not quite going along with the pack of others- I recommend Sin City, but...

Rating: 8/10 (7 August 2005)

...I think that maybe I have seen too many movies in this vein and style, or I have been privy to too much in the realm of dark, violent, and intriguing noir stories, but there's just something about Sin City that doesn't quite make it a masterpiece, at least for me. I wouldn't dare tell you to not see the film, especially if you're in its target area (if you look at the IMDb votes, the primary 10's are given by those under the age of 18, or 18-29, mostly males), and for auteur Robert Rodgriguez (his number of credits practically solidifies him as one), he has here achieved a different style that stands out pretty well in today's muck of Hollywood films. What can be criticized, I think, is with Frank Miller, who is more of the brain, brawn's, and flaws of Sin City as writer/co-director of the film, and originator of the comic books this film is practically copied and pasted by.
I have read a couple of the Sin City comics, and I have no doubt that Miller is a gifted artist. But as a storyteller, he's hit or miss for me. Not that I am unaware of what goes into these noir stories- there's the consummate anti-heroes (haunted cops, big tough guys with a heart), the strong femme fatales, and the twisted, corrupt villains. Yet even in the best parts of Sin City there's something, well, too expectable. Not to say the actors don't do what they can or there's not enough juice in it. But at times I felt Rodriguez, through Miller, was so faithful to the original text (he called it a 'translation' as opposed to an adaptation), some of the real interesting parts were left behind. There is something in Rodriguez/Miller that speaks of talent and strength, but also total dependence on standards in the genre(s).
There is no question that the content in the film is rather graphic and surreal in the violence (the ripping off of various body-parts, blood sometimes red or b&w or yellow), and on the visceral level I mentioned it serves the brutality of the stories. Take Elijah Wood's character, Kevin, whom he plays with perfect stone-cold, calm insanity. He is likely the most violent character in the film (Marv is violent, though mostly by defense), even if we don't see him committing these violent acts. Scenes involving him and Marv (Mickey Rourke, also one of the highlights of the film) are well shot, but somehow I felt a kind of by-the-numbers quality as well. It's strange to say it, and many will not feel the same way (many have commented on the film's brazen originality, which I do and don't see), there is something about the film that tries so much (and maybe too hard) to be easily liked.
Rodriguez, in keeping with a very similar storytelling style of his friend Quentin Tarantino, is confident, but because it's a familiar style, it doesn't make the last segment- That Yellow Bastard- as exciting/unpredictable as it might have been as the last segment. The Big Fat Kill, which Clive Owen and Benicio Del-Toro's characters (I preferred the later's performance, Owen in his one-tone voice isn't as effective as Del-Toro) should have been last and made for a more effective ending. The story itself involves strippers, a bad-ass cop (Jackie-Boy, Del-Toro) who barks up the wrong tree, a scary hoodlum (Michael Clarke Duncan), and a possible gang war. This segment includes some of the better parts of the film, however overall feels like the weakest. There's more interest in the core of Marv and Hartigan (Bruce Willis, also good) in their stories, but with the Big Fat Kill there are, like in the other parts, flashes of genius without a distinct direction.
It's not to say that Rodriguez doesn't have his strengths as a filmmaker, but one can sense when the style shifts in Tarantino's directed segment. Throughout the film, Rodriguez and Miller test with the possibilities of different colors amid the black and white texture used in the completely digital backdrop. Aside from the Yellow Bastard (Nick Stahl, not quite as terrifying as Wood's Kevin), the usage of different colors isn't as fulfilling as one might expect. Except in the Tarantino scene; it reminded me of a cross between a crazy scene in an Italian horror film (Del-Toro being a zombie in Owen's head space) while including a color layout of an art film that was unique. This is one of the best scenes in the film, and something about Tarantino's direction- even within the confines of Miller's writing- rises a little above (some of) Rodriguez's work.
I've realized more on the subsequent repeat viewings- which do reveal there's more to take in than at first is apparent- that Sin City is, more often than not, a good success of style over substance- the film should've received an Oscar nomination for visual effects, and even cinematography, as it is of a highly professional quality. Rodriguez and Miller, in being so in love with the technology and look of the film at their disposal, at times miss what possibilities are in the actors, what they can do with the story. Aside from some exceptions, the performances in the film are less than great, trying to sound too much like how one would picture it. The difference between a modern film-noir like Pulp Fiction and a modern film-noir like Sin City isn't necessarily with the story, but how real the actors get with the characters. 'Pulp' does that, while Sin City doesn't as much, at least to me. It's got a lot of skill and juice, at times excellent, but there's something missing in it. A-