Sin City (US - DVD R1)
Sin City, a dark and brooding adaptation of Frank Miller’s graphic novel, comes to life in what is easily one of the greates...
Sin City, a dark and brooding adaptation of Frank Miller’s graphic novel, comes to life in what is easily one of the greatest achievements in cinema history. Skilfully directed by Robert Rodriguez ( Desperado, From Dusk Till Dawn) and Frank Miller himself, and with a special guest directorial cameo from Quentin Tarantino, Sin City is the quintessential embodiment of stylistic overdrive and sensational creativity that almost single-handedly pushes cinema to a new, and very definitive level. Sin City might not have been the box office sensation that Star Wars: Episode III – Revenge of the Sith was this summer, and it might not have garnered as much mainstream popularity as Steven Spielberg’s War of the Worlds either, but in twenty years time only one of these films will be spoken of in every day film conversation, and it won’t be Star Wars: Episode III or War of the Worlds.
Movie
Now, as I sit here, awash in the supple glow of my computer screen, with my fingers poised over the keys awaiting the command to strum, I find myself thinking long and hard of Sin City. What could I possibly say about it that hasn’t already been said before, and without making this review seem like a rehash of almost every other review out there? Sure I could ramble on and on about how amazingly cool and brilliant it is – but that would surely qualify as a retread, right? The truth is, Sin City is so good, and so poignant a film, that the only way to actually comment on it in some structured way would be to effectively ‘geek-out’. There is no way in hell this film can be reviewed without the need to get overexcited. Sin City is just one of those films I am afraid.
"I love hitmen. No matter what you do to them, you don't feel bad."
- Marv
I’ll never forget the day I went to see it at the cinema earlier this year. I sat there in a dead silence as the black and white images flickered before my eyes; it was a memory I will forever treasure. With every passing second I knew this film was going to be a cult classic; you can literally see it happen before your eyes. Scene after scene passes, and with every one of them the film seems to reach a higher plateau, and eventually it reaches a point where every thought and feeling you may have had in your body has vaporised into thin air. All this might sound phoney and over the top, but like all the greats of cinema, Sin City is able to put you in the very centre of all the happenings in the film, which completely eludes you from the world that surrounds you. You’ll watch this and have every one of your senses pushed to their absolute limit. The only way I can describe the experience is to call it exhilarating. Sin City is a truly sensational thrill ride the likes of which no other film in 2005 has come close to matching, at least not as of writing.
Now rumoured to have a few sequels in the pipeline (based on Miller’s other publications), this first chapter of Sin City houses a complex series of intertwining stories, and each told by different people and in their own unique style. Though voice-over-commentary is used in each of these bloody and excessively gritty tales, the film never once feels like a glamorized documentary – although in essence that is perhaps exactly what it is. Granted, it is a very dark, hellishly gory and eccentrically stylized one, but in its truest form that would be my best way of describing the narrative on offer here. We follow these inhabitants of Sin City around as they do what they do (and kill who they kill) in their worldly quests. The best story of the three we follow would probably be Marv’s, and his quest for revenge after his one-night-stand (Goldie) is found murdered by his side the following day. It doesn’t take him long to track down one of the weirdest on-screen characters ever seen – the bespectacled Kevin, played brilliantly, and silently by Elijah Wood. The other story centres on the soon-to-be retiring cop, Hartigan (Bruce Willis) who becomes embroiled in a disturbing case of paedophilia, rape and murder. He is eventually framed and incarcerated for a crime he did not commit. The last story deals with Dwight’s (Clive Owen) attempt at covering up a terrible, law affecting incident when a corrupt bully-like cop is savagely killed.
"The Valkyrie at my side is shouting and laughing with the pure, hateful, bloodthirsty joy of the slaughter... and so am I."
- Dwight
All of the stories intertwine and are fractured – such as with Quentin Tarantino movies – into a pleasingly complex arrangement. And with everything not running chronologically, you can expect to have to use a decent amount of brainpower to keep ahead. I know a good deal of people who don’t have the patience to sit though a film like this, which is a great shame – there aint no brain stimulant quite like a good old fractured movie in my opinion. Sin City, and everything that encompasses it, is clearly inspired by hardcore film noir. It even has a distinctive whiff of such classics as Dick Tracy, to give it that vintage edge and a touch of built-in nostalgia. The keen eyed will also notice a strange fusion of old and modern technology on display within the movie. Some of the cars appear to be vintage classics, while others are akin to the Ferrari’s, for example. You might also notice the use of mobile-phone like devices that populate this world, as well as classic receiver type phones. It is certainly a bizarre concept, but it actually works very well and feels perfectly organic. If there is one thing to be said of Sin City's concept, then it would be that this is not meant to be a real-life world with real-life characters, it is very much a comic-book fantasy world, and with only the faintest trace of reality grounding.
Jessica Alba is an actress you will either love or hate. If you, like me, feel that she plays far too many of those characters you’d just love to slap, then you will be pleased to hear that her role in Sin City – though still having a trace of her usual bitchy energy – is a little more agreeable. I still think her place on the credits is misplaced, however. If you are a fan, then you already know that her name appears first on the opening credit sequence – something I have always found to be strange considering the on-screen time she has and especially in light of her bigger co-stars; Bruce Willis, Clive Owen, Benicio Del Toro, Michael Clarke Duncan and Josh Hartnett to name but a few. Aside from that, all of the casting choices were pitch-perfect and all of the actors become their characters from the pages as if it were magic. I cannot think of anybody out of place or anybody that would qualify as being miscast.
"When it comes to reassuring a traumatized 19-year-old, I'm about as expert as a palsy victim doing brain surgery with a pipe wrench."
- Hartigan
The visuals work on Sin City is exceptional. Shot entirely against a blue/green screen, one would think that its forty-five-million-dollar budget would be inadequate and far too slender to allow for a truly cinematic experience – wrong! I can honestly say, and without fear of contradiction, that Sin City is the best example of full-on digital cinema produced thus far – and significantly more so than George Lucas’s Star Wars prequels. The imagery here is top notch, and then some. Whereas George Lucas has no shame in making everything look digital – even his characters – Robert Rodriguez uses the same technique but to considerably greater effect. He somehow uses the cons of digital cinema as pros, and the way he does this is actually sheer genius. By making almost everything digital – cars, walls, snow, trees and so on – the film evokes a very unique live-action comic book feel that has to be seen to be believed. Sin City literally looks and feels like the pages of a comic book are coming to life before your eyes – and no, before you ask, it does not look like a black and white cartoon or videogame.
A great example of this effect can be seen when Hartigan (Bruce Willis) approaches an ominously lit barn door in the snow. The snow and the barn door, and even the spherical glow of the light on the door, is evidently digital, but Willis looks like he is in the scene, yet the imagery has a very weird, cerebral and startlingly vivid look about it. You’d really have to see it to appreciate how amazing it looks, but this type of imagery is everywhere in Sin City, and much of it makes for the type of classic shots that can often stick in the mind forever. Yet another example of this would be when Marv (Mickey Rourke) takes out a couple of hitmen in a dark alleyway. The walls of the alley are digital, and Marv’s shadow on the wall behind him is too. You can tell both the wall and the shadow are computer generated, because every camera movement picks up on the effect in the way we’ve seen before in other movies.
"The silencer makes a whisper of the gunshot. I hold her close until she's gone. I'll never know what she was running from. I'll cash her check in the morning."
- The Man
But this technique isn’t how you might think it from all the hype and glamorous detailing. We’ve all seen cheesy bluescreen effects in films before, and in George Lucas’s Star Wars prequels we have seen even unnecessary items digitized, but in Sin City the effect is used to paint every frame with a look and style that cannot be matched anywhere. Every scene of Sin City has been hand-crafted to perfection; not a single frame of this movie can be flawed and not a single frame looks dull or boring; quite the opposite actually – every frame is timeless. Of all the uses of CGI in any film – even my beloved Lord of the Rings trilogy – Sin City beats them all for digital creativity and reproduction.
The film also mixes slashes of colour and experimental imagery into the predominately black and white frame. Goldie (Jamie King), for example, has a monochrome face, yet bright, golden locks of rippling hair. Kevin (Elijah Wood) often has the lenses of his spectacles digitally whitened to give him a very dangerous, maniacal appearance, owing to the fact that his eyes are almost always masked. Most of the blood in the movie is either the usual crimson red or the brightest white you’ve ever seen. And Yellow Bastard is, well, yellow. Yet amid all of the black and white, his skin tones looks simply amazing. Put simply, Sin City is the best digital, visual film ever made, and strangely enough, despite its immense use of computer technology, never feels like some sort of CGI blow-out. Think of marvellous black and white images of Citizen Kane, and the very best elements from digital cinema, and that is the cinematography and imagery presentation of Sin City.
"It's time to prove to your friends that you're worth a damn. Sometimes that means dying, sometimes it means killing a whole lot of people."
- Dwight
One of the most eagerly awaited things about Sin City was the long rumoured Quentin Tarantino directorial cameo. For those who have not yet seen this film, I would love to be able to tell you that Mr. Pulp Fiction himself had a great and highly memorable scene to oversee, but sadly I was somewhat letdown myself when I first saw Sin City. His cameo scene is both short and not as creatively potent as it could have been (especially for a man of his unquestionable talents). It isn’t Tarantino’s fault though; the scene in question just wasn’t long enough or able enough to showcase his abilities. I am not saying that his scene was bad or anything, just that I would have been more interested in seeing something a little more ambitious. Still, Sin City isn’t and was never meant to be a Quentin Tarantino film, but merely a case of Robert Rodriguez and Frank Miller allowing him to direct a small segment in their film. In this regard, his scene plays out well, and definitely adds to the overall greatness and coolness of the film.
