Skip to main content

Is that the best you can do, you pansies?

Sin City
(2005)

(SPOILERS) Sin City is generally seen as one of the more faithful and estimable comic book adaptations. It certainly has its fans, although evidently not as many as Robert Rodriguez and Frank Miller thought, since last year’s sequel went belly-up. Perhaps that was down to the nine-year gap between the original and its prequel/sequel (clearly a thing for Miller cash-grab narratives, although one would hardly label his writing tricky), or perhaps it’s a case of the emperor’s new clothes. Sin City gets labelled neo-noir, but that carries with the implication of a development beyond film noir in some shape or form. Rodriguez and Miller take the iconography of noir, but their only “advancement” is lashings of sex and violence (and a touch of fantasy hyperbole). Their movie revels in mining new depths of sadism from the genre in a similar fashion to Dead Men Don’t Wear Plaid’s sourcing it for comedy yuks.


Sin City didn’t particularly impress me when I saw it at the cinema a decade ago; the stylistic conceit wore off quickly, not that it was much of a wow to begin with. All that remained after that was Miller’s unpleasant leering. I had a not dissimilar similar response to the also heavily stylised 300, but in Sin City’s case the hollow storytelling and ingrained lack of engagement added to the overall disenchantment. If 300’s filmmaking complements the movie (whether you like that movie or not), it would be difficult to contest that approach to Sin City facilitates immersion in the tales being told. Yes, it authentically replicates the pages of the comic book, but is that a good thing, as a piece of cinema? A blended approach can work (Ang Lee’s underrated Hulk), but here there’s nothing behind the green screen. The comic book may be a page-turner, but the movie is locked into the static spectacle dictated by its directors. One can behold it, but it there is no involvement.


Miller presumes, I presume, that Sin City’s title gives him carte blanche to depict a catalogue of sadism and grotesquery on screen. During the course of the movie, we’re witness to a litany of dismemberment, misogyny, homophobia, and rape, all in the name of titillation. To make the bad medicine go down, he and Rodriguez whip up a fascistic veneer, one that might be viewed as overstatement or self-mockery if the picture wasn’t so humourless.


In addition, the characters and stories are relentlessly one-note. Miller’s women are all victims or whores (with a transparent attempt to mollify this by including some kick-ass hooker bitches). Two of the plotlines rely on man-child monsters for motivation, edifyingly distinguished from each other by one preying on children and the other women. ). In both cases, the establishment (church, state, the police) protects the perpetrators. Maybe its rudimentary palate is the point, but if so it didn’t need two hours to get it across.


Miller embraces the trappings of hard-boiled detective fiction, but he imbues it with no vitality. The incessant voiceovers carry no wit or intelligence, and neither does the construction of the storylines. There’s no intrigue here. The noir is phoned-in, a means for Miller to indulge his baser instincts, his hard-boiled masturbation fantasy.


The effect of this is antithetical to expectations. With the wall-to-wall talent (and Josh Hartnett, and Jessica Alba) the last thing one would expect is scenes playing out like an amateur theatre production, but they do. Bruce Willis is perfect for pulp fiction (ahem), but the only aspect of his performance that registers is the rate post-2000 sight of a rug adorning his shiny pate.


Mickey Rourke is as impressive and memorable in his own way as Ron Perlman in Hellboy, but Marv is a much more appealing character in the sequel. Powers Boothe is appropriately despicable. Benicio Del Toro conducts an experiment in being subsumed by prosthetics and accent, but it relies on its effect by knowing it’s Del Toro playing. Nick Stahl is a ridiculous boogieman (the Yellow Bastard) while Elijah Wood plays against type as a silent cannibal (since then he’s attempted to show the dark side of Elijah a few times, to tepid results).


One assumes Rodriguez cast Alba because he has the hots for her. Either that or he appreciated the irony of a stripper who doesn’t strip in a movie where pretty much every other female character appears in some state of disrobement or peripheral attire (one might consider Rodriguez entire career to be ironic, but I think that would be giving him too much credit). Nancy is a significantly sized role, but she’s part of an already weak story before Alba steps into it, which consists of Nick Stahl being loathsomely mustard-coloured and Bruce’s voice over (as Hartigan) fretting and obsessing over her. What is one to make of Miller’s Lolita plot device, in which Hartigan must brave out the attentions of the now-legal girl he saved? Nothing edifying, that’s for sure.


