User Score
8.1

Universal acclaim- based on 730 Ratings

User score distribution:
  1. Negative: 80 out of 730
Watch On

Review this movie

  1. Your Score
    0 out of 10
    Rate this:
    • 10
    • 9
    • 8
    • 7
    • 6
    • 5
    • 4
    • 3
    • 2
    • 1
    • 0
    • 0
  1. Submit
  2. Check Spelling
  1. Sep 12, 2014
    6
    Even if I am not familiar with the comics, I enjoyed this enough not to get bored. The way the story was built is interesting, all the little stories making a one, big entity. Also, the use of colors was unique.
  2. Dec 21, 2014
    5
    The film is split into 3 shorter stories. One of which, "That Yellow Bastard" is tense, gripping, and excellently directed. The second, "The Hard Goodbye" falls short, but is still pretty entertaining. The third, "The Big Fat Kill" is absolutely ridiculous and horrible. The whole experience levels out to be something quite shallow and underwhelming, and by the end, you feel like RobertThe film is split into 3 shorter stories. One of which, "That Yellow Bastard" is tense, gripping, and excellently directed. The second, "The Hard Goodbye" falls short, but is still pretty entertaining. The third, "The Big Fat Kill" is absolutely ridiculous and horrible. The whole experience levels out to be something quite shallow and underwhelming, and by the end, you feel like Robert Rodriguez is just throwing blood all over the viewer's face saying "LOOK AT IT! LOOK AT IT!" Definitely not really worth watching, unless you can find "That Yellow Bastard" as a standalone short film. Expand
  3. J.Q.
    Mar 7, 2009
    5
    This is the kind of vile, ridiculously brutal movie made by a country that can't win real wars, and where economic failure causes its citizens to fantasize about ultraviolence. Sixty years ago Americans fought their wars with honor, and for the right reasons, but made movies that respected human dignity. We're flushing ourselves down the toilet of history.
  4. patrickd.
    Dec 3, 2005
    5
    The characters are all the same, the violene is unrealistic, the story moves way too fast and never explains itself, the film has multiple and uneeded sexual refences.
  5. Jan 11, 2013
    6
    I really wanted to enjoy this movie more than I did. It was filmed nicely, and the screenplay was adapted well. On the other hand, you could definitely tell it had a low budget at times. Acting, at some parts, was laughable. Everyone seems to love this movie, and they seem to be ignoring some flaws in its design.
  6. EricK.
    Apr 1, 2005
    5
    The movie looked great. A very nice piece of eye candy, but after a while I was wanting more. I wanted character development. I felt like the movie, and its characters were far to static and constructed. And because of this, after the first bit of it, once I had grown acustomed to the visual style of the movie, I found myself very bored and distanced from the movie. A lot of people are The movie looked great. A very nice piece of eye candy, but after a while I was wanting more. I wanted character development. I felt like the movie, and its characters were far to static and constructed. And because of this, after the first bit of it, once I had grown acustomed to the visual style of the movie, I found myself very bored and distanced from the movie. A lot of people are going to absolutely love this movie, and I can understand why. The movie is much more about style than strong, fluid narrative. Many people are going to love it for that visual style and for the gritty and graphic violence. For me, I just wanted more than a visual, stylistic feast. Expand
  7. StarFox
    Apr 2, 2005
    5
    About half way through the film, I suddenly switched from loving the intense visuals and style to being incredibly bored and ready for the the visit to end. An extended version of the first (and best) story would have been much better than the overlong sequel stories that lose more and more effect as they go along.
  8. Luke
    Apr 2, 2005
    6
    The Village Voice guy put it well. The movie is fresh and interesting enough to sustain your attention, but at bottom is has no human interest, no moral or psychological realism. It is all a fantasy and you just don't care about it.
  9. MaxwellB.
    Apr 2, 2005
    4
    I really wanted it to be good. I like Rob Rodriguez. But this movie is as bad as Once Upon a Time in Mexico. Ridiculous dialogue ("BIG, FAT KILL!).' The best performances are by actors whose parts are short (Benicio Del Toro). Great visuals a file does not make.