There are come very interesting factual pieces regarding Sin City – the most interesting of which would probably have to be Robert Rodriguez quitting the DGA (The Directors Guild of America) when they refused to let him make Sin City with co-directors Frank Miller and Quentin Tarantino. Apparently there is some clause in the DGA system that will not allow for multiple directors on a single project. I also believe that by walking out of the DGA, Rodriguez would not be able to petition Sin City for the Academy Awards. But that didn’t matter to Rodriguez – he had a film to make and a vision to fulfil, and no bureaucratic way of thinking was going to stop him from doing that. If the DGA had indeed had their way, it is very possible Sin City would not have been the masterpiece it is today. Who knows; it may never have gotten made at all…
"You keep holding out on me like this, and I'm going to have to get really nasty."
- Marv
Sin City is one of my all-time top-ten films. I would have never thought that on that day – when I strolled into my local cinema complex with an overflowing bucket of popcorn and an ice-cold soda – that I would emerge having seen a true cinematic gem which would take a hold of me, and inspire me further in the art of filmmaking. It isn’t a film for everyone, but those who do appreciate it will likely love it. Rarely do I hand out a perfect score, but Frank Miller’s Sin City was an easy choice for such an accolade. Sin City is moviemaking perfection, and a timeless, enduring classic that is one of the absolute finest. Just as Quentin Tarantino will forever be remembered for Pulp Fiction, Robert Rodriguez will for Sin City. This is his masterpiece, his work of art, and his contribution to the slender list of greatest ever films. If all of that sounds over-zealous and a little too hard to believe, why not check it out for yourself and you can see what all the fuss is about. Like it or loathe it, Sin City is cinematic brilliance of the highest order.
Video
Perfect! Yes, you read that right; this transfer can be described in no other way. I’ve seen Sin City twice on DVD now; one was on my Panasonic 100Hz screen, the other on my Sony Projector – both were equally stunning. With the imagery being predominantly black and white, everything was embellished with the illusionary crispness you’d come to expect from monochrome, but with the digital pioneered technology to send it even further. Almost all of the on-screen artefacts we are used to seeing in pretty much the greater percentage of DVDs is non-existent on the Sin City transfer. This easily contributes to the visual glamour of the film, and perhaps enhances the overall mood and tonal emotion the visual artists were aiming for.
Scenes with heavy on-screen activity and complexity are handled with pitch-perfect precision on this transfer, and almost all of the colours in the movie come though very well. The only scene that seemed to struggle slightly on my 100 Hz Screen was the opening shot of the woman in the spectacular red ‘glitter’ dress. I found the crispness and overall detail on her dress seemed to be lacking to the point where the individual jewels were not clearly distinguishable. Everything else looked great though, not least Yellow Bastard; who is often seen looking very seedy and grimy, and the detail of his clothes and vivid matte skin look spectacular.
Contrast and luminosity throughout the other colour segments are also beautifully handled, so too are all of the monochrome shots. Quentin Tarantino’s scene, which captures bright neon colours of varying tones and set against a black and white car interior, looks fabulous. There is no one scene that stands out above any other in Sin City, there are simply far too many shots that push the black and white/colour palette well beyond anything we’ve ever seen before. What you get with this movie – and this transfer – is wildly stunning ‘freeze-frame’ imagery that is both highly artistic and elegantly preserved on DVD for you to enjoy time after time.
Audio
It has been a while since I have reviewed a disc with both a Dolby Digital and DTS soundtrack on offer. It was quite a nice little surprise, therefore, when I discovered this film was going to have two soundtracks to choose from. In this case, I always, admittedly opt for the DTS track, but for reviewing purposes I sample both. Bass, and all other lower frequencies were definitely stronger on the DTS track, and the higher end of the audio spectrum was also superior on the DTS track. Dialogue was crisper, music was richer and more polished, and the finer subtleties were blended more smoothly into the background.
I don’t wish to make the Dolby 5.1 score out to be poor or substandard – it certainly wasn’t – but the benefits of DTS are certainly noticeable to audio appreciators and those with sensitive hearing. Some DVDs with both soundtrack options are practically indistinguishable, but I found the DTS score on Sin City to be a notable, if not downright commendable improvement over the Dolby alternative. If you have a system that supports DTS, I would advise you to activate it on this disc.
Extras
Containing only one featurette (I can almost smell a special edition brewing already), the Sin City DVD isn’t exactly going to wow the hoards of eagerly awaiting fans with content and depth, but should serve its barebones purpose until the new disc comes out. The feature, which can be accessed directly from the funky animated menu system, is simply entitled ‘Behind the Scenes’. The three major big guns behind this film (Robert Rodriguez, Frank Miller and Quentin Tarantino) are interviewed and spill their thoughts and feelings on various aspects of the production, and there’s also segments with Bruce Willis, Jessica Alba and just about everybody else involved. Even though it only runs for ten minutes, this abridged 'making of' feature was one of the best of its kind I have ever seen. Though that will score the extras section a point higher, the real meat on the forthcoming special edition has to be fantastic. I fully expect a commentary from the writers and directors, and one from the technical staff too, not to mention a huge array of in-depth features covering everything that is Sin City – even the original comic itself.
Overall
Sin City is one of those rare and highly exceptional films that only come along once every blue moon. Like it or completely loathe it, you cannot deny that the endlessly spectacular imagery, the exquisite execution and the sheer cool factor of this film is well beyond most others. Sin City raises the bar for comic book and literary adaptations so high, and so far out of sight that it is hard to imagine anything else surpassing it any time soon – if ever. If you have yet to see it then I cannot recommend it highly enough, and I would urge you to do so as quickly as possible. If you are already a fan, or you enjoyed it at the cinema, then you are still going to want to pick up this excellent DVD, even in spite of the fact that this is merely a barebones that will be replaced by a big and juicy special edition in the coming months. Not only do you get the amazing cinematic version of the movie, but hands down a brilliant digital image transfer and one hell of a Dolby/DTS soundtrack that will tide you over until Robert Rodriguez and Frank Miller decide to unleash another dose of Sin City upon us.
Movie
Now, as I sit here, awash in the supple glow of my computer screen, with my fingers poised over the keys awaiting the command to strum, I find myself thinking long and hard of Sin City. What could I possibly say about it that hasn’t already been said before, and without making this review seem like a rehash of almost every other review out there? Sure I could ramble on and on about how amazingly cool and brilliant it is – but that would surely qualify as a retread, right? The truth is, Sin City is so good, and so poignant a film, that the only way to actually comment on it in some structured way would be to effectively ‘geek-out’. There is no way in hell this film can be reviewed without the need to get overexcited. Sin City is just one of those films I am afraid.
"I love hitmen. No matter what you do to them, you don't feel bad."
- Marv
I’ll never forget the day I went to see it at the cinema earlier this year. I sat there in a dead silence as the black and white images flickered before my eyes; it was a memory I will forever treasure. With every passing second I knew this film was going to be a cult classic; you can literally see it happen before your eyes. Scene after scene passes, and with every one of them the film seems to reach a higher plateau, and eventually it reaches a point where every thought and feeling you may have had in your body has vaporised into thin air. All this might sound phoney and over the top, but like all the greats of cinema, Sin City is able to put you in the very centre of all the happenings in the film, which completely eludes you from the world that surrounds you. You’ll watch this and have every one of your senses pushed to their absolute limit. The only way I can describe the experience is to call it exhilarating. Sin City is a truly sensational thrill ride the likes of which no other film in 2005 has come close to matching, at least not as of writing.
Now rumoured to have a few sequels in the pipeline (based on Miller’s other publications), this first chapter of Sin City houses a complex series of intertwining stories, and each told by different people and in their own unique style. Though voice-over-commentary is used in each of these bloody and excessively gritty tales, the film never once feels like a glamorized documentary – although in essence that is perhaps exactly what it is. Granted, it is a very dark, hellishly gory and eccentrically stylized one, but in its truest form that would be my best way of describing the narrative on offer here. We follow these inhabitants of Sin City around as they do what they do (and kill who they kill) in their worldly quests. The best story of the three we follow would probably be Marv’s, and his quest for revenge after his one-night-stand (Goldie) is found murdered by his side the following day. It doesn’t take him long to track down one of the weirdest on-screen characters ever seen – the bespectacled Kevin, played brilliantly, and silently by Elijah Wood. The other story centres on the soon-to-be retiring cop, Hartigan (Bruce Willis) who becomes embroiled in a disturbing case of paedophilia, rape and murder. He is eventually framed and incarcerated for a crime he did not commit. The last story deals with Dwight’s (Clive Owen) attempt at covering up a terrible, law affecting incident when a corrupt bully-like cop is savagely killed.
"The Valkyrie at my side is shouting and laughing with the pure, hateful, bloodthirsty joy of the slaughter... and so am I."
- Dwight
All of the stories intertwine and are fractured – such as with Quentin Tarantino movies – into a pleasingly complex arrangement. And with everything not running chronologically, you can expect to have to use a decent amount of brainpower to keep ahead. I know a good deal of people who don’t have the patience to sit though a film like this, which is a great shame – there aint no brain stimulant quite like a good old fractured movie in my opinion. Sin City, and everything that encompasses it, is clearly inspired by hardcore film noir. It even has a distinctive whiff of such classics as Dick Tracy, to give it that vintage edge and a touch of built-in nostalgia. The keen eyed will also notice a strange fusion of old and modern technology on display within the movie. Some of the cars appear to be vintage classics, while others are akin to the Ferrari’s, for example. You might also notice the use of mobile-phone like devices that populate this world, as well as classic receiver type phones. It is certainly a bizarre concept, but it actually works very well and feels perfectly organic. If there is one thing to be said of Sin City's concept, then it would be that this is not meant to be a real-life world with real-life characters, it is very much a comic-book fantasy world, and with only the faintest trace of reality grounding.
