Sin City

User Score
8.5

Universal acclaim- based on 1009 Ratings

User score distribution:

Where To Watch

Stream On
Stream On
Stream 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

User Reviews

  1. Nietzschebot
    Apr 1, 2005
    10
    Now we get to see who's who in the critics. If you want to find members of the right wing and left wing thought police, look for the low reviews.
  2. DavidK
    Apr 7, 2005
    1
    The filming technique is awesome! The movie should be rated NC-17 (how it ever got an "R" rating is amazing). However, I am deeply concerned with the reviews and user ratings. Have the moral values of America actually dropped this low. The movie is a basic rape of your mind. Total / relentless violence and sex for 2 hours. The implication of raping an 11 year old girl - I was stunned, The filming technique is awesome! The movie should be rated NC-17 (how it ever got an "R" rating is amazing). However, I am deeply concerned with the reviews and user ratings. Have the moral values of America actually dropped this low. The movie is a basic rape of your mind. Total / relentless violence and sex for 2 hours. The implication of raping an 11 year old girl - I was stunned, they would even cross this bridge. For people to praise this movie is shocking. You can think it is "just a movie" and that I am taking it way to seriously. But, if you honestly felt "entertained" by this movie, then our society is in trouble! Expand
  3. MichaelS.
    Apr 1, 2005
    10
    To be brief.... Really cool, and lots of fun!
  4. JB
    Apr 2, 2005
    1
    I gave it a one because it is an actual movie. There were maybe 2 good dialogue bits in the movie. The rest was trite. The violence was uninspired. The critics have been bought off. This movie is hype. Visually stunning??? "Boring" is more like it. Sky Captain was way better. The people giving this "10s" are hired by a PR firm I bet. A damn shame.
  5. SeanY.
    Apr 5, 2005
    0
    This movie stunk. I luv comic books, and hated this movie. I feel like one of my parents saying this, but I really almost walked out on it. I thought it was real sick. I don't find people getting hurt, tortured and killed "funny" and I worry about people who do find it funny. I also think that the movie is also full of Catholic bigotry. Weird how none of the critics bring that up.
  6. SBoerresen
    Aug 5, 2005
    10
    I really didn't want to see this at first, because of the whole black and white thing. But i saw it and i do not regrett it at all. This movie was amazing. It isn't that violent, there are many other movies which are far more violent than Sin City. Actually this movie got a 15 rating in Norway, (which is almost the same as a PG13 rating in the US.
  7. SteveB.
    Oct 1, 2005
    3
    I expected to see alot more from this movie, really i expected the best but it didn't deliver. It's hard to rate cause the movies 3 storys in one. The frist one was like having a open hart surgery and the last one was not much better. The second one was actully prity frigen good, the the hole movie was just and extened vertion of the second story I may have given it a 8 or 9. I expected to see alot more from this movie, really i expected the best but it didn't deliver. It's hard to rate cause the movies 3 storys in one. The frist one was like having a open hart surgery and the last one was not much better. The second one was actully prity frigen good, the the hole movie was just and extened vertion of the second story I may have given it a 8 or 9. The worst thing was the Narration, the main chariture narrarates his own story. Which sounds cool but then you find out they all sound like Sam Spade and have cheesy diologe. Oh and the gore was enofe to make Jason from Friday the 13th sick. If they had cut back on the crudy narration and gore it would have been grate, but these 2 things murdered the film. Expand
