Wow, I've already read this movie...

Rating: 9/10 (3 April 2005)

...and it's still great. But definitely different. I didn't know what exactly to expect after the opening scene with Josh Hartnet, and after seeing it I understand why everyone has said everything they've said about this movie. The acting isn't really a mixed bag, it's just a different style of acting. It's intentionally over the top. Same with the violence and the characters themselves, this isn't a realist film. This way too cool to be a realist film.
What set the tone for me is and was my guide-track for the rest of the flick was Micheal Madsen's portrayal of Hartigan's partner. I couldn't help but gasp in wonder at what I was watching. It seemed off, compared to what I've seen him do before. He's not a bad actor, so why is his performance so laughable in the delivery? Whatever the reason, it was consistent throughout the performance so it obviously was intentionally done in the way it was. Well, beside Madsen's performance, I felt that the acting was great, with Mickey Rourke and Bruce Willis being the standouts. Jessica Alba did fine with what she was given to work with - any problem you've got with the character or the dialog or whatever, that's because it was written like that. I personally found her to fit the character fine and she did a great job.
Another example of this different style of acting was in the scene at the beginning of The Big Fat Kill, where Jacky Boy is trying to get into the apartment and Britney Murphy, with her back to the door, sort of strikes a pose (write out of the comic) and delivers the lines. That sort of took me out of the experience. In fact several moments like that took me out of the movie and made me think of what it was I was watching. There was one shot in particular of Marv spinning in the middle of a spiral pattern that made me realize I was watching the comic.
My only gripe, which goes against the dopes who're complaining that at 2 hours and 6 minutes the movie is way too long (whereas pulp fiction was 2 and a half and the LOTR were all over 3 hours, go figure people), there is one moment near the end of the movie where I thought they should've held on it for an extra 3 seconds or so. If they had done that, then the end wouldn't seem like a drawn out action sequence, but would instead have the audience wanting the hero to take out the villain, to get the happily ever after noir story, which would've made the payoff at the end actually pay off. Sorry if that doesn't make much sense, but I don't want to blow the story for you guys. Other than that it was great and compelling in terms of the story that was being told, and perhaps something was lost in merging the stories together to form the feature film length but it was a hell of a lot of fun.