Jessica Alba is an actress you will either love or hate. If you, like me, feel that she plays far too many of those characters you’d just love to slap, then you will be pleased to hear that her role in Sin City – though still having a trace of her usual bitchy energy – is a little more agreeable. I still think her place on the credits is misplaced, however. If you are a fan, then you already know that her name appears first on the opening credit sequence – something I have always found to be strange considering the on-screen time she has and especially in light of her bigger co-stars; Bruce Willis, Clive Owen, Benicio Del Toro, Michael Clarke Duncan and Josh Hartnett to name but a few. Aside from that, all of the casting choices were pitch-perfect and all of the actors become their characters from the pages as if it were magic. I cannot think of anybody out of place or anybody that would qualify as being miscast.
"When it comes to reassuring a traumatized 19-year-old, I'm about as expert as a palsy victim doing brain surgery with a pipe wrench."
- Hartigan
The visuals work on Sin City is exceptional. Shot entirely against a blue/green screen, one would think that its forty-five-million-dollar budget would be inadequate and far too slender to allow for a truly cinematic experience – wrong! I can honestly say, and without fear of contradiction, that Sin City is the best example of full-on digital cinema produced thus far – and significantly more so than George Lucas’s Star Wars prequels. The imagery here is top notch, and then some. Whereas George Lucas has no shame in making everything look digital – even his characters – Robert Rodriguez uses the same technique but to considerably greater effect. He somehow uses the cons of digital cinema as pros, and the way he does this is actually sheer genius. By making almost everything digital – cars, walls, snow, trees and so on – the film evokes a very unique live-action comic book feel that has to be seen to be believed. Sin City literally looks and feels like the pages of a comic book are coming to life before your eyes – and no, before you ask, it does not look like a black and white cartoon or videogame.
A great example of this effect can be seen when Hartigan (Bruce Willis) approaches an ominously lit barn door in the snow. The snow and the barn door, and even the spherical glow of the light on the door, is evidently digital, but Willis looks like he is in the scene, yet the imagery has a very weird, cerebral and startlingly vivid look about it. You’d really have to see it to appreciate how amazing it looks, but this type of imagery is everywhere in Sin City, and much of it makes for the type of classic shots that can often stick in the mind forever. Yet another example of this would be when Marv (Mickey Rourke) takes out a couple of hitmen in a dark alleyway. The walls of the alley are digital, and Marv’s shadow on the wall behind him is too. You can tell both the wall and the shadow are computer generated, because every camera movement picks up on the effect in the way we’ve seen before in other movies.
"The silencer makes a whisper of the gunshot. I hold her close until she's gone. I'll never know what she was running from. I'll cash her check in the morning."
- The Man
But this technique isn’t how you might think it from all the hype and glamorous detailing. We’ve all seen cheesy bluescreen effects in films before, and in George Lucas’s Star Wars prequels we have seen even unnecessary items digitized, but in Sin City the effect is used to paint every frame with a look and style that cannot be matched anywhere. Every scene of Sin City has been hand-crafted to perfection; not a single frame of this movie can be flawed and not a single frame looks dull or boring; quite the opposite actually – every frame is timeless. Of all the uses of CGI in any film – even my beloved Lord of the Rings trilogy – Sin City beats them all for digital creativity and reproduction.
The film also mixes slashes of colour and experimental imagery into the predominately black and white frame. Goldie (Jamie King), for example, has a monochrome face, yet bright, golden locks of rippling hair. Kevin (Elijah Wood) often has the lenses of his spectacles digitally whitened to give him a very dangerous, maniacal appearance, owing to the fact that his eyes are almost always masked. Most of the blood in the movie is either the usual crimson red or the brightest white you’ve ever seen. And Yellow Bastard is, well, yellow. Yet amid all of the black and white, his skin tones looks simply amazing. Put simply, Sin City is the best digital, visual film ever made, and strangely enough, despite its immense use of computer technology, never feels like some sort of CGI blow-out. Think of marvellous black and white images of Citizen Kane, and the very best elements from digital cinema, and that is the cinematography and imagery presentation of Sin City.
"It's time to prove to your friends that you're worth a damn. Sometimes that means dying, sometimes it means killing a whole lot of people."
- Dwight
One of the most eagerly awaited things about Sin City was the long rumoured Quentin Tarantino directorial cameo. For those who have not yet seen this film, I would love to be able to tell you that Mr. Pulp Fiction himself had a great and highly memorable scene to oversee, but sadly I was somewhat letdown myself when I first saw Sin City. His cameo scene is both short and not as creatively potent as it could have been (especially for a man of his unquestionable talents). It isn’t Tarantino’s fault though; the scene in question just wasn’t long enough or able enough to showcase his abilities. I am not saying that his scene was bad or anything, just that I would have been more interested in seeing something a little more ambitious. Still, Sin City isn’t and was never meant to be a Quentin Tarantino film, but merely a case of Robert Rodriguez and Frank Miller allowing him to direct a small segment in their film. In this regard, his scene plays out well, and definitely adds to the overall greatness and coolness of the film.
There are come very interesting factual pieces regarding Sin City – the most interesting of which would probably have to be Robert Rodriguez quitting the DGA (The Directors Guild of America) when they refused to let him make Sin City with co-directors Frank Miller and Quentin Tarantino. Apparently there is some clause in the DGA system that will not allow for multiple directors on a single project. I also believe that by walking out of the DGA, Rodriguez would not be able to petition Sin City for the Academy Awards. But that didn’t matter to Rodriguez – he had a film to make and a vision to fulfil, and no bureaucratic way of thinking was going to stop him from doing that. If the DGA had indeed had their way, it is very possible Sin City would not have been the masterpiece it is today. Who knows; it may never have gotten made at all…
"You keep holding out on me like this, and I'm going to have to get really nasty."
- Marv
Sin City is one of my all-time top-ten films. I would have never thought that on that day – when I strolled into my local cinema complex with an overflowing bucket of popcorn and an ice-cold soda – that I would emerge having seen a true cinematic gem which would take a hold of me, and inspire me further in the art of filmmaking. It isn’t a film for everyone, but those who do appreciate it will likely love it. Rarely do I hand out a perfect score, but Frank Miller’s Sin City was an easy choice for such an accolade. Sin City is moviemaking perfection, and a timeless, enduring classic that is one of the absolute finest. Just as Quentin Tarantino will forever be remembered for Pulp Fiction, Robert Rodriguez will for Sin City. This is his masterpiece, his work of art, and his contribution to the slender list of greatest ever films. If all of that sounds over-zealous and a little too hard to believe, why not check it out for yourself and you can see what all the fuss is about. Like it or loathe it, Sin City is cinematic brilliance of the highest order.
Video
Perfect! Yes, you read that right; this transfer can be described in no other way. I’ve seen Sin City twice on DVD now; one was on my Panasonic 100Hz screen, the other on my Sony Projector – both were equally stunning. With the imagery being predominantly black and white, everything was embellished with the illusionary crispness you’d come to expect from monochrome, but with the digital pioneered technology to send it even further. Almost all of the on-screen artefacts we are used to seeing in pretty much the greater percentage of DVDs is non-existent on the Sin City transfer. This easily contributes to the visual glamour of the film, and perhaps enhances the overall mood and tonal emotion the visual artists were aiming for.
Scenes with heavy on-screen activity and complexity are handled with pitch-perfect precision on this transfer, and almost all of the colours in the movie come though very well. The only scene that seemed to struggle slightly on my 100 Hz Screen was the opening shot of the woman in the spectacular red ‘glitter’ dress. I found the crispness and overall detail on her dress seemed to be lacking to the point where the individual jewels were not clearly distinguishable. Everything else looked great though, not least Yellow Bastard; who is often seen looking very seedy and grimy, and the detail of his clothes and vivid matte skin look spectacular.
Contrast and luminosity throughout the other colour segments are also beautifully handled, so too are all of the monochrome shots. Quentin Tarantino’s scene, which captures bright neon colours of varying tones and set against a black and white car interior, looks fabulous. There is no one scene that stands out above any other in Sin City, there are simply far too many shots that push the black and white/colour palette well beyond anything we’ve ever seen before. What you get with this movie – and this transfer – is wildly stunning ‘freeze-frame’ imagery that is both highly artistic and elegantly preserved on DVD for you to enjoy time after time.
Audio
It has been a while since I have reviewed a disc with both a Dolby Digital and DTS soundtrack on offer. It was quite a nice little surprise, therefore, when I discovered this film was going to have two soundtracks to choose from. In this case, I always, admittedly opt for the DTS track, but for reviewing purposes I sample both. Bass, and all other lower frequencies were definitely stronger on the DTS track, and the higher end of the audio spectrum was also superior on the DTS track. Dialogue was crisper, music was richer and more polished, and the finer subtleties were blended more smoothly into the background.
I don’t wish to make the Dolby 5.1 score out to be poor or substandard – it certainly wasn’t – but the benefits of DTS are certainly noticeable to audio appreciators and those with sensitive hearing. Some DVDs with both soundtrack options are practically indistinguishable, but I found the DTS score on Sin City to be a notable, if not downright commendable improvement over the Dolby alternative. If you have a system that supports DTS, I would advise you to activate it on this disc.
Extras
Containing only one featurette (I can almost smell a special edition brewing already), the Sin City DVD isn’t exactly going to wow the hoards of eagerly awaiting fans with content and depth, but should serve its barebones purpose until the new disc comes out. The feature, which can be accessed directly from the funky animated menu system, is simply entitled ‘Behind the Scenes’. The three major big guns behind this film (Robert Rodriguez, Frank Miller and Quentin Tarantino) are interviewed and spill their thoughts and feelings on various aspects of the production, and there’s also segments with Bruce Willis, Jessica Alba and just about everybody else involved. Even though it only runs for ten minutes, this abridged 'making of' feature was one of the best of its kind I have ever seen. Though that will score the extras section a point higher, the real meat on the forthcoming special edition has to be fantastic. I fully expect a commentary from the writers and directors, and one from the technical staff too, not to mention a huge array of in-depth features covering everything that is Sin City – even the original comic itself.