  8. 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
  9. MorganK.
    Apr 10, 2005
    9
    Very close to a perfect adaptation/ If you don't really understand or enjoy noir and pulp writing you're not going to "get" this movie - I suppose it's inevitable that the top box office movie of the week is going to attract those who are perpetually offended and confused, but it's a shame to have them bring down the pointless-but-satisfying Metacritic score. I thought Very close to a perfect adaptation/ If you don't really understand or enjoy noir and pulp writing you're not going to "get" this movie - I suppose it's inevitable that the top box office movie of the week is going to attract those who are perpetually offended and confused, but it's a shame to have them bring down the pointless-but-satisfying Metacritic score. I thought the Josh Hartnett bookends did a good job of holding the barely-connected plot threads together (who said they had to connect anyway? I cannot fathom why so many are bothered by this) and that the film was visually arresting and the dialogue was spot-on classic noir. Expand
  10. Patrick
    Apr 1, 2005
    10
    Wonderful movie that succinctly combined elements of morality and violence by displaying their congruencies and contradictions. A very Tarantino-esque film because of it's effective graphic displays and moral representations.
  11. JakeR
    Apr 12, 2005
    0
    This is good? This is even a movie? The only people I see liking this crap are either the marketing/pr team behind the movie or angry male comic book dorks who can't get girls and therefore hate all women. Don't be fooled by the hype, this so-called movie is terrible. I wish someone had warned me about this one.
  12. MichaelB.
    Apr 1, 2005
    9
    The visual aspect of the movie would have been enough, but the created atmosphere fuses noir and comic books in a way I'd never seen before. And, yes, Jessica Alba is absolutely compelling. Yes, I know that nothing I say here isn't echoing the sentiments of other reviewers, but I did want to counteract (as best I could) some of the negative reviews. Some professional movie The visual aspect of the movie would have been enough, but the created atmosphere fuses noir and comic books in a way I'd never seen before. And, yes, Jessica Alba is absolutely compelling. Yes, I know that nothing I say here isn't echoing the sentiments of other reviewers, but I did want to counteract (as best I could) some of the negative reviews. Some professional movie critics seem to be astoundingly bitter people... Expand
  13. Arturo
    Apr 19, 2005
    0
    Awful, noisy mess witout a decent plot.
  14. JeffM.
    Apr 2, 2005
    10
    If I could give this movie a zillon rating, I would! It is, by far, the best movie I've ever, ever seen! I am still in chills over such a wonderful journey of a movie experience. When I was watching this movie, I knew I was experiencing something special. Frank Miller, one of my favorite authors, was all over the production of this film - and it paid off brilliantly. Miller himself If I could give this movie a zillon rating, I would! It is, by far, the best movie I've ever, ever seen! I am still in chills over such a wonderful journey of a movie experience. When I was watching this movie, I knew I was experiencing something special. Frank Miller, one of my favorite authors, was all over the production of this film - and it paid off brilliantly. Miller himself is brilliant, as the stories painlessly translated to film. I'm not kidding, this is the greatest movie I've ever seen. The angles, the shots, everything. The film is unique; I can't think of any movie that was like this. Put it this way: Metropolis is to sci-fi as Nosferatu is to horror as Sin City is to Noir. I don't know what else to say. I am so happy that Miller's vision was not screwed up by stupid executives who don't even know the first thing about storytelling. Many Hollywood films aren't so lucky, unfortunately. I don't want to end this on a sad note. I just wanna say thank you so much! Thank you for making this movie and showing me that not all Hollywood movies have to suck and only independent or foreign movies rock. I'm still on a high from this movie!!! I just want to shout to the world and tell everyone to see this movie! It's amazing what we people can come up with. Thank you Frank Miller! Expand
  15. williamo.
    Apr 21, 2005
    10
    Ground breaking, gutsy, mind-boggeling...oozing originality.
  16. 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.
  17. 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.
  18. RichardG.
    Apr 2, 2005
    8
    Movie should make a person FEEL. And this movie made us feel. We laughed we awed, and it was good. The movie is very interesting,and will keep you glued. THIS IS WHAT MOVIES ARE MEANT TO DO; to put you in another place, another time, not of this world, and this movie acomplishes it perfectly. The pacing of the movie is the best I've seen in the last 3 years. In the begining the movie Movie should make a person FEEL. And this movie made us feel. We laughed we awed, and it was good. The movie is very interesting,and will keep you glued. THIS IS WHAT MOVIES ARE MEANT TO DO; to put you in another place, another time, not of this world, and this movie acomplishes it perfectly. The pacing of the movie is the best I've seen in the last 3 years. In the begining the movie as a camp 1920s thing about it, but after 5 minutes, all that is gone, and the story engulfs you and takes you away. See this one and have a good energetic action-filled experience. Expand
  19. JohnW.
    Apr 2, 2005
    10
    Incredible adaptation.
