The Sin City Films (Miller & Rodriguez, 2005/2014)

Discuss specific films and franchises
Message
Author
User avatar
Fletch F. Fletch
Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2004 7:54 pm
Location: Provo, Utah

#76 Post by Fletch F. Fletch »

Here's an excellent article by Peter Sanderson in his semi-regular column, Comics in Context:

http://comics.ign.com/articles/600/6009 ... ?fromint=1

He spends the first half talking about a comic industry-only screening in NYC but the more interesting part is the second half where he addresses the mainstream media reaction to the movie, both pros and con. Here's an interesting excerpt:
So far the grand prize for anti-comics invective in a review of the Sin City movie goes to an unexpected candidate: the usually mild-mannered Lisa Schwarzbaum in Entertainment Weekly. She begins by waving a red flag in comics' aficionados' eyes: "Faithfulness, a virtue in personal relationships, is overrated when it comes to movie adaptations of comic books. (Let the foaming from fanboys begin.)"

So here's step one: Schwarzbaum demonizes anyone who disagrees with her stand on whether a movie should be a faithful adaptation of a (ugh!) comic book: she sees herself as the mature, thinking adult, and those who disagree as immature, emotionally arrested children.
and here's another keeper:
Schwarzbaum's belittling of Miller extends still further. In attacking the use of Miller's name in the movie's title, she is also attacking the idea that it is really his movie. She next asserts that it "is first and foremost the cinematic work of Robert Rodriguez." She speaks of the "insistence" that the film was jointly produced and directed by Rodriguez and Miller, based on Miller's work: she seems to be implying that idea that the idea that the movie really was the work of a true partnership between Rodriguez and Miller is a gross overstatement, maybe even a lie. (So when the Directors Guild refused to let Rodriguez give Miller credit as co-director, he resigned from the Guild over a lie? I don't think so.)
Also, Rodriguez talked a bit more about the upcoming DVD:

http://dvd.ign.com/articles/600/600858p1.html
We shot the full stories of the books," Rodriguez says. "And I knew we could truncate it down, we weren't going to lose any scenes. Eventually they would all be available for people to see. The DVD will come out with the theatrical cut, and then there will be a separate disc that's got the individual episodes separate with their own title card and you could just watch The Big Fat Kill from beginning to end in its full cut as a single story and then switch over and watch The Yellow Bastard, and that's 45 minutes. It will have all the material back in, so it will be like the experience of picking up the books where you pick up one story and you read it from beginning to end and it will have all the material in it. So you can kind of shuffle your own version of the movie and just watch them all separately. The stories will feature additional scenes that will be familiar to fans of the graphic novels. "There were some things we had cut out from [Yellow Bastard] just to pace it for a feature because they weren't supposed to be three stories put together when he first wrote them, they were all separate books. So [there were] things to sort of pace it for a feature and keep it on a through line… Mickey Rourke doesn't go visit his mom now like he did in the book and get his gun, but we shot all that and it's all great stuff.
milkcan
Joined: Wed Nov 03, 2004 9:48 pm

#77 Post by milkcan »

"What is it that I see in her eyes?"

Color.

Too repetitious and several bad acting/dialogue spots. This is definitely a guy movie- Rodriguez is still just an action director. Even though Tarantino is written all over it, because this is Frank Miller's movie its more original than anything Tarantino will ever do. Over-the-top and gratuitous. I ABSOLUTELY loved Rourke, Willis, and del Toro though. Fantastic and rather brilliant translation of the comic book style (I've never read the comic book) to the screen- see it for that! Part of me despises it (its a 13 year old's film, misogynous), the other part of me loves it (pulpy, dark, dank fun).
User avatar
pzman84
Joined: Mon Dec 20, 2004 8:05 pm

#78 Post by pzman84 »

One thing that constantly pisses me off is Rodriguez constantly tries to sound like a "rebel." He always talks about how he defying the system and doing things Hollywood wouldn't do. He always is trying to say his films are independent. Well, how many independent filmmakers get $40 million and get to cast virtually every role with a celebrity? Or get access to the special effects equiptment? Also, is their anything truly remakable about his films? Any hard hitting social commentary or deep personal feelings? No. In all his movies, he comes off as an overgrown kid. Violence aside, is their anything studios would truly object to? Does it piss of their corporate parrents or not appeal to the 18-29 demographic in tests? No. It would be so much better if he was to just admit that he was part of the system he says he is not part of. Quentin Tarantino and Kevin Smith all admit they no longer make independents. Rodriguez should too.
User avatar
Jun-Dai
監督
Joined: Thu Nov 04, 2004 8:34 am
Location: London, UK
Contact:

#79 Post by Jun-Dai »