Overall
Sin City is one of those rare and highly exceptional films that only come along once every blue moon. Like it or completely loathe it, you cannot deny that the endlessly spectacular imagery, the exquisite execution and the sheer cool factor of this film is well beyond most others. Sin City raises the bar for comic book and literary adaptations so high, and so far out of sight that it is hard to imagine anything else surpassing it any time soon – if ever. If you have yet to see it then I cannot recommend it highly enough, and I would urge you to do so as quickly as possible. If you are already a fan, or you enjoyed it at the cinema, then you are still going to want to pick up this excellent DVD, even in spite of the fact that this is merely a barebones that will be replaced by a big and juicy special edition in the coming months. Not only do you get the amazing cinematic version of the movie, but hands down a brilliant digital image transfer and one hell of a Dolby/DTS soundtrack that will tide you over until Robert Rodriguez and Frank Miller decide to unleash another dose of Sin City upon us.
Review by Benjamin Willcock
Advertisements
Existing Posts
I guess this review was before the uncut version came out?
It was post-modern. Greatness is always arguable, such obvious clasification is not. You can claim it was crap, fine, but in that case it was post-modern crap.
Quote: Originally posted by Ben Willcock
So are you saying that everyone who liked the film were merely "blinded by the spectacle of the visuals"?
Where did I say that? I don't think that at all. I think it is perfectly acceptable to love the movie because of the visuals. But to pretend or claim that the poor writing was great and post modern is ridiculous. If you love the movie because of the visuals, great. But to say the writing is great, sorry. I don't buy it.
So are you saying that everyone who liked the film were merely "blinded by the spectacle of the visuals"?
Where did I say that? I don't think that at all. I think it is perfectly acceptable to love the movie because of the visuals. But to pretend or claim that the poor writing was great and post modern is ridiculous. If you love the movie because of the visuals, great. But to say the writing is great, sorry. I don't buy it.
It is post-modern, and it is perfectly acceptable for someone to enjoy film on a exclusively visual level. I, however, enjoy Sin City on other levels as well.
Tarantino is a notorious adapter of dialogue, plot, and visuals. Tarantino's films exists ONLY as reactive art. Frank Miller (who's writting Tarantino approves of so much he adapted it directly for his segment of this film) has made a legacy reintroducing pulp art and writting. Apeing is part of being post-modern, adapting and magnifying.
Your opinion does not dictate artistic merit, your opinion only stands as just that, and opinion. Art is art regaurdless if you LIKE it or not. Again, this is a pointless conversation, because you, Garth, want only to contradict any statement made by anyone who found enjoyment in something you did not. You are not actually absorbing anything anyone else has written in this forum, you are finding key words and contradicting them. You can't tell me Sin City isn't post-modern art without giving me some proof that you understand the movement at all.
Tarantino is a notorious adapter of dialogue, plot, and visuals. Tarantino's films exists ONLY as reactive art. Frank Miller (who's writting Tarantino approves of so much he adapted it directly for his segment of this film) has made a legacy reintroducing pulp art and writting. Apeing is part of being post-modern, adapting and magnifying.
Your opinion does not dictate artistic merit, your opinion only stands as just that, and opinion. Art is art regaurdless if you LIKE it or not. Again, this is a pointless conversation, because you, Garth, want only to contradict any statement made by anyone who found enjoyment in something you did not. You are not actually absorbing anything anyone else has written in this forum, you are finding key words and contradicting them. You can't tell me Sin City isn't post-modern art without giving me some proof that you understand the movement at all.
Quote: Originally posted by Garth D
The problem I have is when people are so blinded by the spectacle of the visuals that they try to place some sort of artistic importance on the poor aspects of the film.
So are you saying that everyone who liked the film were merely "blinded by the spectacle of the visuals"?
The problem I have is when people are so blinded by the spectacle of the visuals that they try to place some sort of artistic importance on the poor aspects of the film.
So are you saying that everyone who liked the film were merely "blinded by the spectacle of the visuals"?
Quote: Originally posted by Gabriel Powers
What is film if not a visual art form? What is inherently wrong with putting visual spectacle ahead of realistic dialog? You seem to have an understanding of literature, but zero interest or understanding in art.
Post-modern: Of or relating to art, architecture, or literature that reacts against earlier modernist principles, as by reintroducing traditional or classical elements of style or by carrying modernist styles or practices to extremes.
Hard-boiled dialog is a traditional writting style. Frank Miller has taken this style and reintroduced it through modern styles, magnifying both its strengths and shortcommings. End of discussion. Sin City, Sky Captain, Kill Bill, Pulp Fiction, Scream, The Matrix and The Star Wars Prequels are all variations of the post-modern art movement, and I am capable of enjoying them on that level. Most of them exist on another level as well.
It is clear to me, however, that you are simply being argumentative, and that nothing I say will deter you from complaining not only about a film you don't like (your opinion being just as valid as the next guys), but about those of us who enjoyed it. If you don't want to listen, and would rather pretend you understand an art movement you don't simply to continue to arguing, please visit another forum. If you want to have a back and forth conversation about film, where we both listen to and appriciate one anothers opinions, feel free to stay.
There is a difference between putting visuals ahead of writing (notice I didn't JUSt say dialogue, but WRITING) and paying attention to just one and not even trying with another.
And please, explain to me how Miller has "reintroduced" hard-boiled dialogue through modern styles. He has done no such thing. He has poorly aped hard-boiled dialogue. How can you mention Tarantino's dialogue in even the same sentence as the dialogue in Sin City? Tarantino has done what you claim Miller did, only he ACTUALLY did it. He didn't simply take a cliche style and ape it. THAT is what Miller has done.
Oh, and how exactly is the cliche dialogue of the movie "reacting" to hard-boiled film noir dialogue of the past?
People enjoyed it? That's great. I hate walking out of a movie and not liking it. I will give movies every chance to get me to enjoy them.
The problem I have is when people are so blinded by the spectacle of the visuals that they try to place some sort of artistic importance on the poor aspects of the film.
What is film if not a visual art form? What is inherently wrong with putting visual spectacle ahead of realistic dialog? You seem to have an understanding of literature, but zero interest or understanding in art.
Post-modern: Of or relating to art, architecture, or literature that reacts against earlier modernist principles, as by reintroducing traditional or classical elements of style or by carrying modernist styles or practices to extremes.
Hard-boiled dialog is a traditional writting style. Frank Miller has taken this style and reintroduced it through modern styles, magnifying both its strengths and shortcommings. End of discussion. Sin City, Sky Captain, Kill Bill, Pulp Fiction, Scream, The Matrix and The Star Wars Prequels are all variations of the post-modern art movement, and I am capable of enjoying them on that level. Most of them exist on another level as well.
It is clear to me, however, that you are simply being argumentative, and that nothing I say will deter you from complaining not only about a film you don't like (your opinion being just as valid as the next guys), but about those of us who enjoyed it. If you don't want to listen, and would rather pretend you understand an art movement you don't simply to continue to arguing, please visit another forum. If you want to have a back and forth conversation about film, where we both listen to and appriciate one anothers opinions, feel free to stay.
There is a difference between putting visuals ahead of writing (notice I didn't JUSt say dialogue, but WRITING) and paying attention to just one and not even trying with another.
And please, explain to me how Miller has "reintroduced" hard-boiled dialogue through modern styles. He has done no such thing. He has poorly aped hard-boiled dialogue. How can you mention Tarantino's dialogue in even the same sentence as the dialogue in Sin City? Tarantino has done what you claim Miller did, only he ACTUALLY did it. He didn't simply take a cliche style and ape it. THAT is what Miller has done.
Oh, and how exactly is the cliche dialogue of the movie "reacting" to hard-boiled film noir dialogue of the past?
People enjoyed it? That's great. I hate walking out of a movie and not liking it. I will give movies every chance to get me to enjoy them.
The problem I have is when people are so blinded by the spectacle of the visuals that they try to place some sort of artistic importance on the poor aspects of the film.
Quote: Originally posted by Garth D
Except that there is nothing post-modern about Sin City's writing. It may be an homage to a certain style, but it is a poorly written one. It's one thing to try and emulate a certain style, but it's another thing to do it well. If Sin City is such brilliance, why aren't the terrible Tarantino copycats from the mid-nineties ALSO brilliant?
As an side, say what you want about the Star Wars prequels, but the writing is absolutely godawful even when compared to the relatively poor dialogue of the original trilogy.
If Sin City's dialogue is intentionally dated and bad, then wouldn't the ultimate compliment be to say just how godawful and unlistenable it is? Instead of pretending that it's brilliant BECAUSE of how bad it is?
I also think it interesting that you've grouped together three movies that blatantly put the spectacle of the FX ahead of any attempt at telling a good story and called them all brilliant and post-modern.
Copout? You bet!
What is film if not a visual art form? What is inherently wrong with putting visual spectacle ahead of realistic dialog? You seem to have an understanding of literature, but zero interest or understanding in art.
Post-modern: Of or relating to art, architecture, or literature that reacts against earlier modernist principles, as by reintroducing traditional or classical elements of style or by carrying modernist styles or practices to extremes.
Hard-boiled dialog is a traditional writting style. Frank Miller has taken this style and reintroduced it through modern styles, magnifying both its strengths and shortcommings. End of discussion. Sin City, Sky Captain, Kill Bill, Pulp Fiction, Scream, The Matrix and The Star Wars Prequels are all variations of the post-modern art movement, and I am capable of enjoying them on that level. Most of them exist on another level as well.
