The future of comic conversions...finally

Rating: 9/10 (6 June 2005)

Very rarely do I feel compelled to submit my humble opinions on this website (mainly because I find the anally-retentive, obsessive nature of most posters quite taxing). However, Frank Miller's Sin City has rekindled a passion and respect for "multiplex " movies that I had long thought extinguished. For too long Hollywood has churned out rehashed, derivative, production-line mediocrity, with many studios simply seeking money and putting the art firmly in the back seat. To see a film such as this, a film so blindingly fresh, makes me believe there might still be hope.
As an earnest fan of graphic novels and a former film student I have waited in vain for a faithful, unrestrained comic conversion. After numerous disappointments it's finally happened. Despite not being a particular fan of all of Miller's books I have read some of the Sin City novels and found them quite enjoyable. However, I think that the film surpasses it's comic incarnation in some ways. This leads me to comment on some other reviewer's opinions that the film is "style over substance". As with any adaptation, the end product can only be representative of the source material. The nature of graphic novels (and comics in general) is very stylised, particularly the violence. Arguably the style IS the substance in that medium. Many people have complained of the excessive brutality in the film. I think this misses the point. I have a strong stomach and admittedly I also found myself feeling a bit bothered by the mindlessness of the characters actions at times. Yet, I found this worked in it's favour and only made the film stronger. After all, isn't violence supposed to be abhorrent and repulsive?
The film's characters and plot threads might not be particularly original. This doesn't matter. It displays it's reference points boldly on it's sleeve. One man's cliché is another mans archetype. This film's freshness comes from the performances and, most obviously, it's striking visual approach. This must be one of the first times I have actually forgotten that I am looking at CGI. No mean feat considering this film is almost entirely green screen. Instead of the usual "hey, look how clever we are...here's Jar Jar Binks" approach, the synergy between foreground and background is almost seamless. This is how CGI should be used, to accentuate themes and events, not replace them.
The stellar cast put in admirable performances, most notably Mickey Rourke. This is perhaps his best film since Angel Heart. He sinks his teeth into the role with gusto, much like John Travolta did in Pulp Fiction. It's strange how many actors need to drift into near obscurity before they pull out all the stops. It seems to give them a hunger and poignancy that might otherwise be lacking. Let's just hope the shouts of "comeback" don't go to his head! Elsewhere Bruce Willis earns respect as his usual brooding self. Clive Owen was perhaps miscast but is still menacing and very watchable. Benicio Del Toro is as sleazy and majestic as always. Elijah Wood was suitably eerie, without actually uttering anything (perhaps for the best ) and Nick Stahl was equally repellent as The Yellow Bastard. As for the female characters, some people have complained of misogynistic representation. I can see their point but at the same time would ask them to remember the context these characters are in. I would also argue that the female characters are some of the most powerful in the film. In particular Rosario Dawson whose character commands every scene she is in and Devon Aoki who slaughters more people than almost anyone else in the film. If the film is to be considered a homage to Film Noir, I defy anyone to show me an example in that genre where the "broads" and "dames" are this empowered or don't just swoon helplessly at the leading man.
This really is Miller's vision realised, faithfully and uncompromised. It is exactly the kind of bold audacity and artistic integrity, shown here by Robert Rodriguez and Frank Miller himself, that Hollywood has sorely lacked in recent times. This film is not meant for your average, blockbuster-consuming, movie goer However, why should films try to cater for everyone? After all, most true film fans have favourite genres and tend to stick to them and defend them vehemently. Many films try to appeal to all tastes and usually end up appealing to none. By aiming for such a specific demographic the films creators have shown guts and given a big middle finger to an otherwise played out and stale studio system. Even if you don't like this film you have to respect that