  20. 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.
  21. ScottJ
    Apr 2, 2005
    10
    Wow. What can I say. A little over 2 hours later and i'm in awe. Addicted. If there was another showing after the 12:40 am show i saw i would buy another ticket. Absoluetly beautiful!! Cinematography is outstanding. Acting from everyone, including Alba and Murphy were flawless. Script was a perfect blend, not too sappy, not predictable. It was funny, and witty. This will be on Wow. What can I say. A little over 2 hours later and i'm in awe. Addicted. If there was another showing after the 12:40 am show i saw i would buy another ticket. Absoluetly beautiful!! Cinematography is outstanding. Acting from everyone, including Alba and Murphy were flawless. Script was a perfect blend, not too sappy, not predictable. It was funny, and witty. This will be on peoples minds for a while. Round of applause for Robert Rodriquez and Frank Miller. A+++ Expand
  22. McLayneB.
    Apr 2, 2005
    10
    Visually stunning, unlike anything that has come out of hollywood in years. Not the greatest story, but the way in which the movie is done, the creative and fearless violence and subject matter makes it a must see.
  23. VinceH.
    Apr 2, 2005
    10
    Not the best movie of 2005, but certainly the best major studio movie of 2005 and DEFINITELY the best Robert Rodriguez movie ever, who I've never been a fan of (sans Spy Kids). This movie is brilliant and provides the type of kinetic cinematic experience we usually have to wait every 4 years for from QT. Go see it. It is definitely the best movie playing at your multiplex.
  24. 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
  25. Mike&HilaryBilodeau
    Apr 2, 2005
    10
    WOW!!!
  26. JamesD.
    Apr 2, 2005
    7
    On one hand the film is clearly a triumph of style over substance while on the other it is a door opening to the future. The writing needs to be better. While Miller's writing is outstanding "for a comic illustrator" - he lacks the punch of a serious noir writer.
  27. 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.
  28. Herby
    Apr 3, 2005
    10
    A true original. Will see it again and again. Hope to see MORE coloboration between Miller and Rodriguez.
  29. Heather
    Apr 3, 2005
    3
    Blah.
  30. TonyG.
    Apr 3, 2005
    1
    Possibly the worst waste of film I have seen in the past decade. A pointless plot (does "this doesn't make sense" mean anything tho these guys, sheesh). Gratuiotuous violence. If you dig gross and gore, then I suppose you and your adolescent tribe can put down your Pokey-Man long enough to sneak in and sit through this crap, so you can brag to your friends about the "sword through Possibly the worst waste of film I have seen in the past decade. A pointless plot (does "this doesn't make sense" mean anything tho these guys, sheesh). Gratuiotuous violence. If you dig gross and gore, then I suppose you and your adolescent tribe can put down your Pokey-Man long enough to sneak in and sit through this crap, so you can brag to your friends about the "sword through the eye shot" or whatever crap it is entertains you. Then, visit a therapist, since that's what is needed next... Oh. the acting was pretty good overall, and the visual effects / look and feel was great. 1.2 on a scale of 1-5. Expand
  31. MarkB.
    Apr 3, 2005
    3
    Visually, this movie is a 10. Yet, the story is boring and trite. It does not build any great affection for any of the characters in the three separate stories. Moreover, there is no coherent integration of these discrete stories. Thus, you are left rather unfulfilled - waiting for the big payoff that never comes. The campy gore quickly becomes gratuitous and the dialogue is repetitive. Visually, this movie is a 10. Yet, the story is boring and trite. It does not build any great affection for any of the characters in the three separate stories. Moreover, there is no coherent integration of these discrete stories. Thus, you are left rather unfulfilled - waiting for the big payoff that never comes. The campy gore quickly becomes gratuitous and the dialogue is repetitive. Metaphors are great but there is no need to keep repeating the exact same one over and over again. Expand
  32. JasonP.
    Apr 4, 2005
    9
    Most creative and interesting movie I've seen in quite a while. Nicely captured Frank Miller's tone and mythical caricatures.