It is clear to me, however, that you are simply being argumentative, and that nothing I say will deter you from complaining not only about a film you don't like (your opinion being just as valid as the next guys), but about those of us who enjoyed it. If you don't want to listen, and would rather pretend you understand an art movement you don't simply to continue to arguing, please visit another forum. If you want to have a back and forth conversation about film, where we both listen to and appriciate one anothers opinions, feel free to stay.
Except that there is nothing post-modern about Sin City's writing. It may be an homage to a certain style, but it is a poorly written one. It's one thing to try and emulate a certain style, but it's another thing to do it well. If Sin City is such brilliance, why aren't the terrible Tarantino copycats from the mid-nineties ALSO brilliant?
As an side, say what you want about the Star Wars prequels, but the writing is absolutely godawful even when compared to the relatively poor dialogue of the original trilogy.
If Sin City's dialogue is intentionally dated and bad, then wouldn't the ultimate compliment be to say just how godawful and unlistenable it is? Instead of pretending that it's brilliant BECAUSE of how bad it is?
I also think it interesting that you've grouped together three movies that blatantly put the spectacle of the FX ahead of any attempt at telling a good story and called them all brilliant and post-modern.
Copout? You bet!
What is film if not a visual art form? What is inherently wrong with putting visual spectacle ahead of realistic dialog? You seem to have an understanding of literature, but zero interest or understanding in art.
Post-modern: Of or relating to art, architecture, or literature that reacts against earlier modernist principles, as by reintroducing traditional or classical elements of style or by carrying modernist styles or practices to extremes.
Hard-boiled dialog is a traditional writting style. Frank Miller has taken this style and reintroduced it through modern styles, magnifying both its strengths and shortcommings. End of discussion. Sin City, Sky Captain, Kill Bill, Pulp Fiction, Scream, The Matrix and The Star Wars Prequels are all variations of the post-modern art movement, and I am capable of enjoying them on that level. Most of them exist on another level as well.
It is clear to me, however, that you are simply being argumentative, and that nothing I say will deter you from complaining not only about a film you don't like (your opinion being just as valid as the next guys), but about those of us who enjoyed it. If you don't want to listen, and would rather pretend you understand an art movement you don't simply to continue to arguing, please visit another forum. If you want to have a back and forth conversation about film, where we both listen to and appriciate one anothers opinions, feel free to stay.
Fantastic movie, hell yes, but that review was insanely over the top.
Just my opinion. Keep up the good work.
Just my opinion. Keep up the good work.
Quote: Originally posted by Gabriel Powers
Sin City was a brilliant work of post-modern, referencial art. It adheres to a strict, old fashion writing style, and blends it with surreal visuals and special effects. Personally I'd compare it most to the Star Wars films (all of them) and Sky Captain, also works of brilliant post-modern art.
Except that there is nothing post-modern about Sin City's writing. It may be an homage to a certain style, but it is a poorly written one. It's one thing to try and emulate a certain style, but it's another thing to do it well. If Sin City is such brilliance, why aren't the terrible Tarantino copycats from the mid-nineties ALSO brilliant?
As an side, say what you want about the Star Wars prequels, but the writing is absolutely godawful even when compared to the relatively poor dialogue of the original trilogy.
If Sin City's dialogue is intentionally dated and bad, then wouldn't the ultimate compliment be to say just how godawful and unlistenable it is? Instead of pretending that it's brilliant BECAUSE of how bad it is?
I also think it interesting that you've grouped together three movies that blatantly put the spectacle of the FX ahead of any attempt at telling a good story and called them all brilliant and post-modern.
Copout? You bet!
Sin City was a brilliant work of post-modern, referencial art. It adheres to a strict, old fashion writing style, and blends it with surreal visuals and special effects. Personally I'd compare it most to the Star Wars films (all of them) and Sky Captain, also works of brilliant post-modern art.
Except that there is nothing post-modern about Sin City's writing. It may be an homage to a certain style, but it is a poorly written one. It's one thing to try and emulate a certain style, but it's another thing to do it well. If Sin City is such brilliance, why aren't the terrible Tarantino copycats from the mid-nineties ALSO brilliant?
As an side, say what you want about the Star Wars prequels, but the writing is absolutely godawful even when compared to the relatively poor dialogue of the original trilogy.
If Sin City's dialogue is intentionally dated and bad, then wouldn't the ultimate compliment be to say just how godawful and unlistenable it is? Instead of pretending that it's brilliant BECAUSE of how bad it is?
I also think it interesting that you've grouped together three movies that blatantly put the spectacle of the FX ahead of any attempt at telling a good story and called them all brilliant and post-modern.
Copout? You bet!
Quote: Originally posted by Gabriel Powers
I wonder if Ben's comment about her wasn't in direct reference to me and my comments about her on these very message boards.
lol, yeah actually it was sort of influenced by your comments. I was wondering when you'd collar me for it, hehe
I wonder if Ben's comment about her wasn't in direct reference to me and my comments about her on these very message boards.
lol, yeah actually it was sort of influenced by your comments. I was wondering when you'd collar me for it, hehe
Quote: Originally posted by Chris Gould
And with that sentence you have just summed up your total lack of understanding.
I think everyone who truly bashed the film didn't get it at all. I talk about the post-modern art movement a lot in my reviews, but it's only because 70% of the best movies to come out of the last 10 years fall very easily into this artistic catagory. Sin City was a brilliant work of post-modern, referencial art. It adheres to a strict, old fashion writing style, and blends it with surreal visuals and special effects. Personally I'd compare it most to the Star Wars films (all of them) and Sky Captain, also works of brilliant post-modern art. Best film of the year, though I'd probably not give it a full 10/10 because Alba sucked it up so bad, infact, I wonder if Ben's comment about her wasn't in direct reference to me and my comments about her on these very message boards.
For the record, I have zero problem with the dialog in Sin City or Star Wars because they a representative of a specific style of writing. I'm happy someone in Hollywood is willing to write outside of the normal scripting style. Not liking a movie is one thing, but not respecting it for not attempting something outside the mainstream is, in my opinion counter productive. I had zero interest in actually paying to see The 40 Year-Old Virgin, but respect it for being made for and about adults. I respect many movies that I did not like and I cannot understand any true film lover not respecting RR and Miller for what they achieved, especially on the budget and in the time they achieved it in.
And with that sentence you have just summed up your total lack of understanding.
I think everyone who truly bashed the film didn't get it at all. I talk about the post-modern art movement a lot in my reviews, but it's only because 70% of the best movies to come out of the last 10 years fall very easily into this artistic catagory. Sin City was a brilliant work of post-modern, referencial art. It adheres to a strict, old fashion writing style, and blends it with surreal visuals and special effects. Personally I'd compare it most to the Star Wars films (all of them) and Sky Captain, also works of brilliant post-modern art. Best film of the year, though I'd probably not give it a full 10/10 because Alba sucked it up so bad, infact, I wonder if Ben's comment about her wasn't in direct reference to me and my comments about her on these very message boards.
For the record, I have zero problem with the dialog in Sin City or Star Wars because they a representative of a specific style of writing. I'm happy someone in Hollywood is willing to write outside of the normal scripting style. Not liking a movie is one thing, but not respecting it for not attempting something outside the mainstream is, in my opinion counter productive. I had zero interest in actually paying to see The 40 Year-Old Virgin, but respect it for being made for and about adults. I respect many movies that I did not like and I cannot understand any true film lover not respecting RR and Miller for what they achieved, especially on the budget and in the time they achieved it in.
apart from the lack of extras this is a great disc and the sound is just amazing to me. sounded better on my HTS than it did at the movies
Best movie of the year so far and one of the greatest movies of all time. Can't wait for the special edition DVD (Hurry up and announce it already!!!!) and for Sin City 2 next year.
Quote: Originally posted by andy zipper
I totally love Sin City...but come on it was to disposable, yeah it looked great and it had great characters but it just didn't carry any weight. Star Wars and Batman were both better....and will be remembered that way.
I guess only time will tell, but I'd put my money on Sin City being the one to make the trip though time more smoothly. I agree with you on Batman though; amazing movie and a genuine classic.
I totally love Sin City...but come on it was to disposable, yeah it looked great and it had great characters but it just didn't carry any weight. Star Wars and Batman were both better....and will be remembered that way.
I guess only time will tell, but I'd put my money on Sin City being the one to make the trip though time more smoothly. I agree with you on Batman though; amazing movie and a genuine classic.
I totally love Sin City...but come on it was to disposable, yeah it looked great and it had great characters but it just didn't carry any weight. Star Wars and Batman were both better....and will be remembered that way.
Thanks a lot! And sorry for the rather sour tone in the post 
Quote: Originally posted by Sithvol
Great review. I loved this film. In my mind its the best comic book adaptation ever made period. I thought I read somewhere that a two disc special edition was coming some time in December.
Yeah, I'd have said around that time myself. Can't wait for it.
Great review. I loved this film. In my mind its the best comic book adaptation ever made period. I thought I read somewhere that a two disc special edition was coming some time in December.
Yeah, I'd have said around that time myself. Can't wait for it.
Great review. I loved this film. In my mind its the best comic book adaptation ever made period. I thought I read somewhere that a two disc special edition was coming some time in December.
I'll just go out and a limb and say simply "Great review Ben."
Oh, and tigers rule!
Oh, and tigers rule!
If they are annoying you Jesper then click on the link "Member Profile" in the left column of any page, then uncheck "Display Signatures" and click "Submit". You'll never see them again, unless you logout.
A little off topic
It might just be me, but do you guys HAVE to post these silly, spaceconsuming images every time you post a message? I find them immensely annoying - and I really can't see the use!
Or will somebody explain me the reason for posting these totally irrelevant images?
Or will somebody explain me the reason for posting these totally irrelevant images?
