Overall I thought the visual effects in Sin City were cool, but I have to say I found a lot of the images to be completely over-the-top disgusting for no real purpose.
I’m referring specifically to scenes of torture, castration, depiction of a woman who’s hand had been cut off and eaten in front of her, depiction of a guy chained to a tree while a dog ate his legs, etc.
It’s rare that I say that about a movie. I liked Pulp Fiction, which was plenty violent, and I liked South Park, which was and is plenty gross.
But this just seemed like digusting and horrifying for the sake of being disgusting and horrifying. I confess that I have never read the Sin City comics, although I used to be a big fan of Frank Miller back in the Daredevil days and also in the Dark Knight days. Also when the insultingly bad Daredevil movie came out, I remember thinking, this movie would have been much better if Frank Miller had been involved (didn’t he invent Electra and Bullseye?)
In one review I read, there was mention of 1950’s “gore” comics and the Frank Miller definitely did some things in that tradition. These comics would basically try to devise some of the goriest things to do to people, like saw off their limbs, apply tourniquets, and then let a hungry wolf have at them. That was the entertainment.
The recent movie Saw is best viewed as a gorefest.
So, I wouldn’t dispute that the movie AT TIMES was “digusting and horrifying for the sake of being disgusting and horrifying” but I wouldn’t say that as a criticism either.
It was also “cool for the sake of being cool”, “funny for the sake of being funny”. “Disgust and horror” are just two more emotions to appeal to.
The movie, while having logical plot lines, was more about looking good. The fighting looked good, the characters looked good, the lighting looked good, and yes, the GORE looked good.
I was interested in seeing this up until this past weekend. I was watching Reservoir Dogs, (which is a movie I have enjoyed in the past, I own both Kill Bills, etc. ) and all I could think was why do I find this shit entertaining? It is violence for the sake of violence. Even if it is satire - which I doubt, although KB1 could be satirical, satirical of Terrantino’s (sp) violent movies :rolleyes: - I was disgusted with myself for watching it. The scene near the end when everyone is dead, or dying, just seemed like a juvenile nihilistic statement of hatred.
FordPrefect, to some degree I agree with you. Maybe it’s because I grew up with two brothers and now have two sons, but when it comes to entertainment I sometimes seem to have the appetites of a 17 year old boy. (I am a 50 year old woman.) And sometimes I watch some of this stuff and indeed I think, why?
But I agree with trunk as well. Sin City looked real good, and had some comic (no pun intended) relief as well.
From what I hear, Sin City was a faithful recreation of Miller’s graphic novels, and yeah, Sin City was pretty graphic. Definitely not a walk in the park. But it was noirish, stylish, colorfully visceral. I did see a few walk-outs during the movie. Not sure everyone knew what they were getting into.
Sometimes Elijah Wood has unintentionally freaked me out. This time he was supposed to, and certainly did.
But if you agree that it is, in fact “disgusting,” why did you enjoy watching it?
I’m not trying to be snide, I’m actually curious. I know that I wouldn’t watch something that I find to be visually appalling, but that’s just how I am.
I’m easily disgusted and will walk out of most gory movies. For me, it was cartoon enough to cut out my gag reflex. There was heavy cartoon physics going on even omitting the fact that the main characters were taking cartoon amounts of damage while only being slowed down enough to further the plot. Not to mention that everyone was bleeding either white or yellow most of the time.
The villains were over the top. The heros were over the top. Women who don’t register cartoon level hot must be kept in locked pens somewhere. It was just very obviously a story at all times and not to be reacted to as if real.
I could get a little depressed that this fantasy realm is so hopeless, but it wouldn’t be a sad for the world kind of depressed, it would be a sad for the writers kind of depressed. It’s their world, after all. And for all I know, the writers sleep perfectly well at night.
Loved the cinematography. Especially EW’s glasses. Spooky. Enjoyed the time slippage as well.
I’m not sure. Why do people watch movies that make them scared? Or sad? Or angry? People like to use art to explore emotions that would be unpleasant when experienced in real life. I think it’s just part of being human.
That’s also a good question. I wouldn’t know as I don’t like those types of movies either. Then again, I can’t really think of any movies that would elicit that kind of reaction from me anyway.
Actually, I found the majority of the movie to be visually appealing, not appalling. The disgusting moments are only there to show you the state of the universe you’ve stepped into. Frank Miller has said that all three stories in the movie are love stories. Even in a horrible, dirty, and corrupt world, you can still find dignity, justice, and love.
Of course, sometimes Frank Miller’s version of justice involves dismemberment, but meh, to each his own…
I thought the scenes were incredibly disgusting. When Bruce Willis “eliminated” the Senator’s Son’s “weapons” I thought I was going to vomit. But I still enjoyed it through and through.
I think its better to look past the gore and enjoy the great story line, the comedic special effects, and the incredible cenimatography. The Black and white with the bits of color was genious, in my opinion. I think the lack of color in times can help emphasize points.
I wouldn’t skip the movie based surely on a few repulsive scenes.
The exaggerated corruption of Sin City only served as high contrast to the purity of the protagonists.