  33. FFenster
    Apr 4, 2005
    9
    Phenomenal!
  34. PJ
    Apr 4, 2005
    10
    The first part of the three part series is the strongest, but the visuals and the world the movie creates make this a very interesting experience.
  35. TexK.
    Apr 4, 2005
    2
    This movie was a real disappointment. Other than "the look" of it, there is nothing else. Well nothing except sadistic violence. Oh yeah, and a hatred of women. Every single woman in this movie was either a whore or a victim. I think that the people who say they liked this movie are just trying to be cool and are too afraid to stand on their own two feet.
  36. ZachR
    Apr 8, 2005
    10
    That was a great "flick" as Robert Rodriguez would have you call it. It stayed absolutely true to the original comics. My favorite story was The Big Fat Kill, and Clive Owen did a great job with Dwight. The visual style was amazing!
  37. ArnoldH.
    Apr 8, 2005
    10
    A visually astonishing and endlessly absorbing movie. I can't wait to see it again, and look forward to owning it on DVD so I can linger over it and appreciate it even more.
  38. Colonel
    Apr 9, 2005
    0
    Too violent, who cares about the characters. disturbing. cool cinematography, but if you don't like the characters who cares.
  39. BigZDAWG
    Apr 9, 2005
    8
    I thought this movie was very interesting and cool, but it didn
  40. BrianJ
    Apr 9, 2005
    2
    I like Pulp Fiction, Resevior Dogs, etc. I don't mind violence and sexual themes portayed creatively. This film is simply flashy and trashy. It was one of the very few times I wanted to get up and leave the theater because I was so disappointed and had such high hopes for the film. Simply terrible. Only suited for those who go to comic book conventions.
  41. KarlM.
    Jun 6, 2005
    10
    What the cinema was made for.... but why all the empty seats when the film has only been open for 2 days? Go see it NOW!
  42. IanS.
    Jun 9, 2005
    10
    This is ART this is NEW. why can't some people get it! I think it's one of the best movies of the year.
  43. 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.
  44. GiulianoL.
    Jul 30, 2005
    10
    Fenomenal! wonderful, who gives under than 9 for this film does not like cinema. believe - me Take off the breath, a trip that if attends with fascinates and that cause giddiness (is half hipnótico, you none is loaded for history without resistance, it seems a feverish delirium), The best movie of the century.
  45. TerrtT.
    Aug 18, 2005
    10
    People who say this movie has no depth, It's based on a comic! This movie is not ment to be taken seriously. This is one of the few movies I have seen that was 2 hours long, and when it ended it left me feeling like is was a common length film. The time passes nicely, and it left me satisfied. If you like a good simple movie to enjoy...don't walk, run and rent this!
  46. JoeyK.
    Sep 8, 2005
    10
    This movie truly was a masterpeice. It was entertaining and interesting. It was gorey, but in no way simply for the sake of gore. You can clearly see the comic book in the film. It's very well done in a unique style.I just can't beleive William Arnold thought so low of it. I don't say this much about these types of stylistic, modern art type things, but this movie really This movie truly was a masterpeice. It was entertaining and interesting. It was gorey, but in no way simply for the sake of gore. You can clearly see the comic book in the film. It's very well done in a unique style.I just can't beleive William Arnold thought so low of it. I don't say this much about these types of stylistic, modern art type things, but this movie really was extrodanarily done, and it's great entertainment all the way through. Expand
  47. RogerR.
    May 8, 2006
    2
    Definatley one of the worst movies i have ever seen.