Quote: Originally posted by Garth D
I don't understand. It's OK for someone to make a bold, ridiculous statement that this movie will be talked about in DIALY film conversation, but nobody else is allowed to disagree?
Understandable. I just wanted to let you know that I'm not trying to come off as "superior" for disliking the film (like so many 'franchise bashers' do). I realize I'm in the minority here, I'd just saying why I think the way I do.
I don't understand. It's OK for someone to make a bold, ridiculous statement that this movie will be talked about in DIALY film conversation, but nobody else is allowed to disagree?
Understandable. I just wanted to let you know that I'm not trying to come off as "superior" for disliking the film (like so many 'franchise bashers' do). I realize I'm in the minority here, I'd just saying why I think the way I do.
I don't care if Sin City was 101% faithful to its source material, because I blame the comic book for the movie sucking. I would never want to read them if the movie is any indication on how the comic is actually like....
Oh and as far the visuals, its nothing too special. Its just black and white with some spot coloring. Big whoop. Even that gets dull after awhile. And yes the narrative is too long and sigh-inducing.
Oh and as far the visuals, its nothing too special. Its just black and white with some spot coloring. Big whoop. Even that gets dull after awhile. And yes the narrative is too long and sigh-inducing.
Quote: Originally posted by Garth D
BUT, Miller's writing is nothing special, at least not in the Sin City books. He takes cardboard characters, puts them through the ringer and then has them beat everyone up. Wow. What writing.
His writing in the comic books is excellent. I loved the comics and his stories are so perfectly done. The visuals are awesome as well, but they're not the only good parts of the books. And the same goes for the movie.
BUT, Miller's writing is nothing special, at least not in the Sin City books. He takes cardboard characters, puts them through the ringer and then has them beat everyone up. Wow. What writing.
His writing in the comic books is excellent. I loved the comics and his stories are so perfectly done. The visuals are awesome as well, but they're not the only good parts of the books. And the same goes for the movie.
You know, it's funny. Two of the first responses to me assumed that I haven't read the comics. Anyone know what they say about "assuming"?
I indeed HAVE read all the books that the movie is based on. And yes, it is a VERY faithful adaptation. So what?
Sin City is a good comic book. It is a GOOD comic book. But anyone who has followed it knows that, more than anything, the comic is praised for it's visuals. The visuals ARE amazing. BUT, Miller's writing is nothing special, at least not in the Sin City books. He takes cardboard characters, puts them through the ringer and then has them beat everyone up. Wow. What writing.
I've also read much of the type of writing that Miller was trying to emulate in the comics. His writing is very flat and boring. His characters are cardboard noir archetypes. There's no depth, nothing interesting about them besides being tough.
A friend of mine, who like the movie, mentioned to me that instead of having Tarantino direct a scene for $1, Rodriguez should have had him write a better script. Hell, Rodriguez even said that he DIDN'T USE A SCRIPT.
He used the comic book as the script and storyboard. That's great. But anyone with an even rudimentary understanding of comics knows that there are things you can do in comics that simply do not translate into film well.
One thing being the constant, annoying voiceovers that, at times, DIRECTLY described what was going on on the screen.
In a comic, you have one panel to show an action or a scene. In a movie you have 24-30 frames PER second in order to tell your story. You don't need to describe what happened between panels because there IS no 'between panels'.
Another thing is that in comics you can do things that you can't do to people in film. In the comics it was more acceptable to see a big cartoony thug getting his by a car three, four, however many times in a row that Marv got hit. In the movie, it just looks retarded. How are we supposed to give a flying fuck about a guy who can be shot, stabbed and hit multiple times with a car and never, ever even get hurt?
Wow. What characters. What writing. What a pile of crap.
But whatever, to each his own.
Peace out.
I indeed HAVE read all the books that the movie is based on. And yes, it is a VERY faithful adaptation. So what?
Sin City is a good comic book. It is a GOOD comic book. But anyone who has followed it knows that, more than anything, the comic is praised for it's visuals. The visuals ARE amazing. BUT, Miller's writing is nothing special, at least not in the Sin City books. He takes cardboard characters, puts them through the ringer and then has them beat everyone up. Wow. What writing.
I've also read much of the type of writing that Miller was trying to emulate in the comics. His writing is very flat and boring. His characters are cardboard noir archetypes. There's no depth, nothing interesting about them besides being tough.
A friend of mine, who like the movie, mentioned to me that instead of having Tarantino direct a scene for $1, Rodriguez should have had him write a better script. Hell, Rodriguez even said that he DIDN'T USE A SCRIPT.
He used the comic book as the script and storyboard. That's great. But anyone with an even rudimentary understanding of comics knows that there are things you can do in comics that simply do not translate into film well.
One thing being the constant, annoying voiceovers that, at times, DIRECTLY described what was going on on the screen.
In a comic, you have one panel to show an action or a scene. In a movie you have 24-30 frames PER second in order to tell your story. You don't need to describe what happened between panels because there IS no 'between panels'.
Another thing is that in comics you can do things that you can't do to people in film. In the comics it was more acceptable to see a big cartoony thug getting his by a car three, four, however many times in a row that Marv got hit. In the movie, it just looks retarded. How are we supposed to give a flying fuck about a guy who can be shot, stabbed and hit multiple times with a car and never, ever even get hurt?
Wow. What characters. What writing. What a pile of crap.
But whatever, to each his own.
Peace out.
The way I see it, and I stated in the review, it is either a film you will love or hate. Judging by the comments left on this review, there are lots who, like myself, would candidly award it a perfect score, and there are others who think that kind of a score is obscene. It's like anything I guess, you either like it or you don't. No need to get upset about the 10/10 if you don't like the movie, it’s only my opinion. But in saying that, I do feel that those who hate the movie are something of a minority where Sin City is concerned.
Quote: Originally posted by Ben Willcock
How is it laughable? If you are going to make such a bold stab as that, at least back it up with some concrete opinion.
I don't understand. It's OK for someone to make a bold, ridiculous statement that this movie will be talked about in DIALY film conversation, but nobody else is allowed to disagree?
How is it laughable? If you are going to make such a bold stab as that, at least back it up with some concrete opinion.
I don't understand. It's OK for someone to make a bold, ridiculous statement that this movie will be talked about in DIALY film conversation, but nobody else is allowed to disagree?
Quote: Originally posted by Matt Thompson
Now, that's my opinion. I'm not calling you an idiot for liking the movie.
Fair enough. I don't agree with you, but can't be arsed to argue about it.
Now, that's my opinion. I'm not calling you an idiot for liking the movie.
Fair enough. I don't agree with you, but can't be arsed to argue about it.
Quote: Originally posted by Illi Mai
stupid review, stupid movie.
Batman Begins is 50x better than Crap City.
oooh, easy on the constructive criticism there, you might hurt yourself.
stupid review, stupid movie.
Batman Begins is 50x better than Crap City.
oooh, easy on the constructive criticism there, you might hurt yourself.
Overrated peice of shit
stupid review, stupid movie.
Batman Begins is 50x better than Crap City.
Batman Begins is 50x better than Crap City.
Quote: Originally posted by cas harlow
Great review, great film.
I've got one word - Marv. Mickey Rourke's bandage-laden comeback has given us one of the best characters of all time and I can't wait for the other films to come out.
"This is the old days, the bad days, the all or nothing days... they're back!"
Damn, that was the quote I wanted to put in. I knew there was one I'd missed.
Great review, great film.
I've got one word - Marv. Mickey Rourke's bandage-laden comeback has given us one of the best characters of all time and I can't wait for the other films to come out.
"This is the old days, the bad days, the all or nothing days... they're back!"
Damn, that was the quote I wanted to put in. I knew there was one I'd missed.
Quote: Originally posted by Chris Gould
And how else would he have shot a highly stylised, comic book world? All you've done is say how the script is piss-poor (when it's basically a pretty faithful translation of a series of comic books), and go on about how Wedding Crashers and 40 Year Old Virgin were better because they 'were at least funny'. How is that a basis for comparison? Sin City is hardly supposed to be comedy.
The characters speak the way they do because they're supposed to. Even Michael Madsen's delivery at the start of the film fits the tone of the piece. I dunno, people try to do something a little out of the ordinary and there are still those who prefer generic, disposable 'comedies' starring Vince Vaughn. No wonder that's all Hollywood seems to make nowadays.
I made the "funny" comment because those two films at least accomplished what they set out to do. Did Sin City? (From my perspective) It seemed to want to thrill and amaze me, to get caught up in this world of underworld crime. Instead, I got two hours worth of admittedly gorgeous pictures and not a single character I gave a damn about.
Who cares if it's a faithful adaptation of the graphic novel? That doesn't exactly absolve all movie sins. As for your "characters talk the way they're supposed to talk" comment, I saw that very same point made in defense of the Star Wars prequels and more than a few people (on this very website) laughed at the "inane" excuse.
They can talk the way they talk. It doesn't change the fact I didn't care about any of them, that one performance (Michael Madsen) induced a chuckle every time the character was on-screen, and that when the credits rolled the only thing I was compelled to do was shrug.
Now, that's my opinion. I'm not calling you an idiot for liking the movie.
And how else would he have shot a highly stylised, comic book world? All you've done is say how the script is piss-poor (when it's basically a pretty faithful translation of a series of comic books), and go on about how Wedding Crashers and 40 Year Old Virgin were better because they 'were at least funny'. How is that a basis for comparison? Sin City is hardly supposed to be comedy.
The characters speak the way they do because they're supposed to. Even Michael Madsen's delivery at the start of the film fits the tone of the piece. I dunno, people try to do something a little out of the ordinary and there are still those who prefer generic, disposable 'comedies' starring Vince Vaughn. No wonder that's all Hollywood seems to make nowadays.