  10. Davo
    Apr 25, 2005
    5
    For the most part, the cast and the look of the film are both perfect. However this comic book doesn't work as a movie. I'm a big Miller fan and the SinCity comics are all great, but the script is so over-the-top that unless the delivery is spot on it... the effect is lost. Brittany Murphy and Jessica Alba may look really hot wearing so little, but they fail in the execution of For the most part, the cast and the look of the film are both perfect. However this comic book doesn't work as a movie. I'm a big Miller fan and the SinCity comics are all great, but the script is so over-the-top that unless the delivery is spot on it... the effect is lost. Brittany Murphy and Jessica Alba may look really hot wearing so little, but they fail in the execution of their characters. Josh Hartnett and Brucy Willis also fall flat (They're both hot too, I guess). All in all, the film failed because human error cannot be erased and re-drawn like a comic book panel. Rodriguez and Miller's style cannot be faulted, Mickey Rourke, Elijah Wood, Rosario Dawson, Clive Owen and Benicio Del Toro were fantastic. I guess comic book dialogue and plot pacing sometimes need some changes before they are put onto film. Expand
  11. JudyT.
    Apr 3, 2005
    6
    Could have been better. Too much violence, nudity and voice overs. Sometimes sticking too close to the source material limits your audience.
  12. shaunh.
    Jul 11, 2005
    5
    Boring, with good effects and unique look. A style not unlike Pulp Fiction with a set of stories that interlinked but unlike its counterpart all the stories were identical. Strong man saves distressed women. A liitle variety would have worked wonders.
  13. TY
    Apr 3, 2005
    4
    Great to look at, boring to listen to.
  14. JamesB.
    Apr 4, 2005
    4
    It was creative and I liked the styling used with the black and white filming and splashes of color. Having reflected on the content, I am left with a lot of questions and wondermeant as to why certain things were done the way they were and for what purpose. Intermingling a number of story lines was just confusing unlike what was done in "Pulp Fiction" (which pulled it off and succeeded).
  15. TonyB.
    Apr 5, 2005
    5
    I think all the issues of this movie stem from the fact that it should have been a trilogy...or just less story. The movie has three distinct parts...three story arcs...and none of them are done that well. If they had sat down, and told just one of the stories, in full detail I think it could have been a really good movie. But instead, you feel rushed through the stories like the point I think all the issues of this movie stem from the fact that it should have been a trilogy...or just less story. The movie has three distinct parts...three story arcs...and none of them are done that well. If they had sat down, and told just one of the stories, in full detail I think it could have been a really good movie. But instead, you feel rushed through the stories like the point isn't to hear a story, but to see a visual concept. It's almost like they said, "I can do this cool visual trick. Wnat me to prove it? I'll show you how I can do it with three different stories" And they made a movie. I know this is a film for the fans, and while I've never been a comic fan, I can appreciate the way they tell stories...but this movie just comes out like it has to tell of every event in the Sin City story line, and it has to do it in two hours. That's why everyone complains of too much violence and too much T&A. Becuase it's got 3 stories worth of both. I really think they should have just calmed down, and told one story, and done it fully and completely. Expand
  16. Gnarles
    Apr 7, 2005
    4
    To my astonishment, I didn't enjoy Sin City at all. All my friends love it, and most critics, and usually that means it's a shoe-in for me to like it too. But I didn't. I loved the look of the movie initially, but the seams soon begin to show, and the car cashes looked like something out of a PS2 game, complete with rubbery CGI. The dialogue obviously was trying for a noir To my astonishment, I didn't enjoy Sin City at all. All my friends love it, and most critics, and usually that means it's a shoe-in for me to like it too. But I didn't. I loved the look of the movie initially, but the seams soon begin to show, and the car cashes looked like something out of a PS2 game, complete with rubbery CGI. The dialogue obviously was trying for a noir feel, but the writers lacked the conviction and talent to really pull it off, and it sounded jokey and near-parodic at times. Anyone who thinks this movie has great and "authentic" writing would do well to watch a real noir film sometime. And finally, the movie was long, boring, and cruel. Normally I love violence in movies. I can watch Kill Bill and Natural Born Killers on a continuous loop. But in those films, the violence had an undercurrent of humanity or satire, of purpose. It had a point. In Sin City, the violence exists so that there can be violence, and that's it. It's so extreme at times that it's laughable. The story, meanwhile, is much re-used noir cliches jammed into a Pulp Fiction circular story crucible. Feh. There were good things about Sin City, though. There were a lot of hot babes, many of them naked, and the movie was occasionally really funny and thrilling. Also, Mickey Rourke and Elijah Wood were sensational. If only that were enough. What a waste! Expand