  48. NathanT.
    Sep 19, 2006
    3
    Easily the sickest mainstream movie of 2005 was "Sin City." This is a duller than dull, grosser than gross adaptation of Frank Miller's adored graphic novels. But the movie, which features an all-star cast (Bruce Willis, Michael Madsen, Mickey Rourke, Jessica Alba, Elijah Wood, and on and on), is so sleazy and frankly boring that by the end of its two hours of screen time I feel Easily the sickest mainstream movie of 2005 was "Sin City." This is a duller than dull, grosser than gross adaptation of Frank Miller's adored graphic novels. But the movie, which features an all-star cast (Bruce Willis, Michael Madsen, Mickey Rourke, Jessica Alba, Elijah Wood, and on and on), is so sleazy and frankly boring that by the end of its two hours of screen time I feel exhausted and disgusted. Not since "Batman Returns" has a director been so fixated on creating moods and emulating creepy noir settings at the expense of storytelling that is coherent and enthralling. Director Robert Rodriguez (working with Quentin Tarantino) settles for misogynistic material that is amazing for the eyes to behold. But since when has that been enough? Working with Tarantino is a major tip-off to this movies abundance of problems. I loved "Kill Bill 2", thought it was among the best films of 2004. But there is a joy to the "Kill Bill" movies; a zeal for exhilarating movie making that calls to mind the joyful destruction of "Goodfellas" and those movies actually had strongly feminine proclivities. There is no joy, no fun, and no pleasure in "Sin City" (except for people who dig seeing the 50th head chopped off or women slapped around). Even if you can look past that there still isn't much to marvel at. Worse than the triumph of style over substance, "Sin City" champions bad attitude over ideas. Expand
  49. MalcolmM.
    Mar 30, 2007
    0
    I'm not offended by nudity, and violence is okay if the flim has some other redeeming qualities. Sin City has no redeeming qualities. If Sin City is representative of modern comics I'm glad I gave up reading comics in my teens. Sin City isn't simply bad, it's disgusting.
  50. GeorgeH.
    Apr 6, 2007
    10
    It would seem campy if it weren't so visually advanced, but the campiness combined with the CGI actually makes for an unforgettable combination.
  51. LJM
    Jan 18, 2008
    10
    When I saw Sin City I was blown away by the pace and style that it had. The film not only had an artistic style that has never been seen before in cinema but also strong stories as well as a great cast of characters who, over the course of the film, you care about and support as the film runs its course. The film has a deeply dark tone but also a great humane quality about it. Heres When I saw Sin City I was blown away by the pace and style that it had. The film not only had an artistic style that has never been seen before in cinema but also strong stories as well as a great cast of characters who, over the course of the film, you care about and support as the film runs its course. The film has a deeply dark tone but also a great humane quality about it. Heres hoping Sin City 2 is soon produced. Expand
  52. 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.
  53. ClifC
    Mar 9, 2009
    9
    The epitome of sadistic movies. And it was good that way. The trash, the sadism and the cruelty actually gave the film a sense to the non-sensed and nutcase plot. Extraordinary visuals too. The negative point goes to the cast with all the Hollywood stars. I'd prefer less famous actors.
  54. JoshW.
    Mar 29, 2005
    10
    Probably the best comic adaptation ever.
  55. LamarL.
    Apr 1, 2005
    10
    M going to see again saturday.
  56. babefilet
    Apr 10, 2005
    0
    This was one of the most terrible movies I have seen in a long time. I found it sexist, disgusting, and revolting. Terrible movie. Don't waste the $5.
  57. Jao
    Apr 1, 2005
    10
    haven't had this much fun in a theatre since Snatch.
  58. Tony
    Apr 1, 2005
    10
    Great gun fights, and visually thrilling!
