I Saw Sin City

[DavidSloan]

I've seen this film twice, already, and I can't recomend it enough. I feel like this is the film Robert Rodriguez has been trying to make, and finally nailed it.

 

I particularly enjoyed how cinematic the film is. The use of uber hard lighting, camera angles, and sound, provided a powerful, visceral feeling of a dark, grim, nightmarish world. The landscape is especially moody, and works perfect to portray the moral ambiguity of Sin City. And Mickey Rourke as Marv...you have to see his performance to believe it.

 

I can't wait to hear other people's comments. I suspect that this film will make a big impact on the action genre.

 

So who else has seen this neo noir on steroids?

Edited April 2, 2005 by DavidSloan

[drew_town]

Going tonight.

[Matt Pacini]

"uber hard lighting" as opposed to just... hard lighting?

[drew_town]

I saw Sin City last night and thought it was a pretty good movie. Definitely a violent little flick. I thought a lot of the photography was really good but some parts were a little blah. I liked the use of shadows and window/door frames the most. Really great angles on those shots. I loved the black and white basic-shape silhouettes the most. Very impactful. I was actually expecting it to be a lot more stylized than it was. I thought it was more of a talkie movie than an action flick. There's a lot of narration. I actually found myself yawning through some parts. I wasn't REALLY intrigued until the extreme abstract moments in the film. The dinosaurs in the "pit" were cool and I loved the introduction of Bruce Willis's second scene. The guy with the yellow face was cool. I liked that scene the best. Best cinematography- Bruce Willis behind bars. Great lighting and camera angles and movement. Good performance from Bruce Willis. I thought he stole the show. All in all, I thought it was pretty good. I am, however, not sure it's going to stand the test of time. I think it'll go on the list as another Matrix- really good until technology dictates otherwise.

 

One more thing too- the 24p looked rather stroby. It was distracting. It wasn't like that in Collateral.

[Shaun Joye]

I saw it and also thought the cinematography was great. I know a lot of people seem to love this movie... I'm not sure why. The voice over was droning on thoughout the whole thing. So why did Robert Rodriguez choose to rely on voice over instead of making a real film? I'm a firm believer, as a filmmaker and cinematographer that the visuals should speak for themselves. It'd probably be a better film with the sound off. It makes me sad when I see really good cinematography in really poorly written movies, but I guess Rodriguez only has himself to blame.

[Alessandro Machi]

I know a lot of people seem to love this movie... I'm not sure why. 

 

The movie was just released two days ago, no? How could so many people seem to love the movie already? It's probably more of a case of the reporters thinking they are reporting the next great movie "innovation" and gushing for that primary reason.

 

Reporters and media tend to be quite the whores when it comes to reporting about the new gadget versus old fashioned hard work. A big corporation pays the salary of the reporter and the corporation cannot profit from a feel good behind the scenes story unless... the story glamorizes one of their advertisers products.

 

RR is a bizarre mix of the "ultimate in independent filmmaking" who also spot on promotes the desires of big business, the selling of the same widget to 10 million different people, who then will need all the "upgrades" for the next several years.

 

Glad to read that parts of it looked good, RR is definitely a craftsman.

[DavidSloan]

I saw it and also thought the cinematography was great.  I know a lot of people seem to love this movie... I'm not sure why.  The voice over was droning on thoughout the whole thing.  So why did Robert Rodriguez choose to rely on voice over instead of making a real film?  I'm a firm believer, as a filmmaker and cinematographer that the visuals should speak for themselves.  It'd probably be a better film with the sound off.  It makes me sad when I see really good cinematography in really poorly written movies, but I guess Rodriguez only has himself to blame.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

The use of V.O was fantastic. It wasn't droning at all, it was relentless and pounding. It almost reminded me of the V.O in Gaspar Noe's film: I Stand Alone. If you have ever read a comic book you would know that V.O or "think ballons" are used extensively to bring you inside the character's mind. I thought RR captured that comic book feeling, perfectly. Bravo, Mr.Rodriguez.

 

@Matt: there are different grades to hard lighting, wouldn't you say? :rolleyes:

[Phil Rhodes]

Hi,

 

> One more thing too- the 24p looked rather stroby. It was distracting. It wasn't like

> that in Collateral.