I made the "funny" comment because those two films at least accomplished what they set out to do. Did Sin City? (From my perspective) It seemed to want to thrill and amaze me, to get caught up in this world of underworld crime. Instead, I got two hours worth of admittedly gorgeous pictures and not a single character I gave a damn about.
Who cares if it's a faithful adaptation of the graphic novel? That doesn't exactly absolve all movie sins. As for your "characters talk the way they're supposed to talk" comment, I saw that very same point made in defense of the Star Wars prequels and more than a few people (on this very website) laughed at the "inane" excuse.
They can talk the way they talk. It doesn't change the fact I didn't care about any of them, that one performance (Michael Madsen) induced a chuckle every time the character was on-screen, and that when the credits rolled the only thing I was compelled to do was shrug.
Now, that's my opinion. I'm not calling you an idiot for liking the movie.
10??????is not a bad movie, but is not the best, yeah..the visual aspect is the diference.
Quote: Originally posted by Matt Thompson
Yes. Wedding Crashers and 40-Year-Old Virgin were at least funny. What did I do when I saw Sin City? I thought the first segment was neat (mainly because of the visuals), the second was dull, and the third was the best. It's a good movie, I'm not denying that, but the idea people will be talking about it 20 years from now (in daily film conversation, no less!) is *laughable*.
Rodriguez did the same damn thing he did with Spy Kids 3D, he just made it (mostly) black and white.
How is it laughable? If you are going to make such a bold stab as that, at least back it up with some concrete opinion.
Yes. Wedding Crashers and 40-Year-Old Virgin were at least funny. What did I do when I saw Sin City? I thought the first segment was neat (mainly because of the visuals), the second was dull, and the third was the best. It's a good movie, I'm not denying that, but the idea people will be talking about it 20 years from now (in daily film conversation, no less!) is *laughable*.
Rodriguez did the same damn thing he did with Spy Kids 3D, he just made it (mostly) black and white.
How is it laughable? If you are going to make such a bold stab as that, at least back it up with some concrete opinion.
And how else would he have shot a highly stylised, comic book world? All you've done is say how the script is piss-poor (when it's basically a pretty faithful translation of a series of comic books), and go on about how Wedding Crashers and 40 Year Old Virgin were better because they 'were at least funny'. How is that a basis for comparison? Sin City is hardly supposed to be comedy.
The characters speak the way they do because they're supposed to. Even Michael Madsen's delivery at the start of the film fits the tone of the piece. I dunno, people try to do something a little out of the ordinary and there are still those who prefer generic, disposable 'comedies' starring Vince Vaughn. No wonder that's all Hollywood seems to make nowadays.
The characters speak the way they do because they're supposed to. Even Michael Madsen's delivery at the start of the film fits the tone of the piece. I dunno, people try to do something a little out of the ordinary and there are still those who prefer generic, disposable 'comedies' starring Vince Vaughn. No wonder that's all Hollywood seems to make nowadays.
Quote: Originally posted by Chris Gould
And with that sentence you have just summed up your total lack of understanding.
Yes, my complete lack of understand of filming actors against a blue screen and then manipulating the pictures and colors afterward. I'm sorry I simply can't grasp this amazing, wild concept.
And with that sentence you have just summed up your total lack of understanding.
Yes, my complete lack of understand of filming actors against a blue screen and then manipulating the pictures and colors afterward. I'm sorry I simply can't grasp this amazing, wild concept.
Great review, great film.
I've got one word - Marv. Mickey Rourke's bandage-laden comeback has given us one of the best characters of all time and I can't wait for the other films to come out.
"This is the old days, the bad days, the all or nothing days... they're back!"
I've got one word - Marv. Mickey Rourke's bandage-laden comeback has given us one of the best characters of all time and I can't wait for the other films to come out.
"This is the old days, the bad days, the all or nothing days... they're back!"
Quote: Originally posted by Matt Thompson
Rodriguez did the same damn thing he did with Spy Kids 3D, he just made it (mostly) black and white.
And with that sentence you have just summed up your total lack of understanding.
Rodriguez did the same damn thing he did with Spy Kids 3D, he just made it (mostly) black and white.
And with that sentence you have just summed up your total lack of understanding.
This is a fine film. I enjoyed every aspect of it. However, I enjoyed Revenge of the Sith a lot more than I enjoyed this.
Quote: Originally posted by Michael Cordwell
I do hope your kidding, none of those movies are in the same vein as Sin City, except maybe Star Wars and Batman Begins, but even they were nowhere near as fantastic as Sin City. And about Wedding Crashers and The 40 Year Old Virgin, are you being serious, you cannot compare them to Sin City, and they are certainly not better.
Yes. Wedding Crashers and 40-Year-Old Virgin were at least funny. What did I do when I saw Sin City? I thought the first segment was neat (mainly because of the visuals), the second was dull, and the third was the best. It's a good movie, I'm not denying that, but the idea people will be talking about it 20 years from now (in daily film conversation, no less!) is *laughable*.
Rodriguez did the same damn thing he did with Spy Kids 3D, he just made it (mostly) black and white.
I do hope your kidding, none of those movies are in the same vein as Sin City, except maybe Star Wars and Batman Begins, but even they were nowhere near as fantastic as Sin City. And about Wedding Crashers and The 40 Year Old Virgin, are you being serious, you cannot compare them to Sin City, and they are certainly not better.
Yes. Wedding Crashers and 40-Year-Old Virgin were at least funny. What did I do when I saw Sin City? I thought the first segment was neat (mainly because of the visuals), the second was dull, and the third was the best. It's a good movie, I'm not denying that, but the idea people will be talking about it 20 years from now (in daily film conversation, no less!) is *laughable*.
Rodriguez did the same damn thing he did with Spy Kids 3D, he just made it (mostly) black and white.
Yeah no doubt about it Matt, the technical aspects of the disc are amazing to be sure. I can't wait to see what they have in store for the eagerly awaited SE. I am personally hoping for a three disc mega set
I gotta agree with Tom on the film's own score of 6/10, I thought is was good but was a bit underwhelmed by it to be honest. The technical aspects of the disc are spot on though, Ben. Black and white on video are harder to get right than a lot of people might realize, especially when interspersed with splashes of color and this disc pulled the video transfer off in spades. The audio was top shelf as well, lots of nice low end bass and very active and clear channels.
If memory serves, it has been more than a year since I last handed out a 10/10 rating to a film - last one was Return of the King. And Chris, I think a film can easily be considered a classic at the moment of its release. Take Star Wars and Fellowship of the Ring as two examples. Granted not many can become instant classics, but I feel this most surely is.
Great review Ben. I would have said an 8/10 though, great movie but far from perfect.
I can't wait until the SE, whenever that'll be.
I can't wait until the SE, whenever that'll be.
Can something that's been out less than a year be considered a classic?
Classic Film
Quote: Originally posted by Malcolm Campbell
They seemed very similar but went for the R1. Not so bothered about the technical stuff as I'll just end up watching on my PC or laptop.
R1 will look better on a PC display because they are progressive.
They seemed very similar but went for the R1. Not so bothered about the technical stuff as I'll just end up watching on my PC or laptop.
R1 will look better on a PC display because they are progressive.
I would have agreed that this was "one of the greatest achievements in cinema history" if they had treated story and character development as meticulously as the visuals. I still like the film for what it achieves visually. However, it doesn't overcome the weaknesses of its computer-generated predecessor "Sky Captain and the World of Tomorrow."
I got the region 3
The special edition should be coming out to promote Sin City 2 which they are currently working on. It should be out Summer 2006.
They seemed very similar but went for the R1. Not so bothered about the technical stuff as I'll just end up watching on my PC or laptop.
It isn't to everyones taste though Mal 
Personally I'd only give it a 6/10. Although it's brilliantly executed, I just didn't really feel any emotional involvement with any of the characters.
Personally I'd only give it a 6/10. Although it's brilliantly executed, I just didn't really feel any emotional involvement with any of the characters.
Don't know that I'd have given it a 10, as that implies it's perfect (which nothing really is). Solid nines all the way through though, extras aside of course.
Did you go for the R1 or the R3? R1 has a better video transfer, but the R3 has better audio.
Did you go for the R1 or the R3? R1 has a better video transfer, but the R3 has better audio.
I've just ordered my copy. It is rare for DVDAnswers to award 10/10 for anything, so if Ben's review and other comments are anything to go by this sounds like a great film.
Great review Ben.
Quote: Originally posted by Garth D
Get real. This will be talked about in 20 years time? It is the most gimmicky film of all time. HORRIBLE writing, completely cheesy story. The ONLY thing it has going for it is the visual aspect. And it's not like this was the first movie to do what it did either! Sky Captain already did it. This was the most boring movie I have seen in a decade. Oh my god. I can't believe ANYONE thinks this is great. Wow. It amazes me how blinded people can be buy a little bit of special effects. I'm gonna hace to disagree with you Garth. If you read the graphic books and short stories, you should of been a big fan of this movie when it came out. I only read one and it had nothing to do with this movie. Most people here enjoyed this movie (I did, for one), and I think Ben did an awesome review here. 10/10 here.
Quote: Originally posted by Garth D
Get real. This will be talked about in 20 years time? It is the most gimmicky film of all time. HORRIBLE writing, completely cheesy story. The ONLY thing it has going for it is the visual aspect. And it's not like this was the first movie to do what it did either! Sky Captain already did it. This was the most boring movie I have seen in a decade. Oh my god. I can't believe ANYONE thinks this is great. Wow. It amazes me how blinded people can be buy a little bit of special effects. I'm gonna hace to disagree with you Garth. If you read the graphic books and short stories, you should of been a big fan of this movie when it came out. I only read one and it had nothing to do with this movie. Most people here enjoyed this movie (I did, for one), and I think Ben did an awesome review here. 10/10 here.