He's not an independent filmmaker, but he is something of a rebel--within Hollywood anyways (i.e., he's not much of a rebel in the larger scheme of things).
Well, how many independent filmmakers get $40 million and get to cast virtually every role with a celebrity?
How many mainstream Hollywood filmmakers can cast virtually every role with a celebrity for only $45 million?
Or get access to the special effects equiptment?
How many Hollywood filmmakers could have done special effects along those lines for only $45 million? (Kerry Conran, apparently)
Also, is their [sic] anything truly remakable about his films? Any hard hitting social commentary or deep personal feelings? No. In all his movies, he comes off as an overgrown kid. Violence aside, is their anything studios would truly object to? Does it piss of their corporate parrents or not appeal to the 18-29 demographic in tests? No. It would be so much better if he was to just admit that he was part of the system he says he is not part of. Quentin Tarantino and Kevin Smith all admit they no longer make independents. Rodriguez should too.
That's sort of a different point. Has Rodriguez every claimed to have hard-hitting social commentary or deep personal feelings (I'm not even sure I want to see Rodriguez', or anyone's deep personal feelings solipsistically dumped out onto the screen)? Are his films truly remarkable? Well yes and no. If you are into action filmmaking, then I'd say yes, but if not, then probably no. For one thing, he tends to invest a lot more of himself into his films--editing them, scoring them, etc., rather than simply taking the easier route. Good or bad, the films are very much a product of his personal vision. I don't really care for any of his films, but he, like Tarantino, is very much into the films he makes, and I can at least respect that.

Sure he's touted as an independent filmmaker, but so is Tarantino, Minghella, Van Sant, and a whole host of other "independent" filmmakers that live along the edges of Hollywood with 8-figure budgets and the cell phone number of every Hollywood star.

Does Rodriguez really deny being Hollywood these days? I haven't seen anything to that effect, though I haven't seen him admit to being Hollywood either. Certainly he's not your typical Hollywood director.
User avatar
justeleblanc
Joined: Wed Nov 03, 2004 10:05 pm
Location: Connecticut

#80 Post by justeleblanc »

One thing I do respect about Rob-Rod is that he wasn't the star of the film. With KILL BILL, I wanted to puke because I felt like Q-Tar was trying to be the star of the film with his "so cool" and reflexive style.

I found Sin City remarkable in that it managed to avoid the pretense and keep it exactly how it should have been. It wasn't trying to be an epic nor was Rob-Rod trying to impress anyone, he just made a great adaptaion with great action scenes, interesting stylization, and well, basically everything was polished. It was everything it should have been without trying to hard, dare I say it's an honest action film, in the respect.

In the grand scheme of things, I'd say Rob-Rod might even be a better filmmaker than Q-Tar. With RR, there's no forced signature in his films nor is there forced "cool-ness". I predict that QT's next film with be his "One from the Heart" while RR's next film will be his "Taxi Driver".
User avatar
Morbii
Joined: Sat Nov 27, 2004 7:38 am

#81 Post by Morbii »

JusteLeblanc wrote: while RR's next film will be his "Taxi Driver".
That or "The Adventures of Shark Boy & Lava Girl in 3-D". :P
User avatar
Fletch F. Fletch
Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2004 7:54 pm
Location: Provo, Utah

#82 Post by Fletch F. Fletch »

pzman84 wrote:One thing that constantly pisses me off is Rodriguez constantly tries to sound like a "rebel." He always talks about how he defying the system and doing things Hollywood wouldn't do. He always is trying to say his films are independent. Well, how many independent filmmakers get $40 million and get to cast virtually every role with a celebrity? Or get access to the special effects equiptment? Also, is their anything truly remakable about his films? Any hard hitting social commentary or deep personal feelings? No. In all his movies, he comes off as an overgrown kid. Violence aside, is their anything studios would truly object to? Does it piss of their corporate parrents or not appeal to the 18-29 demographic in tests? No. It would be so much better if he was to just admit that he was part of the system he says he is not part of. Quentin Tarantino and Kevin Smith all admit they no longer make independents. Rodriguez should too.
In some ways he's still independent. He certainly is a rebel who works within the system. He makes all of his films in Austin (or Mexico) for one thing. He also has worked hard to make, essentially, his own studio. He has his own soundstage complete with green screens, editing suite, special effects, etc. So that he can pretty much make his own movie on his own. Also, he is a real hands-on filmmaker editing, shooting, directing, doing the special effects, composing, etc. The man wears many hats as it were.

And on Sin City, he also rebelled against the system in that he quit the DGA when they failed to recognize Frank Miller as co-director of the movie. Also, he started making the movie with his own money, getting Josh Hartnett to film "The Customer is Always Right" in order to convince Miller that he could do his comic justice.

If you read any articles on how Rodriguez shoots his movies, he is still adhering to an indie/guerilla filmmaking style -- fast and loose. He now uses digital cameras and just keeps 'em running and thereby doing away with traditional camera set-ups.