 

That's presumably - and this is an informed guess- because it was 1/48 or faster shutter 24p, because they weren't short of light, whereas Collateral was using the slower shutter speed because they were.

 

Of course, it's possible that Rodriguez was using some even narrower shutter period to further grittify his comic-book adaptation; is there an article out on it yet?

 

Phil

[Rik Andino]

I saw it on friday & the cinematography was very good

I couldn't even tell it was shot on HD (had I not known it was shot on HD)

Unlike Collateral where I could tell it originated in a video format.

 

I like some of the stylized shots and some of the work with colors

However the use CG wasn't always that appealing

(Especially in the car chase scenes)

And the CG rain fx was Horrible! (with a capital H)

 

& Unlike Collarteral the directing wasn't as great as it could have been...

Which I've always felt has been Rodriguez weakness

 

He's on the verge of falling into the same illness as Lucas

Becoming more concerned over the technical look of the film

And less over the emotions portrayed by the Actors

And learning who has chemistry with who and who doesn't...

 

I think some actors were good but many fell flat and needed more direction

And the use of such a big allstar cast didn't work for it...

Most stars couldn't get past their own star status to play a believable character

 

Oh there's Benecio Del Toro pretending to be a crooked cop

And there's Jessica Alba trying to play a stripper

 

I must say though Mickey Rourke stole the show--

He made Bruce Willis look like a wannabe compared to him

This might be the comeback year for Mickey Rourke

He's also in Domino coming out later this year

 

 

One thing I can tell you though it'll raked in a SH*TLOAD of money

(Which ultimately is what matters in the movie BUSINESS)

It probably made close to 40 mil this opening weekend--

People were mobbing this film...

 

With such a big bang for a film opening in April

Leaves you wondering how Star Wars & War of the Worlds will fare?

[Matt Pacini]

"... @Matt: there are different grades to hard lighting, wouldn't you say? :rolleyes:

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

Oh sure, but uber? I don't recall seeing that in the cinematography manual...

Sorry, it's one of my pet peeves; inserting "cool sounding" foreign words & phrases for no reason just makes me cringe.

Sounds pretentious.

 

Another one of my pet peeves, is when businesses use cutesy misspellings in their name, like there is a shop near here called "Kiddie Korner".

Ugh.

OK, I know it's being anal retentive.

 

Matt Pacini

[Mark Allen]

\> One more thing too- the 24p looked rather stroby. It was distracting. It wasn't like

> that in Collateral.

\That's presumably - and this is an informed guess- because it was 1/48 or faster shutter 24p, because they weren't short of light, whereas Collateral was using the slower shutter speed because they were.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

My guess is that they were shooting a ton of blue/green screen and the less blur makes for an easier and cleaner key - but results in strobey motion.

[Mike Donis]

I didn't have a problem at all with the motion rendition. Looks exactly the same as 35mm at 24 frames per second with a 180 degree shutter. EXACTLY the same, IMO.

 

I thought the movie was fantastic - definitely Rodriguez's best. All around solid movie - even some of the lacklustre CGI didn't bug me. I felt the entire time as though I were watching a comic at 24 frames per second - so anything that was "animated" seemed to fit. Yes, Rourke was great. And the HD held up well on the big screen - the best HD-to-35mm transfer I've seen.

[Phil Rhodes]

Hi,

 

> EXACTLY the same, IMO.

 

Well, it should be. 24fps 35mm is stroby.

 

And yes, the trailer looked amazingly sharp.

 

Phil

[Guest jeremy edge]

I saw it and it is definitely all that!

What an original movie. Very vile and crude and i loved it.

 

After watching previews you could definitely tell it was video ...at least I could.

I was actually expecting it to fool me a little.

 

So much animation though...it hardly matters.In a movie like this it works very well. It didnt keep me from being totally engrossed in it. And it has an original look that I havent seen in other films.

 

Definitely not a testament to the demise of film though.

Still wouldnt recommend a hollywood blockbuster to use hd for say...a drama?

[Riku Naskali]

Oh sure, but uber? I don't recall seeing that in the cinematography manual...

I think uber means "very" in German :)

[Jordan Brade]

Actually, Uber means "over" in German :) Yep, I'm currently learning German in school.

