the wounds entertaining? How is slicing the front of someones neck so they become a human pez dispenser entertaining? While they're still alive and talking? Yes it's funny but it's also repulsive and stupid. How is ripping someones grotesque yellow genitals off interesting to watch? Do you feel good after you leave the theater? Well, it ain't for me, which is the reason I haven't seen any of the Kill Bill's yet, and probably never will. I'm tired of the moronic brain-dead violence, call me when you develop some real talent and don't need to resort to that to entertain an audience. I only gave it a 6 out of 10.
Otherwise, Sin City is definitely worth seeing. It's a stunning work of film-making art.