Presumably hyped by avante-garde visuals, not substance. (spoilers)

Rating: 6/10 (3 April 2005)

I was disappointed upon having seen 'Sin City' the day after it opened in theaters. I am not immediately a fan of films based on comic books or graphic novels, and have not yet seen (or plan to see) any of the recent slew of adaptations. But, this one caught my eye, probably just as it had tempted everyone else because of the director's (and the art director's) tremendous loyalty to the comic feeling (thanks to the film being directed in part by the comic book's creator, Frank Miller, who knew best how he wanted his adaptation displayed). Making some landmark visual innovations that will long outlive the story and probably be copied or spoof more than the aerodynamic slow-motion sequences of the Matrix or Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon. This is truly the most amazing element of the film, a comic book come alive in nearly every manner from the noir-ish scenery right down to the most minute details of the performers.
However, looking beyond the surface, and getting past all of the consistent hype of 'Sin City,' I found myself rather bored with the plot. The story, probably better understood by loyal fans of Frank Miller's 'Sin City' comics, is essentially a series of stories of revenge. In each, the grizzly, misunderstood male hero comes to the aid of the damsel (or often, damsels) in distress, inflicting the most grueling punishment upon those who have wronged their lovers in one way or another. To me, it reminds me of a series of 'Kill Bills,' though sometimes, the villain appeared anti-climatic. If you place 'Kill Bill,' and the simplistic story of revenge in a black and white context, a 1950s noir setting, with monotoned, drawn out dialog, you have 'Sin City.' The various stories become repetitive, the same grizzly character (who often defied the laws of physics as did Mickey Rourke's character, Marv, did numerous times--he is shot, slugged in the face, or run over with a car in nearly every scene) to the rescue of nearly the same woman played out like a broken record.
Moreover, the filmmakers appeared to be trying so hard to please, given the thin plot. The cautions of extreme violence were no bologna. Gratuitous violence as it was, the only apparent purpose for it (outside of visual novelty such as white blood that stained up men's suits so bad it looked like bird crap and references to the filmmakers like the removal via firearm of Rourk Jr's ear), was violence for the sake of violence. I have seen my fair share of needlessly violent films and do not complain about the fact that it was violent, but for me, even this element became just as tiresome as the plot because, necessary only to fill the time in the story, which was reduced to a black and white simplicity.
I need not suggest that prospective viewers see this movie for the amazing visual innovation it provides, as this was probably responsible for much of the (overrated) hype that surrounds the film (and would this extend beyond the opening weekend?). I would however, caution, that unless you are heavily interested and can tolerate the predictable stories and rather melodramatic dialog, then you would probably fare much better with this movie than I (or any of the other three people I saw the movie with) would. (I would prefer Kill Bill Vol. 2 over this one). But, then again, there's only one way to find out. Right?