 

I thought I was the only person who used that word on the internet.

 

I only use the word for when something is sooo cool that I can't find any other word in the English language to explain it. It's soo cool, I have to switch to a foreign language in order to get the point across.

 

 

I've seen Sin City twice. It was uber cool, needless to say.

 

I haven't read the comics before, but I'm definitely going to check them out now.

[Landon D. Parks]

Well, something must be going for RR, because the same actors always seem to come back in every one of his movies. I was surprised not to see antonio and selma in this one.

 

so, to hollywood RR is the man, because he bring in flicks cheap, with HUGE name cast and makes the studios MONEY!

 

I must agree that his Directing skills are a bit bad, but still he has turned out some good flicks. Mainly the SPY KIDS series.

 

I am going to see Sin City in the next few days, but from what I can tell it WONT be my kind of film. But you never know!!

 

PS) What I wouldn't give to have the career if Robert Rodreguez! He has hollywood eating or out his pocket, or at least Austin Texas :huh: , lol.

Edited April 11, 2005 by Landon D. Parks

[Guest Kai.w]

Actually, Uber means "over" in German  :)  Yep, I'm currently learning German in school.

 

I thought I was the only person who used that word on the internet.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

>Über<

 

and, no, I'm afraid you are not the only one...

 

 

-k (waiting for the movie to hit european cinemas)

[Adam White]

The "Sin City" graphic novels have been a real influence in terms of composition and lighting for me over the last few years, of course I will now have to make sure I am not seen to be copying.... simply an homage...

 

I think its because Miller has always been driven to push stylistics beyond the expected that has created some amazing stuff, especialy with his use of light and shadow. While it is too distinctive for many, it is a good source of reference to have as part of a visual library.

 

As to the movie... well as a brit I have to wait until June to find out what the fuss is about... ho hum...

[Matt Pacini]

"... so, to hollywood RR is the man, because he bring in flicks cheap, with HUGE name cast and makes the studios MONEY!"

 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I disagree.

I think that's the HYPE that they use to market RR films, but I don't think it's necessarily the truth, just like the marketing hype of El Mariachi being made on $7,000 dollars, when over $100K went into post production. (as if that's NO MONEY).

 

And if you think $40 million dollars (not including marketing, which is probably at last that much) is cheap, then I'd like to request your parents adopt me.

And the only "HUGE" star in the film was Bruce Willis.

There were name actors in the film, but nobody else in the film with the ability to get an $40/$80 million dollar film greenlit, if you ask me.

 

I thought the film was OK, but about an hour too long, and it's interesting, but no masterpiece.

 

I still find it supremely annoying that Rodriguez insists on pretending he did EVERYTHING on his films.

There's a credit that says "shot and edited by Robert Rodriguez", then in the ending credits, there are like 6 or 7 camera operators listed.

Uhhh, right Robert. You did it all.

 

And he even has the balls to list "Quentin Tarrantino - guest director" (whatever the hell that is) when from what I've heard, QT directed around 1/3 of the film.

Guest director?

Huh?

 

Matt Pacini

[Boone Hudgins]

Quentin Tarantino directed one day.

 

From what I hear, Robert Rodriguez and Frank Miller worked very closely during production. Kind of the "two-headed director" thing you hear about the Coen brothers. Maybe. I don't know.

 

I do know that Frank Miller has some of the best composed art in comicdom.

 

The real question is, though, is it better than Robocop 3?

[drew_town]

The real question is, though, is it better than Robocop 3?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Yeah. :rolleyes:

[Alessandro Machi]

I read that RR gave up his director's status with the Guild over this film because he insisted on giving Miller a co-directing credit. The Farrelly Brothers get co-directing credits, what's the difference?

[David Mullen ASC]

I read that RR gave up his director's status with the Guild over this film because he insisted on giving Miller a co-directing credit.  The Farrelly Brothers get co-directing credits, what's the difference?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Probably both Farrelly Brothers are in the DGA but I doubt that Frank Miller is.

[Jordan Brade]

>Über<

 

and, no, I'm afraid you are not the only one...

-k (waiting for the movie to hit european cinemas)

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Well EXCUSE me for not putting an umlaut over the "U." :P

 

I was just kind of lazy actually. Next time I'll remember :rolleyes: