Sin City

Black and white paper cut-outs in action. So far the most faithful, but unfortunately not the best ever comic book adaptation. Unlike the hard copy version, this lacks atmosphere. The extreme imbalance between all parts of this adds to the disappointment - especially the fluctuating quality of separate tales and of acting performances are particularly frustrating. What works in the comic book looks at best “interesting" here, if it doesn’t actually annoy you (for instance the monologs - less is more or, put otherwise: why repeat what killed the original version of Blade Runner?). Up until the end of “The Hard Goodbye", there isn’t much to fault, but then things go haywire, and everything turns 180 degrees. It’s certainly worth watching, the creators did it their way and, if they learn from their mistakes before the sequel, next time it really could be what we are waiting for. (17/04/2005)

I was really looking forward to Sin City, partly because of the advertisement that thundered that there hasn't been anything like it before, and also because so many well-known actors were involved in this miracle... I mean film. That's why the final form disappointed me. Robert Rodriguez didn't understand the fundamental difference between the two media, and his admiration for comic book material completely blinded him. It's as if someone decided to film a novel word for word, sentence by sentence. It would be a monstrosity, as these are two completely different media. The same applies to the relationship between comics and films, even though they are closer due to the emphasis on visual elements. Sin City lacks what makes a film a film - a film script. The comic reader imagines the story between the panels, so the author works with exaggeration and the comic stimulates the imagination. This doesn't apply to the film, which requires more dialogue and character development so that they don't remain flat figures. Sin City is nothing more than a moving comic. It cannot satisfy fans of either medium. Certainly, it is visually interesting, even captivating at first glance, and the women embody the erotic fantasies of many men. But that's just not enough... Overall impression: 55%. (27/08/2007)

When a devoted director decides to adapt my most beloved comic book, frame by frame, with such an array of talented actors, it can only result in the highest rating. Bruce Willis and Clive Owen were simply born for Hartigan and Dwight. (16/04/2006)

After the not-so-great Spy Kids trilogy, Robert Rodriguez reached for the comic book source material and, in collaboration with Frank Miller and Quentin Tarantino, made one of his best, if not his best film. The visuals are absolutely perfect, wonderfully capturing the raw atmosphere of the comic book. There are no issues with the cast either – Rourke ("That there is one damn fine coat you're wearin’.") Owen, Willis, Del Toro... What’s more, the individual stories are told with a reasonable amount of hyperbole, so it's nice that Sin City doesn't take itself too seriously. And that's part of the reason I’m giving it 5 stars – the film doesn't mess around, it's a faithful copy of Miller's comic, it impresses with elaborate visuals and a more than pleasant cast, and the direction does exactly what is expected of it. The few apt dry lines are just icing on the cake. 95% (27/03/2009)

Likely the most faithful comic book adaptation in a live-action film. Zack Snyder tried hard with Watchmen, but it just didn't work there. Nor did it in this case. Frank Miller drew the comic cinematically, and Robert Rodriguez understood that, bringing each frame to life, giving faces of well-known actors to the characters, and creating a contemporary noir. Or maybe even the future. Beautifully stylized, beautifully gritty, and incredibly entertaining. Yes, I have a soft spot for Rodriguez just like I do for Tarantino, and his action-packed B-movies are simply captivating. We’ll do this again sometime. (23/01/2014)