  17. MichaelL.
    Apr 8, 2005
    4
    I'm giving "Sin City" a generous 4. Because it looked fantastic. Because it sometimes made me laugh. Because, at times, it looked like "Chicago" with a buzz saw. But, ultimately, it was an endless parade of sadistic violence, nothing more. Sorry, you 'critics' who call this genius, but any high school boy could write this screenplay. And that in and of itself makes me hate I'm giving "Sin City" a generous 4. Because it looked fantastic. Because it sometimes made me laugh. Because, at times, it looked like "Chicago" with a buzz saw. But, ultimately, it was an endless parade of sadistic violence, nothing more. Sorry, you 'critics' who call this genius, but any high school boy could write this screenplay. And that in and of itself makes me hate this film. It isn't even remotely intellectually challenging. It isn't morally challenging. It simply throws graphic images at you faster than a music video, and helps to sink culture deeper and deeper into the pit of stupidity. When I read reviews of "Psycho" by 20-somethings ("...so boring and slow!"), it makes me cringe, and it makes me cringe to realize they think "Sin City" is genius filmmaking. And, lastly, what is with the R rating? Almodovar's "Bad Education" got an NC-17 because two men simulated having sex. "Sin City" shows dismemberment, endless stabings and impalings, every type of torture imaginable...and the the ratings board thinks it's family fare. Our culture is sicker than "Sin City" could ever hope to be. Expand
  18. ChrisR.
    May 7, 2005
    5
    Sin City --- mmmmm, hard to classify this movie. It's based on a comic book series (I think) and it certainly takes on that flavor. It is shot in black and white, with just a splash of color (mostly red) here and there for effect. Sometimes you could almost see the individual frames of a comic strip arranged in four panels across the screen. The movie itself is divided into different Sin City --- mmmmm, hard to classify this movie. It's based on a comic book series (I think) and it certainly takes on that flavor. It is shot in black and white, with just a splash of color (mostly red) here and there for effect. Sometimes you could almost see the individual frames of a comic strip arranged in four panels across the screen. The movie itself is divided into different segments ... I'm not sure I followed the logic of it all. It is an "action pack" fantasy --- cops vs. robbers, good vs. evil, old vs. young, beauty vs. beast, with helpings of swindling hookers, crooked politicians and corrupted clergymen to add spice. There is just enough dialogue to connect one action scene to the next. Saw a lot of reviews raving about this movie. Frankly, the film reminded me of a comic book written for 12-13 year old boys. It is purposely melodramatic and the violence intentionally exaggerated; the fight scenes reminded me of the confrontations in the old "Batman" TV series, lacking only the "Pow", and "Wham", etc., in message panels. The photography is unique and a bit hard to describe ... if you saw Sky Captain and the World of Tomorrow, it is like that. Anyway, despite general overall raves by the critics, I was not impressed. I give it a 5.00 Expand
  19. JeffJ.
    Aug 2, 2005
    4
    This movie made me physically ill. It is deeply sick. Yes, the stylistic technique is great and the acting is (mostly) good, but how many graphic scenes of sadistic torture and gory violence can you watch without wanting some meaning or character development? This is not social commentary, it's a snuff film.
  20. LeeF.
    Apr 1, 2005
    4
    Interesting to look at, boring as hell otherwise. Lasted way too long to be a parody. For adolescent boys of every age.
  21. DamonO.
    Apr 14, 2005
    6
    I found the film to be somewhat interesting, but unbelievably gruesome. I was also disappointed in the dialogue and overall character interaction, which obviously follows that of the novels as opposed to the smart dialogue more common in Tarantino movies. While I'm not opposed to senseless violence for its own sake, I have to say I'm surprised that fundamentalist groups I found the film to be somewhat interesting, but unbelievably gruesome. I was also disappointed in the dialogue and overall character interaction, which obviously follows that of the novels as opposed to the smart dialogue more common in Tarantino movies. While I'm not opposed to senseless violence for its own sake, I have to say I'm surprised that fundamentalist groups aren't up in arms over this movie. Expand