Ben, nice review, I have the R1 disc too and I fully agree about the technical details (I also noticed the red dress at the beginning), but there are some things you got wrong:
-The actors credits are obviously presented alphabetically, hence why Alba is first, Aoki second, etc. I am surprised you didn't notice that.
-There certainly isn't any DGA rule against multiple directors on a film (Matrix and countless others being examples). The problem was that Rodriguez wanted to credit Miller, who is not a director. That was the DGA's problem.
-Trivial really, but Dwight's story is the middle one, not the last.
And yes, Sin City is one of the best films ever created, but certainly isn't for everyone. In order to appreciate it 100% you must also have knowledge of the source material.
-The actors credits are obviously presented alphabetically, hence why Alba is first, Aoki second, etc. I am surprised you didn't notice that.
-There certainly isn't any DGA rule against multiple directors on a film (Matrix and countless others being examples). The problem was that Rodriguez wanted to credit Miller, who is not a director. That was the DGA's problem.
-Trivial really, but Dwight's story is the middle one, not the last.
And yes, Sin City is one of the best films ever created, but certainly isn't for everyone. In order to appreciate it 100% you must also have knowledge of the source material.
The best film of the year, by far.
Quote: Originally posted by Matt Thompson
And not only was Star Wars 3 better, so were Batman Begins, Wedding Crashers, The 40-Year-Old Virgin, and Serenity. And those are just off the top of my head.
I do hope your kidding, none of those movies are in the same vein as Sin City, except maybe Star Wars and Batman Begins, but even they were nowhere near as fantastic as Sin City. And about Wedding Crashers and The 40 Year Old Virgin, are you being serious, you cannot compare them to Sin City, and they are certainly not better.
And not only was Star Wars 3 better, so were Batman Begins, Wedding Crashers, The 40-Year-Old Virgin, and Serenity. And those are just off the top of my head.
I do hope your kidding, none of those movies are in the same vein as Sin City, except maybe Star Wars and Batman Begins, but even they were nowhere near as fantastic as Sin City. And about Wedding Crashers and The 40 Year Old Virgin, are you being serious, you cannot compare them to Sin City, and they are certainly not better.
I'm off to watch it again this Wednesday at my local cineworld.
I felt that they should of just ended it with Bruice Willis that was a perfect ending, the proper ending felt like it was just tacked on as a lets end a movie on a high.
I think I will enjoy it even more knowing that the stories and the characters will be fully developed in the up and coming special edition.
So it's that and the extended edition of Kill Bill to wait for.
I felt that they should of just ended it with Bruice Willis that was a perfect ending, the proper ending felt like it was just tacked on as a lets end a movie on a high.
I think I will enjoy it even more knowing that the stories and the characters will be fully developed in the up and coming special edition.
So it's that and the extended edition of Kill Bill to wait for.
Completely overrated. It's a good film, yes, but nifty visuals don't make up for a piss-poor script and not a single likeable character.
And not only was Star Wars 3 better, so were Batman Begins, Wedding Crashers, The 40-Year-Old Virgin, and Serenity. And those are just off the top of my head.
And not only was Star Wars 3 better, so were Batman Begins, Wedding Crashers, The 40-Year-Old Virgin, and Serenity. And those are just off the top of my head.
I FUCKING LOVE THIS MOVIE!!! MY favorite movie of all TIME!!! God dude it pissed me off when people said Star Wars was better, i'll kick anyone in the nuts if i hear that again! I love this movie, smart, funny, good ass cast, action, drama it f u c k i ng rules!!
Hmmm......
This film was so over rated in my opinion. It was ok but certainly wasnt as good as I was led to believe. Still, thats the thing about personal taste..... Im a man that loves The Princess Bride and Willow...... maybe my opinion shouldnt count.....
RE:
This film was good.. NOT great in my opinion. The visuals and a lot of the acting was top notch (same for make-up) but as a film, it certainly was nothing fantastic. I really enjoyed it, don't get me wrong, but like someone else said.. it got a little to long and therefore I found myself loosing interest because it was the same thing over and over by the end. And no, it isn't the best film of the year either in my opinion. Batman Begins and Grizzly Man are both much stronger in most respects and as films both tower above Sin City.
"comes to life in what is easily one of the greatest achievements in cinema history"
WOW.. really???? I mean, as far as the visuals, yes it is a great accomplishment. But the film as a whole was certainly no revolutionary. Just my 2 cents
"comes to life in what is easily one of the greatest achievements in cinema history"
WOW.. really???? I mean, as far as the visuals, yes it is a great accomplishment. But the film as a whole was certainly no revolutionary. Just my 2 cents
dude! i saw SIN CITY as a headline in the main page... and i thought it was news about the upcoming special edition! I was disappointed in one sense... but i was treated to a great review for one of my fav flicks, by one of my all time fav directors!
My only problem with the movie is the narrative dialogue. I thaught it was a bit too long and because of that, some scenes started to bored me.
This movie is brilliant i agree 100%.
Do anyone know if the rumored special edition that comes out in the near future, will have the theatrical edition on as well?
Because if it doesn't then i will buy this for sure
Do anyone know if the rumored special edition that comes out in the near future, will have the theatrical edition on as well?
Because if it doesn't then i will buy this for sure
Wow Garth. You must have some amazing taste for film that nobody else in this world has been blessed with. You're calling people blinded when you are in the minority. There was nothing boring about it at all. Also, it hasen't been done before. It wasn't the first all digital movie, but it was the ONLY comic book film 100% true to its source. The images and the dialogue are exactly identical to the graphic novels. Sin City 2 and 3 should be just as great.
Quote: Originally posted by Garth D
Get real. This will be talked about in 20 years time? It is the most gimmicky film of all time. HORRIBLE writing, completely cheesy story. The ONLY thing it has going for it is the visual aspect. And it's not like this was the first movie to do what it did either! Sky Captain already did it. This was the most boring movie I have seen in a decade. Oh my god. I can't believe ANYONE thinks this is great. Wow. It amazes me how blinded people can be buy a little bit of special effects.
Let me guess, you've probably haven't even read any of the comics that the movie is based on right?
Get real. This will be talked about in 20 years time? It is the most gimmicky film of all time. HORRIBLE writing, completely cheesy story. The ONLY thing it has going for it is the visual aspect. And it's not like this was the first movie to do what it did either! Sky Captain already did it. This was the most boring movie I have seen in a decade. Oh my god. I can't believe ANYONE thinks this is great. Wow. It amazes me how blinded people can be buy a little bit of special effects.
Let me guess, you've probably haven't even read any of the comics that the movie is based on right?
Great review, great movie.
Get real. This will be talked about in 20 years time? It is the most gimmicky film of all time. HORRIBLE writing, completely cheesy story. The ONLY thing it has going for it is the visual aspect. And it's not like this was the first movie to do what it did either! Sky Captain already did it. This was the most boring movie I have seen in a decade. Oh my god. I can't believe ANYONE thinks this is great. Wow. It amazes me how blinded people can be buy a little bit of special effects.
Cheers. To be honest I am just glad I have finally got the damn think posted, it's about a week overdue.
It is the best film of the year, and I can't wait for Sin City 2 coming out next year - I just hope FM and RR stay true to their vision of the first film. If they do, I feel we have another classic in the midst...
It is the best film of the year, and I can't wait for Sin City 2 coming out next year - I just hope FM and RR stay true to their vision of the first film. If they do, I feel we have another classic in the midst...
review
AGREE 100%,GREAT REVIEW
BEST FILM OF THE YEAR
BEST FILM OF THE YEAR
Under 17 requires accompanying parent or adult guardian
Disc Details
Release Date:
16th August 2005
Discs:
1
Disc Type:
Single side, dual layer
RCE:
No
Video:
NTSC
Aspect:
1.85:1
Anamorphic:
Yes
Colour:
Yes
Audio:
Dolby Digital 5.1 English, DTS 5.1 English
Subtitles:
English, Spanish
Extras:
Behind-the-Scenes Featurette
Easter Egg:
No
Feature Details
Director:
Frank Miller, Robert Rodriguez, Quentin Tarantino
Cast:
Jessica Alba, Devon Aoki, Alexis Bledel, Powers Boothe , Rosario Dawson, Benicio Del Toro, Michael Clarke Duncan, Carla Gugino, Josh Hartnett , Rutger Hauer, Jaime King, Michael Madsen, Brittany Murphy, Clive Owen, Mickey Rourke, Nick Stahl, Bruce Willis, Elijah Wood, Marley Shelton
Genre:
Action, Crime and Thriller
Length:
124 minutes
Ratings
Amazon.com
FOLLOW DVDACTIVE
Follow our updates
OTHER INTERESTING STUFF
Hot Easter Eggs
Star Wars: The Clone Wars - The Complete Season Two
UK - BD
Transformers: The Movie – 20th Anniversary Special Edition
US - DVD R1
Spider-Man 2
HK - DVD
Star Wars: Episode III - Revenge of the Sith
US - DVD R1
Battlestar Galactica: The Plan
UK - BD
Hot Articles
Star Wars: The Changes - Part Three
DVD
Will streaming kill physical media?
DVD | HD | BD
Active Essentials: Zombie Flesheaters Part 1
DVD
Star Wars: The Changes - Part One
DVD | BD
Star Wars: The Changes - Part Two
DVD
New Editorials
SXSW Film 2013 - Part 1
US - DVD | HD | BD
Will streaming kill physical media?
DVD | HD | BD
Gabe's 2012 Wrap-Up
DVD | BD
Netflix Reviewed
UK - DVD | HD | BD
Guest Column: Dark Shadows on DVD
US - DVD R1
Most Talked About
The Fault in Our Stars
US - DVD R1 | BD RA
Godzilla
US - DVD R1 | BD RA
Disney Animation
US - DVD R1 | BD RA
WB October 2/3/4 Film Collections
US - BD RA
Steven Spielberg Director's Collection
US - BD RA
