Good, but overrated

Rating: 7/10 (6 September 2005)

The lighting, direction and effects in this movie were all tremendous. Simply put, there is no way that this movie could have been made 15 years ago because the special effects would not likely have been capable or affordable to manipulate the shots in every single scene. I do not believe that you can hold that against a film, however, unless there is no plot to go along with the mass of effects (i.e. War of the Worlds).
So it has come to this, though. Sin City certainly lives up to its name in telling a story with no real redeeming morality. Duh, it is called SIN city. For about half of the movie, I kept laughing at all of the violence because it was fairly comical. After the initial hour, though, I kept wondering if this is what our society has come to. Does it really require this much violence to keep us entertained? Even if it is not required, why do people keep asking for so much violence? I am not an advocate for any sort of censorship, but I am an advocate for personal responsibility for each individual. It is possible that I started thinking about this because the Clive Owen portion of the story wasn't really all that interesting to me.
Sin City was entertaining, but I didn't fell that it was as interesting as its comic counterpart, Dick Tracy. There is a much more modern feeling to SC than there is in DT, but I don't know if that is a good thing. I found the characters and art direction in DT more interesting, perhaps BECAUSE it didn't rely on special effects. I really don't understand why there is such a mismatch between the two in ratings. Sin City was good, but I wouldn't consider it a great film. It seems to me that a lot of people like this one because it makes them seem sophisticated. Its just one man's opinion.