  22. MikeK.
    Apr 2, 2005
    5
    I want to give this movie a 10 for the visuals, and for creating a seamless pulp universe, and for being something new. Also, the pacing is perfect, the performances mostly spot-on, and its funny. It sucks you in and kicks your ass. I also wanted to give it a 0 for being disgusting and horiffic, for leaving me with a queasy feeling and a bitter taste, and for showing me the same 45 minute I want to give this movie a 10 for the visuals, and for creating a seamless pulp universe, and for being something new. Also, the pacing is perfect, the performances mostly spot-on, and its funny. It sucks you in and kicks your ass. I also wanted to give it a 0 for being disgusting and horiffic, for leaving me with a queasy feeling and a bitter taste, and for showing me the same 45 minute movie 3 times in a row. Conflicted, violent hero avenges murdered woman mutilating (horriffically) a cannibalistic serial killer with connections; conflicted, violent hero protects women (prostitutes) from mafia; conflicted violent hero protects girl from pediphile rapist (with connections) who he horriffically mutilates. Apparently the 8 million stories in Sin City are all slight variations of one. So I give Sin City a 6, averaging the two together and adding a point for Mickey Rourke's Marv, cause he deserves it. Expand
  23. DanB
    Apr 22, 2005
    6
    Visually great, like everyone says - but once you get over the visuals, you are left with characters and story, and that leaves some to be desired. It gets a little monotonous as points, despite all the action... still, something about the whole thing works well enough... it's not bad. Probably would've been better as a series of short films.
  24. AustinA.
    Apr 29, 2005
    4
    A good story gone awry with over-the-top senseless voilence and bloodshed. Not bad, just sickeningly gory.
  25. MatthewA.
    May 12, 2005
    4
    I was exicted when I went into the movie and kind of bummed out when I left the theatre. I liked the way the trailers to the movie potrayed it. But it came out to be something that I obviously overlooked. The dialogue was horrible two many big actors that didnt add to there roles more than just played them just to be in a movie. The way the went from scene to scene was too unothodox to I was exicted when I went into the movie and kind of bummed out when I left the theatre. I liked the way the trailers to the movie potrayed it. But it came out to be something that I obviously overlooked. The dialogue was horrible two many big actors that didnt add to there roles more than just played them just to be in a movie. The way the went from scene to scene was too unothodox to follow in any decernable order beside of which actor was on the screen. definilty was a great idea made into to a poorly acted series of shortfilms slapped together to fill time. Expand
  26. PaulF.
    Apr 17, 2005
    6
    The movie in short could be said a tribute to gratuitous violence. In my opinion this movie should be rated x for violence or at least NR. I could not believe it but I saw six year olds in the theather. The movie way fantastic for special effects, and not bad either for acting, there many big names in the credits. The weakest point about this movie is that it had no moral redeaming The movie in short could be said a tribute to gratuitous violence. In my opinion this movie should be rated x for violence or at least NR. I could not believe it but I saw six year olds in the theather. The movie way fantastic for special effects, and not bad either for acting, there many big names in the credits. The weakest point about this movie is that it had no moral redeaming quality. It was one scene after another about, vengeance, violence, sex, prostitution, murder, cannibalism, child rape, torture, etc. By the first have of the movie you more than get the point, but two hours of it was a bit much. Though I found this movie interesting in many aspects and will not soon forget it I went to sleep wanting to forget its dark images but had trouble doing so. People asks yourself what do you want you mind filled with, images of heaven or hell? Expand
  27. patrickt.
    Jun 15, 2005
    5
    I can't believe I'm even giving this movie a 5. The only reasons I am are: 1) This movie has supreme and utterly original style, and 2) Mickey Rourke's performance. Otherwise, this movie is sick and pointless. Some would claim there's a message in Sin City that the "good guys" are often the "bad guys," and vice versa. But, c'mon, this movie is really all about I can't believe I'm even giving this movie a 5. The only reasons I am are: 1) This movie has supreme and utterly original style, and 2) Mickey Rourke's performance. Otherwise, this movie is sick and pointless. Some would claim there's a message in Sin City that the "good guys" are often the "bad guys," and vice versa. But, c'mon, this movie is really all about exploiting over-the-top violence. While the style has some intellectually stimulating moments, there's nothing at all here to stimulate the emotions, because ultimately there's not one iota of humanity to identify with (with the mild exception of Rourke's portrayal, which is all the more remarkable from beneath his monstrous exterior -- problem is that the story he's involved in is sappy crap). Expand
Metascore
74

Generally favorable reviews - based on 40 Critics

Critic score distribution:
  1. Positive: 30 out of 40
  2. Negative: 2 out of 40
  1. 88
    The most visually inventive comic book adaptation to make its way to a movie screen.
  2. Eye-popping yet ultimately thin and shallow as a page in a graphic novel.
  3. Reviewed by: Todd McCarthy
    80
    For geeks, action freaks and sensation-seeking teenage boys of all ages, the price of admission will provide a one-way ticket to hard-boiled heaven.