  59. LucasO.
    Apr 1, 2005
    8
    Very Good.
  60. CarlosE.
    Apr 1, 2005
    10
    I didn't want to give it a ten but it is the only score i could justify. I thought of giving it a nine for the sake of appearances but it was better than a nine even though I'm sure i'll find something to gripe about after seeing it a dozen times (which i invariably will). This movie had me mesmerized the whole way through.
  61. AlanS.
    Apr 1, 2005
    9
    You can see the Tarintino influence, but this is a near perfect "graphic novel" transformed into a movie, even the over the top narration fits the style.
  62. RodR.
    Apr 1, 2005
    0
    I am completely stunned that this film has a rating of 75 from Metacritic. This is, without any exaggeration, one of the worst movies I have seen in a long while. The dialogue (even if you allow that it is meant to be comic book-inspired) is astonishingly awful. The characterizations are forced, trite, and barely one-dimensional. This movie was not even "so bad it's good." It's I am completely stunned that this film has a rating of 75 from Metacritic. This is, without any exaggeration, one of the worst movies I have seen in a long while. The dialogue (even if you allow that it is meant to be comic book-inspired) is astonishingly awful. The characterizations are forced, trite, and barely one-dimensional. This movie was not even "so bad it's good." It's just terrible, terrible, terrible... an unforgivable insult to all cinema, everywhere. Expand
  63. JoeF
    Apr 12, 2005
    3
    This may be the best movie of its genre ever made, but so what? What if the genre itself is marginally entertaining, at best, and, at worst, celebrates the worst of human tendencies? Tough losers out for justice? Please. No plot, no character development, nothing, except more castrations and eviscerations and viciousness than I care to see in 2 hours.
  64. TomM.
    Apr 1, 2005
    9
    The comic adaptation genre has a new movie on which to aspire to. That movie is Sin City. I've not read the books but I am a deep comic background and this movie was a comic come to life. Each screen shot could be cut and paste into a comic book/graphic novel. Big time Tarantino influence from the look to the music. One can only hope that this movie makes mega bucks and that The comic adaptation genre has a new movie on which to aspire to. That movie is Sin City. I've not read the books but I am a deep comic background and this movie was a comic come to life. Each screen shot could be cut and paste into a comic book/graphic novel. Big time Tarantino influence from the look to the music. One can only hope that this movie makes mega bucks and that hollywood finally finally finally realizes that the way to do these movies is to stay true to the source material. I don't give 10's very easily... that is reserved for the Casablanca's, but this was a very good movie, the top of its genre, and the creators deserve praise for putting this together in the manner that they did. Expand
  65. KeithnotKieth
    Apr 10, 2005
    3
    The only thing that makes this movie watchable is the script. Cutting and wringing out the good moments in Frank Miller's very original comics stories -- which are mostly good noir shorts -- makes this movie almost fun. While I agree with others here that its cliche-ridden noir, that's the point...the added fun is the extreme cartoon-like violence. All of this, however, works The only thing that makes this movie watchable is the script. Cutting and wringing out the good moments in Frank Miller's very original comics stories -- which are mostly good noir shorts -- makes this movie almost fun. While I agree with others here that its cliche-ridden noir, that's the point...the added fun is the extreme cartoon-like violence. All of this, however, works much better in the books than on the screen. The "dazzling" and "eye-popping" (gotta love the critics) visual look of the movie fails on the most basic and fundamental level of what a movie should do -- that is, you are never for one moment NOT aware that there is a camera and a director. Thus, you are never fully immersed in the very intriguing world of Sin City for more than a few moments at a time. Not that it wasn't a special effects achievement -- considering that every scene and most every prop wasn't actually there, it's all pretty impressive. However, Rodriguez couldn't decide if this movie was going to be black and white, in