Others fare better. Rosario Dawson is opposite Clive Owen in The Big Fat Kill and is little more than another girls-with-guns number. Ironically, when Sin City does work, it’s usually down to scenes plays out more classically, rather defeating the point of the exercise. Carla Gugino’s breasts are lovingly upheld, but it’s all downhill for her from there. She’s a lesbian so she has to die, and Rodriguez also gives us a taste of his female amputee fantasies (see also Planet Terror).


Does any of the stylisation work? WeIl, the luminous blood is quite effective, but much of the emboldening merely reproduces comic colour flashes or exaggerated action (car chases, leaping great distances) in a manner that doesn’t thrill when put into physical motion. I guess the one upside of this is that Rodriguez approach appears less slapdash and “that’ll do” than usual; it’s supposed to look fake and unreal!


Occasionally, there’s a moment that hones in one what the movie might have been. Stuka is shot through the chest with an arrow but continues to interact with his associates through the rest of the scene; it’s a rate moment of humour clicking (Del Toro’s post-death digressions fail in this regard).


In the years since, few have attempted a full-blown repeat of Sin City’s visual flourish. The Spirit, Miller’s solo directorial outing, mimicked the approach to public indifference and general derision. Now, A Dame to Kill For has tanked. It seems like a late but fitting verdict on a pungent brew of degradation, one arrogant enough to think it could get a free pass appears on blunt stylisation and weak homage alone.




Popular posts from this blog

Your Mickey Mouse is one big stupid dope!

Enemy Mine (1985) (SPOILERS) The essential dynamic of Enemy Mine – sworn enemies overcome their differences to become firm friends – was a well-ploughed one when it was made, such that it led to TV Tropes assuming, since edited, that it took its title from an existing phrase (Barry Longyear, author of the 1979 novella, made it up, inspired by the 1961 David Niven film The Best of Enemies ). The Film Yearbook Volume 5 opined that that Wolfgang Petersen’s picture “ lacks the gritty sauciness of Hell in the Pacific”; John Boorman’s WWII film stranded Lee Marvin and Toshiro Mifune on a desert island and had them first duking it out before becoming reluctant bedfellows. Perhaps germanely, both movies were box office flops.

If I do nothing else, I will convince them that Herbert Stempel knows what won the goddam Academy Award for Best goddam Picture of 1955. That’s what I’m going to accomplish.

Quiz Show (1994) (SPOILERS) Quiz Show perfectly encapsulates a certain brand of Best Picture nominee: the staid, respectable, diligent historical episode, a morality tale in response to which the Academy can nod their heads approvingly and discerningly, feeding as it does their own vainglorious self-image about how times and attitudes have changed, in part thanks to their own virtuousness. Robert Redford’s film about the 1950s Twenty-One quiz show scandals is immaculately made, boasts a notable cast and is guided by a strong screenplay from Paul Attanasio (who, on television, had just created the seminal Homicide: Life on the Streets ), but it lacks that something extra that pushes it into truly memorable territory.

Say hello to the Scream Extractor.

Monsters, Inc. (2001) (SPOILERS) I was never the greatest fan of Monsters, Inc. , even before charges began to be levelled regarding its “true” subtext. I didn’t much care for the characters, and I particularly didn’t like the way Pixar’s directors injected their own parenting/ childhood nostalgia into their plots. Something that just seems to go on with their fare ad infinitum. Which means the Pixars I preferred tended to be the Brad Bird ones. You know, the alleged objectivist. Now, though, we learn Pixar has always been about the adrenochrome, so there’s no going back…

Other monks will meet their deaths here. And they too will have blackened fingers. And blackened tongues.

The Name of the Rose (1986) (SPOILERS) Umberto Eco wasn’t awfully impressed by Jean Jacques-Annaud’s adaptation of his novel – or “ palimpsest of Umberto Eco’s novel ” as the opening titles announce – to the extent that he nixed further movie versions of his work. Later, he amended that view, calling it “ a nice movie ”. He also, for balance, labelled The Name of the Rose his worst novel – “ I hate this book and I hope you hate it too ”. Essentially, he was begrudging its renown at the expense of his later “ superior ” novels. I didn’t hate the novel, although I do prefer the movie, probably because I saw it first and it was everything I wanted from a medieval Sherlock Holmes movie set in a monastery and devoted to forbidden books, knowledge and opinions.

No one can be told what the Matrix is. You have to see it for yourself.