Bruce Willis’ “fair trade,” Micky Rourke’s noble savage, Clive Owen’s Nice Guy, the solidarity of the Old Town hookers – these are all dramatic splashes of humanity set against a general backdrop of nearly homogeneous evil, and make the same sort of dramatic impression as the isolated elements of supersaturated colour against the black-and-white universe of Sin City.
I was wondering pretty much the same thing recently, because I hate Reservoir Dogs a lot, but loved Kill Bill 1 and Sin City.
For starters, Kill Bill isn’t satirical of Tarantino’s other movies; it’s a satire/homage/knock-off/whatever you want to call it of Hong Kong action movies, spaghetti westerns, blacksploitation movies, and B-movies in general. And Sin City is the same for pulp detective and horror comics and a little bit of film noir.
So there’s a layer of artifice in there. None of the characters are real at all, and all of the violence is so over the top that it’s not really violence anymore. When the rest of the movie’s world is that fantastic, having a character get an axe to the groin or an arm or head chopped off is no more “disturbing” than seeing an anvil fall on Tom Cat’s head.
It’s not just a case of the filmmakers’ intention, either – I’ve got a good feeling that Reservoir Dogs was intended to be every bit as much a satire/homage to gangster movies as Kill Bill or even Pulp Fiction, and Tarantino wasn’t genuinely saying “cutting a guy’s ear off with ironic music in the background is BAD ASS!!!” But it still comes across that way, because there’s not enough style to the rest of the movie (sorry, camera angles alone don’t cut it) to justify it as anything other than juvenile violence.
Well, here’s the dictionary.com definition of the word “bad.”
Not achieving an adequate standard; poor: a bad concert.
Evil; sinful.
Vulgar or obscene: bad language.
Informal. Disobedient or naughty: bad children.
Disagreeable, unpleasant, or disturbing: a bad piece of news.
Unfavorable: bad reviews for the play.
Not fresh; rotten or spoiled: bad meat.
Injurious in effect; detrimental: bad habits.
Not working properly; defective: a bad telephone connection.
Full of or exhibiting faults or errors: bad grammar.
Having no validity; void: passed bad checks.
Being so far behind in repayment as to be considered a loss: bad loans.
Severe; intense: a bad cold.
So, in my estimation, Sin City is disgusting, but not “bad,” if you are using definitions 1, 2, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, or 12. Of course, it is bad if you are using definitions 3, 4, or 5. Which definition of “bad” I was using ought to be obvious from the context of the discussion.
So, was there some point you were trying to make, or were you just playing dueling dictionaries?
Saw it last weekend. Loved it. Agree that it’s horribly disgusting. I wasn’t really nauseous until the Yellow Bastard head splattering though. I mean, I thought a lot of it was over the top, but it was so cartoonish, it didn’t bother me the way some things on ER do.
In fact, it was *so *cartoonish that when I remember the movie, like when y’all are describing some of the scenes and they play in my head - they’re in drawn animation in my head. I don’t see Elijiah Wood as Kevin - I see a *drawing *of Elijah Wood as Kevin. Weird.
That’s odd, I also remember much of it as animation. With me, I think it might be a psychological distancing device that allows me to appreciate the film more in retrospect than I did when I was in the theatre; while watching it, I recall feeling a bit overwhelmed. It’s definitely a film of which I think I would like a second viewing.
That makes more sense, I probably knew that at some point but like most of what I have learned it has flitted off into the sunset.
This is an interesting point, Mrs. Prefect and I were talking about my reaction to Reservoir Dogs and the mini-series Band of Brothers came up. I am sickened by the violence in BoB, but in the sense that horrific things happened to these young men and women, things that shouldn’t have taken place. But the historicity of the series made it important to watch.
I guess what I am questioning is the need for satirical violence. Is the satire intended to wake us up from the desensitization? Seems to have worked for me but is that the film-makers intent? Given what I have seen of Tarantino’s work I would say otherwise. There doesn’t seem to be the inclination towards beauty in his work, simply a reaction to violence, or more cynically a wink, wink satire that allows further gratuity than would normally be accepted. His work seems to be based in the same sort of cultural vein as reality TV. It is a strawman that the rest of us can point to, giggle over, villify, and feel superior to. That being said, I am not sitting in the corner shocked at anyone else, I am just trying to figure out where my reaction came from .
Come to think of it, I believe it’s just as outlandish - only in the complete opposite manner - as any old western or war flich from the 60’s or so.
In one we see somebody get plastered with enough firepower, physical blows, drops from buildings, explosions, and numerous other forms of bodily harm that there really should not be anything left of the protagonists - yet they are still walking around.
In the other, a Nazi behind a machinegun rips out a few rounds and a GI behind plausable cover clutches his chest and slups over quietly.
They are equally goofy.
All that’s lacking from these disperate deaths is somebody shouting, “…black beast of AAAAAAARRRRRGGGHHH!!!”
but is that the film-makers intent? Given what I have seen of Tarantino’s work I would say otherwise. There doesn’t seem to be the inclination towards beauty in his work, simply a reaction to violence, or more cynically a wink, wink satire that allows further gratuity than would normally be accepted. His work seems to be based in the same sort of cultural vein as reality TV. It is a strawman that the rest of us can point to, giggle over, villify, and feel superior to. That being said, I am not sitting in the corner shocked at anyone else, I am just trying to figure out where my reaction came from .