the classic sense of the term (i.e., black, white and grays) or stark black and stark white (like the comics) or faded color (like those Fuji film commercials where they compare their film with an off-brand) or spot color (like the Gatorade ads). Ultimately, Rodriguez goes back and forth too many times, and ofttimes way too abruptly, for you to accept any of it. Individually, there probably isn't one shot that isn't beautiful -- as a whole it's like splicing Scorsese's Cape Fear together with the B&W original without telling your audience, then unleashing the havoc upon them. What also wasn't considered is that the stylized look of Frank Miller's art in the comic books allows the mind to accept certain "unrealities" that in live, 3D action just become inane and hard to swallow...much like the dialogue, which was clearly never meant to be said aloud. In the comics, this series of mini series ran out of steam by the fourth tale -- and the movie does too. This happens because some of the actors -- like Josh Hartnett, Michael Madsen and white trash poster child Brittany Murphy -- all seem to have no understanding of what they're saying...as if these people are students reading Shakespeare aloud for the first time. Granted, the dialogue is a bit thick and hard to cut through, but every line in these noir tales boils down to only 1 of 3 messages: "I'm going to die," "I'm going to kill ____," "Be careful you don't get killed." It also doesn't help that usually dependable actors like Bruce Willis, Madsen and Powers Boothe seem hopelessly out of place and that Clive Owen can't seem to get rid of his British accent for more than a few lines at a time. Big surprises in convincing turns include Jessica Alba as a teen stripper, Rutger Haur as a Cardinal, and especially Mickey Rourke as killer tank Marv. Carla Gugino as a mostly naked parol officer was a treat -- er, also because she could act. The movie would've been better served in part had they chosen to utilize the great titles of the comics. It would've done us well to see "The Big Fat Kill" plastered across the screen for that piece of the story; "A Dame to Kill For" is too good a title not to share. Of course, the way-too-obvious metaphor for the child molester later referred to as "That Yellow Bastard" worked about as well on screen as it did in the comics (that is, not at all), but it still would've been nice to see the title; it also would've helped explain the spot color of that character to those not familiar with the books (which, presumably, is virtually everyone). If a sequel comes down, it'd be interesting to see if Rodriguez learns from his missteps in this very provocative experiment in filmic storytelling. Expand
  66. Sean
    Apr 15, 2005
    9
    This movie is amazing in both its visuals and dialogue. Anyone who calls it misogynistic or too violent is clearly permanently stuck in living in the eighties. Negative critics of the film are exactly why there are so many rehashed romantic comedies out there today. The bold risks and ingenuity found in the film should be rewarded, not punished.
  67. MeganO.
    Apr 1, 2005
    7
    Beautifully made, visually gorgeous with plot twists that aren't too predictible.... but VIOLENCE and BLOOD and GORE prevail. I left feeling sick to my stomach, and some images are still haunting me.
  68. JamesW
    Apr 17, 2005
    8
    Very good - the cinematography was amazing and it's groundbreaking from a visual standopoint. I went with a couple of people and discussed how terrifying the movie was - particularly the Kevin/Marv (Elijah Wood/Mickey Rourke) segments. The brutality verges on excessive and IMHO the violence is on-par with A Clockwork Orange. Another viewer mentioned that he felt the violence was more Very good - the cinematography was amazing and it's groundbreaking from a visual standopoint. I went with a couple of people and discussed how terrifying the movie was - particularly the Kevin/Marv (Elijah Wood/Mickey Rourke) segments. The brutality verges on excessive and IMHO the violence is on-par with A Clockwork Orange. Another viewer mentioned that he felt the violence was more disturbing and compelling as shot by Rodriguez & Miller than it may have been in a more conventionally-shot movie ("we're desensitized to that, but this movie is so different that the violence hits differently"). Both the women that I went with were totally turned off by the movie and felt it was too voilent. Expand