The Matrix  (1999) (SPOILERS) Twenty years on, and the articles are on the defining nature of The Matrix are piling up, most of them touching on how its world has become a reality, or maybe always was one. At the time, its premise was engaging enough, but it was the sum total of the package that cast a spell – the bullet time, the fashions, the soundtrack, the comic book-as-live-action framing and styling – not to mention it being probably the first movie to embrace and reflect the burgeoning Internet ( Hackers doesn’t really count), and subsequently to really ride the crest of the DVD boom wave. And now? Now it’s still really, really good.

Piece by piece, the camel enters the couscous.

The Forgiven (2021) (SPOILERS) By this point, the differences between filmmaker John Michael McDonagh and his younger brother, filmmaker and playwright Martin McDonagh, are fairly clearly established. Both wear badges of irreverence and provocation in their writing, and a willingness to tackle – or take pot-shots – at bigger issues, ones that may find them dangling their toes in hot water. But Martin receives the lion’s share of the critical attention, while John is generally recognised as the slightly lesser light. Sure, some might mistake Seven Psychopaths for a John movie, and Calvary for a Martin one, but there’s a more flagrant sense of attention seeking in John’s work, and concomitantly less substance. The Forgiven is clearly aiming more in the expressly substantial vein of John’s earlier Calvary, but it ultimately bears the same kind of issues in delivery.

You ever heard the saying, “Don’t rob the bank across from the diner that has the best donuts in three counties”?

2 Guns (2013) (SPOILERS) Denzel Washington is such a reliable performer, that it can get a bit boring. You end up knowing every gesture or inflection in advance, whether he’s playing a good guy or a bad guy. And his films are generally at least half decent, so you end up seeing them. Even in Flight (or perhaps especially in Flight ; just watch him chugging down that vodka) where he’s giving it his Oscar-nominatable best, he seems too familiar. I think it may be because he’s an actor who is more effective the less he does. In 2 Guns he’s not doing less, but sometimes it seems like it. That’s because the last person I’d ever expect blows him off the screen; Mark Wahlberg.

Twenty dwarves took turns doing handstands on the carpet.

Bugsy (1991) (SPOILERS) Bugsy is very much a Warren Beatty vanity project (aren’t they all, even the ones that don’t seem that way on the surface?), to the extent of his playing a title character a decade and a half younger than him. As such, it makes sense that producer Warren’s choice of director wouldn’t be inclined to overshadow star Warren, but the effect is to end up with a movie that, for all its considerable merits (including a script from James Toback chock full of incident), never really feels quite focussed, that it’s destined to lead anywhere, even if we know where it’s going.

In a few moments, you will have an experience that will seem completely real. It will be the result of your subconscious fears transformed into your conscious awareness.

Brainstorm (1983) (SPOILERS) Might Brainstorm have been the next big thing – a ground-breaking, game-changing cinematic spectacle that had as far reaching consequences as Star Wars (special effects) or Avatar (3D) – if only Douglas Trumbull had been allowed to persevere with his patented “Showscan” process (70mm film photographed and projected at 60 frames per second)? I suspect not; one only has to look at the not-so-far-removed experiment of Ang Lee with Billy Lynn’s Long Halftime Walk , and how that went down like a bag of cold sick, to doubt that any innovation will necessarily catch on (although Trumbull at least had a narrative hinge on which to turn his “more real than real” imagery, whereas Lee’s pretty much boiled down to “because it was there”). Brainstorm ’s story is, though, like its title, possibly too cerebral, too much concerned with the consciousness and touting too little of the cloyingly affirmative that Bruce Rubin inevitably brings to his screenplays. T

Haven’t you ever heard of the healing power of laughter?

Batman (1989) (SPOILERS) There’s Jaws , there’s Star Wars , and then there’s Batman in terms of defining the modern blockbuster. Jaws ’ success was so profound, it changed the way movies were made and marketed. Batman’s marketing was so profound, it changed the way tentpoles would be perceived: as cash cows. Disney tried to reproduce the effect the following year with Dick Tracy , to markedly less enthusiastic response. None of this places Batman in the company of Jaws as a classic movie sold well, far from it. It just so happened to hit the spot. As Tim Burton put it, it was “ more of a cultural phenomenon than a great movie ”. It’s difficult to disagree with his verdict that the finished product (for that is what it is) is “ mainly boring ”. Now, of course, the Burton bat has been usurped by the Nolan incarnation (and soon the Snyder). They have some things in common. Both take the character seriously and favour a sombre tone, which was much more of shock to the