I like Rodriguez and his movies. I like how he is pushing the democratizing of filmmaking, that anybody can make a movie if they have the notion to do so. I like his energy and enthusiasm. I don't think he's a great filmmaker but he's excellent at the kind of films he does make: entertaining popcorn movies. I don't think he has pretentions to make anything else but these kinds of movies.
User avatar
Floyd
Joined: Sat Nov 06, 2004 2:25 am

#83 Post by Floyd »

I enjoyed this one overall because realistically it is a very well done pulpish action film although there was quite a few problems I had with it that made me cringe in parts (not from the violence). I realize great acting was not an aimed goal for the film but still I must comment.

Bruce Willis was brutal to watch. Michael Madsen seemed like he forgot he was off the set of Tilt, he's like a character of himself at this point. The drawing from film noir dialogue bugged me because it was so blatant and thrown out there in a fashion I didn't care for. Alba cannot act but she is very attractive so you have to take the good with the bad with her I suppose. Brittany Murphy was also cringe worthy. Crickets could be heard during that foolish arrow scene with the guy. Pretty bad. Elijah Wood character was interesting too bad he did talk that one time and it kind of set off my feelings of his character. With his usage of cult actors it was too bad Lance Henriksen wasn't involved.

Good points
The use of color and cinematography, I am sure it has been covered. Yellow Bastard. Gugino nudity (sorry), Powers Boothe screen time. Most of what Marv does is quality entertainment. I was always interested in the stories and I believe that says something for it in general.
User avatar
milk114
Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2004 9:38 pm
Location: Mar Vista, Los Angeles

#84 Post by milk114 »

what's interesting is that Miller and Rodriguez talked on Fresh Air on NPR on monday. http://www.npr.org/templates/story/stor ... Id=4585635

And appeared on 60 Minutes on wednesday
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/04/ ... rchStories

It seems that after a huge push aimed at movie fans, comic fans, and"guys" (a huge advertising campaign on Spike TV and similar venues, like a Maxim cover spread (or so I'm told, I can't find it online)).

But now it's reaching a "mainstream" audience, an older audience with more money. But instead of focusing on the violence these interviews are focusing on the melodrama and connections to film noir and older films. I wonder if it is a deliberate move by Dimension et al or if it's because comic and film savy critics are taking notice of these connections to past films.

The film has already bypassed it's production cost, though it had a large drop-off at the box office. I wonder how this shifting in marketing will effect the bottom line.
User avatar
lord_clyde
Joined: Thu Dec 23, 2004 8:22 am
Location: Ogden, UT

#85 Post by lord_clyde »

At least it will make bank on dvd.
User avatar
Fletch F. Fletch
Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2004 7:54 pm
Location: Provo, Utah

#86 Post by Fletch F. Fletch »

lord_clyde wrote:At least it will make bank on dvd.
It's doing quite well box office-wise. In two weeks it already made back its budget and it hasn't even played overseas yet. Meanwhile, Sahara, which cost $100 million+ has only squeaked out $18 mil.
User avatar
pzman84
Joined: Mon Dec 20, 2004 8:05 pm

#87 Post by pzman84 »

Fletch F. Fletch wrote:
lord_clyde wrote:At least it will make bank on dvd.
It's doing quite well box office-wise. In two weeks it already made back its budget and it hasn't even played overseas yet. Meanwhile, Sahara, which cost $100 million+ has only squeaked out $18 mil.
While Sin City has made back its budget, it has yet to recoup the P&A costs. Given it opened in 3,000 theaters and used a lot of TV ads, it could have been more than the movie. No one ever talks about P&A and they can equal, if not surpass, the film's budget.
User avatar
lord_clyde
Joined: Thu Dec 23, 2004 8:22 am
Location: Ogden, UT

#88 Post by lord_clyde »

Yeah, PA can get pricey. Too bad since Sin City is certainly the kind of film that could have thrived on word of mouth in the comic book nerd and Tarantino fanboy circuits.
User avatar
dx23
Joined: Wed Nov 03, 2004 12:52 am
Location: Puerto Rico

#89 Post by dx23 »

While Sin City has made back its budget, it has yet to recoup the P&A costs.
I always thought the P&A was already included in a films budget. The film production cost is x amount of dollars + promotion and advertising = total film budget.
User avatar
Fletch F. Fletch
Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2004 7:54 pm
Location: Provo, Utah

#90 Post by Fletch F. Fletch »

pzman84 wrote:While Sin City has made back its budget, it has yet to recoup the P&A costs. Given it opened in 3,000 theaters and used a lot of TV ads, it could have been more than the movie. No one ever talks about P&A and they can equal, if not surpass, the film's budget.
I'm sure overseas BO and DVD sales/rentals will more than pay that off.
User avatar
GringoTex
Joined: Wed Nov 03, 2004 9:57 am

#91 Post by GringoTex »

pzman84 wrote: Any hard hitting social commentary or deep personal feelings?
Once Upon A Time in Mexico is a latin liberation fairy tale.

