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.




Comments

Popular posts from this blog

She writes Twilight fan fiction.

Vampire Academy (2014)
My willingness to give writer Daniel Waters some slack on the grounds of early glories sometimes pays off (Sex and Death 101) and sometimes, as with this messy and indistinct Young Adult adaptation, it doesn’t. If Vampire Academy plods along as a less than innovative smart-mouthed Buffy rip-off that might be because, if you added vampires to Heathers, you would probably get something not so far from the world of Joss Whedon. Unfortunately inspiration is a low ebb throughout, not helped any by tepid direction from Daniel’s sometimes-reliable brother Mark and a couple of hopelessly plankish leads who do their best to dampen down any wit that occasionally attempts to surface.

I can only presume there’s a never-ending pile of Young Adult fiction poised for big screen failure, all of it comprising multi-novel storylines just begging for a moment in the Sun. Every time an adaptation crashes and burns (and the odds are that they will) another one rises, hydra-like, hoping…

Prepare the Heathen’s Stand! By order of purification!

Apostle (2018)
(SPOILERS) Another week, another undercooked Netflix flick from an undeniably talented director. What’s up with their quality control? Do they have any? Are they so set on attracting an embarrassment of creatives, they give them carte blanche, to hell with whether the results are any good or not? Apostle's an ungainly folk-horror mashup of The Wicker Man (most obviously, but without the remotest trace of that screenplay's finesse) and any cult-centric Brit horror movie you’d care to think of (including Ben Wheatley's, himself an exponent of similar influences-on-sleeve filmmaking with Kill List), taking in tropes from Hammer, torture porn, and pagan lore but revealing nothing much that's different or original beyond them.

You can’t just outsource your entire life.

Tully (2018)
(SPOILERS) A major twist is revealed in the last fifteen minutes of Tully, one I'll happily admit not to have seen coming, but it says something about the movie that it failed to affect my misgivings over the picture up to that point either way. About the worst thing you can say about a twist is that it leaves you shrugging.

There's something wrong with the sky.

Hold the Dark (2018)
(SPOILERS) Hold the Dark, an adaptation of William Giraldi's 2014 novel, is big on atmosphere, as you'd expect from director Jeremy Saulnier (Blue Ruin, Green Room) and actor-now-director (I Don’t Want to Live in This World Anymore) pal Macon Blair (furnishing the screenplay and appearing in one scene), but contrastingly low on satisfying resolutions. Being wilfully oblique can be a winner if you’re entirely sure what you're trying to achieve, but the effect here is rather that it’s "for the sake of it" than purposeful.

Well, you did take advantage of a drunken sailor.

Tomb Raider (2018)
(SPOILERS) There's evidently an appetite out there for a decent Tomb Raider movie, given that the lousy 2001 incarnation was successful enough to spawn a (lousy) sequel, and that this lousier reboot, scarcely conceivably, may have attracted enough bums on seats to do likewise. If we're going to distinguish between order of demerits, we could characterise the Angelina Jolie movies as both pretty bad; Tomb Raider, in contrast, is unforgivably tedious.

If you want to have a staring contest with me, you will lose.

Phantom Thread (2017)
(SPOILERS) Perhaps surprisingly not the lowest grossing of last year's Best Picture Oscar nominees (that was Call Me by Your Name) but certainly the one with the least buzz as a genuine contender, subjected as Phantom Thread was to a range of views from masterpiece (the critics) to drudge (a fair selection of general viewers). The mixed reaction wasn’t so very far from Paul Thomas Anderson's earlier The Master, and one suspects the nomination was more to do with the golden glow of Daniel Day-Lewis in his first role in half a decade (and last ever, if he's to be believed) than mass Academy rapture with the picture. Which is ironic, as the relatively unknown Vicky Krieps steals the film from under him.

No one understands the lonely perfection of my dreams.

Ridley Scott Ridders Ranked
During the '80s, I anticipated few filmmakers' movies more than Ridley Scott's; those of his fellow xenomorph wrangler James Cameron, perhaps. In both cases, that eagerness for something equalling their early efforts receded as they studiously managed to avoid the heights they had once reached. Cameron's output dropped off a cliff after he won an Oscar. Contrastingly, Scott's surged like never before when his film took home gold. Which at least meant he occasionally delivered something interesting, but sadly, it was mostly quantity over quality. Here are the movies Scott has directed in his career thus far - and with his rate of  productivity, another 25 by the time he's 100 may well be feasible – ranked from worst to best.

This is it. This is the moment of my death.

Fearless (1993)
Hollywood tends to make a hash of any exploration of existential or spiritual themes. The urge towards the simplistic, the treacly or the mawkishly uplifting, without appropriate filtering or insight, usually overpowers even the best intentions. Rarely, a movie comes along that makes good on its potential and then, more than likely, it gets completely ignored. Such a fate befell Fearless, Peter Weir’s plane crash survivor-angst film, despite roundly positive critical notices. For some reason audiences were willing to see a rubgy team turn cannibal in Alive, but this was a turn-off? Yet invariably anyone who has seen Fearless speaks of it in glowing terms, and rightly so.

Weir’s pictures are often thematically rich, more anchored by narrative than those of, say, Terrence Malick but similarly preoccupied with big ideas and their expression. He has a rare grasp of poetry, symbolism and the mythic. Weir also displays an acute grasp of the subjective mind-set, and possesses …

Outstanding. Now, let’s bite off all the heads and pile them up in the corner.

Venom (2018)
(SPOILERS) A 29% fresh rating on Rotten Tomatoes can't be wrong, can it? To go by the number of one-star reviews Sony’s attempt to kick-start their own shred of the Marvel-verse has received, you’d think it was the new Battlefield Earth, or Highlander II: The Quickening. Fortunately, it's far from that level of ignominy. And while it’s also a considerable distance from showing the polish and assuredness of the official Disney movies, it nevertheless manages to establish its own crudely winning sense of identity.

The whole thing should just be your fucking nose!

A Star is Born (2018)
(SPOILERS) A shoe-in for Best Picture Oscar? Perhaps not, since it will have to beat at very least Roma and First Man to claim the prize, but this latest version of A Star is Born still comes laden with more acclaim than the previous three versions put together (and that's with a Best Picture nod for the 1937 original). While the film doesn't quite reach the consistent heights suggested by the majority of critics, who have evacuated their adjectival bowels lavishing it with superlatives, it's undoubtedly a remarkably well-made, stunningly acted piece, and perhaps even more notably, only rarely feels like its succumbing to just how familiar this tale of rise to, and parallel fall from, stardom has become.