Joins "The Matrix" (parts 2 and 3) in being one of those over-rated flicks

Rating: 3/10 (10 May 2005)

This could've been a great one. The look and feel of the film - though over-hyped (everyone jumped on the "what an incredible look!" bandwagon) - was dark and nihilistic, the acting was reasonable, (except for Mickey Rourke - who was _terrific_) and the plot line was quite inventive.
However...
I'm no prude (loving films from Midnight Cowboy to Pulp Fiction), but what have we become when we need that kind of violence and sex to make an impact? Are we really at the point where we say, "If we CAN depict it, then we MUST depict it"? Looking around the theater, one could see all the young white males after whose dollars, we are continually told, the entertainment world lusts. Only some of those males had girl friends or wives loyal enough to accompany them. And what were those loyal women treated to? Some pretty unnecessary and demeaning images.
"But that's Sin City!" you say. Yeah, well... Polanski's Chinatown had its own perverse monster, but we weren't treated to those kinds of images.
It's still a mark of genius to scare us senseless without simply showing us the horror. Sin City is no work of genius.