Spy Kids was a deeply personal film for Rodriguez.
User avatar
lord_clyde
Joined: Thu Dec 23, 2004 8:22 am
Location: Ogden, UT

#92 Post by lord_clyde »

After seeing every possible degree of fear, love, compassion, and anger known to man in Elijah Wood's Frodo, seeing him play such a cold character was very unsettling (to say the least).
User avatar
Derek Estes
Joined: Wed Nov 03, 2004 12:00 am
Location: Portland Oregon

#93 Post by Derek Estes »

Granted, I have not read the Frank Miller books. But after leaving the theater I felt like I had spent the past 2 hours trapped in a HOT TOPIC. I think it was visually incredible, and I actually enjoyed the performances (particularly Willis), but overall I felt the film was like a Hyper Chuck Jones cartoon without the wit.

I'm sure that all of the hyper violence comes straight from the books, but after a few minutes of watching it I was left cold, I could no longer go "What the Fuck" after something outragous happened, because every dismemberment seemed inevitable. I love outragous elements like that in film, but I like it to be a little more of a rarity and not the basic rhythm of the film. Herschel Gordon Lewis had more subtletly. The Noir pastiche also got old for me, largely due to the level of post modern-irony with which it was delivered. I am a huge fan of Film Noir and that is surely part of my inability to accept those aspects, though I'm sure many of this films fans also love Noir, I personally could not accept it. In old Noir those aspects though somewhat self-conscience are not amplified to such characature, and I feel were often given a level of honesty, that Sin City could not. Ultimately I felt this film had the maturity of a 14 year old. And yes I think a film of this type could be made more maturely, but I guess this film was not going to be it.

But, I guess this film wasn't meant to please me. So you can take this for what it is worth.
User avatar
JHunter
Joined: Sun Nov 07, 2004 11:47 pm
Location: Philly

#94 Post by JHunter »

According to JoBlo.com, Robert Rodriguez has been given the greenlight to shoot TWO sequels early next year.
DrewReiber
Joined: Thu Nov 04, 2004 7:27 am

#95 Post by DrewReiber »

User avatar
Antoine Doinel
Joined: Sat Mar 04, 2006 5:22 pm
Location: Montreal, Quebec
Contact:

#96 Post by Antoine Doinel »

Some more on the possibility (or not) of a sequel from a Premiere interview with Michael Madsen:
Some of the other things that you have got coming up include Sin City 2.

Some of the other things that you have got coming up include Sin City 2.
They haven't shot it yet. I don't know if they ever will. I am not sure [about] the franchise. I think the Grindhouse thing didn't kind of work out...

...as well as they had hoped. Certainly not in the States.

I don't know what effect that is going to have on making Sin City 2. Sin City was Mickey [Rourke]'s film. Mickey is fucking incredible in that fucking movie. He is the movie. And I am happy for Mickey. Mickey is the real deal. Mickey is Mickey. And you can't fuck with that. And he did a tremendous job in that thing. The only reason I did it was because Robert Rodriguez said that if I took that little part I would get a bigger role in the sequel, that Bob would have more to do in the sequel. So I said: "Okay, fine." I am sitting on an apple box [in front of a green screen] and then when you see the movie, you're in a car. I don't understand it. I don't know how to do that. I don't get it.

Have you seen the script for Sin City 2 yet?

No. I talk to Frank Miller quite often. He came up to my house and we drank a lot of tequila. Frank is pretty funny. I haven't seen the script for Sin City 2. I don't know if they are gonna make it. I hope they do. And if and when they do, I will be in it.
patrick
Joined: Sun Mar 11, 2007 4:15 pm
Location: Philadelphia

#97 Post by patrick »

I've heard rumors (I forget where, Wizard Magazine possibly) that Rourke is dicking Miller and Rodriguez around on the second film and has possibly burned his bridges with them. Hopefully that's not true.
Cinesimilitude
Joined: Tue Jul 09, 2013 4:43 am

#98 Post by Cinesimilitude »

Madsen was terrible in Sin City. I hope he takes some notes from the others for the sequel.
User avatar
exte
Joined: Wed Nov 03, 2004 8:27 pm
Location: NJ

#99 Post by exte »

SncDthMnky wrote:Madsen was terrible in Sin City. I hope he takes some notes from the others for the sequel.
Wasn't he just the worst? I was going to quote his interview as proof he didn't know what he was doing, but I thought better of it. He's pretty terrible in general, and it seems he does that squinting thing in real life, too!
User avatar
flyonthewall2983
Joined: Mon Jun 27, 2005 7:31 pm
Location: Indiana
Contact:

#100 Post by flyonthewall2983 »

Didn't his character die in the first one?
Post Reply