  69. ScottM.
    Apr 17, 2005
    0
    Please - THis movie was HORRIBLE - SUCKS - Or any other negative word you want to throw in there! If you read the reviews most are talking about it's visual look! OK - you get over that and (usually) get into the movie after a few minutes, in which the cinematography/visual is supposed to enhance the plot/script/characters/etc. This is only the second movie in my entire life (35) Please - THis movie was HORRIBLE - SUCKS - Or any other negative word you want to throw in there! If you read the reviews most are talking about it's visual look! OK - you get over that and (usually) get into the movie after a few minutes, in which the cinematography/visual is supposed to enhance the plot/script/characters/etc. This is only the second movie in my entire life (35) that I couldn't wait until it was over and leave. A good sign of how a movie is also how the audience reacts when the lights come up. There were early 20 teens behind us, older people on our right and same age in front and they all had the same look of disgust on thier faces. That is how can this movie be rated R when it should be NC-17? The critics and motion picture assoiciation have no balls to bow to the Hollywood pressure. Bruce Willis should the take away thier lack of balls the same way he did in the movie. Don't fall for the positive reviews!!!! SUCKS SUCKS SUCKS!!! Expand
  70. CookieB.
    Apr 10, 2005
    10
    Totally Awesome!!
  71. JessicaH.
    Apr 21, 2005
    0
    The worst movie I've seen all year. You'll like it if you're a misogynist or if you really get off on excessive blood and gore. Totally disappointing all around.
  72. elmoco
    Apr 2, 2005
    10
    Near-perfect adaptaion of a classic graphic novel.....i don't think i will ever look at mustard again wihout thinking of Yellow Bastard.
  73. KhushbuD.
    Apr 2, 2005
    9
    Simply amazing!!! Right from the very first scene till the end. I do sniff a sequel to this in future. But it is a must watch for those who are fan of Quentin's.
  74. eriK
    Apr 2, 2005
    8
    No critisizing or discussing the adaptation since it was almost a flawless transfer. The only weaknesses stem from the source material then, and Big Fat Kill had too many weaknesses already. The film could only have been better in my mind if it hadn't included that story. Otherwise seeing one of my favorite stories of all time (Marv's) put on screen so perfectly leaves me No critisizing or discussing the adaptation since it was almost a flawless transfer. The only weaknesses stem from the source material then, and Big Fat Kill had too many weaknesses already. The film could only have been better in my mind if it hadn't included that story. Otherwise seeing one of my favorite stories of all time (Marv's) put on screen so perfectly leaves me without words to describe it. Expand
  75. Hades
    Apr 2, 2005
    7
    It really pains me to NOT be able to give Sin City a higher score than this, as I'd anticipated its release for quite some time now. Unfortunately, now that my experience with it has come and gone I can honestly say I was less than impressed overall. The visuals, of course, are enthralling, however, they seem somewhat sparingly used to their full effect. That may add to the It really pains me to NOT be able to give Sin City a higher score than this, as I'd anticipated its release for quite some time now. Unfortunately, now that my experience with it has come and gone I can honestly say I was less than impressed overall. The visuals, of course, are enthralling, however, they seem somewhat sparingly used to their full effect. That may add to the enticement they provide by only giving you small doses, but I felt they could have explored the possibilities a bit more (a clever scene with Del Toro's character, which exhibits how tantalizing the color/black and white pairings ~could~ have been, is a fine example, as is the Yellow Bastard character..) Granted, the film succeeds on being incredibly unique. However.. as others have said.. once you've acquired the taste for Sin City, you'll likely leave the theater disgusted. The content of the film is simply too overwhelming to want to experience more than once. I admire morbid humor, and am entertained by violence when it is stylistically presented. Unfortunately, Sin City pissed on the line before leaping over it head-first, all while flipping me off and pumping me full of lead. A bit extreme. Expand
  76. AlexM
    Apr 21, 2005
    10
    I am not going to repeat what many critics and other have said about this great movie. What are these people who trash the movie on?? The violence?? I've seen worse and being exposed to Raiders of the Lost Ark in the theatre at 9 years old started the desensitization. Great movie, should have been rated R!! Austin Powers anyone?? After the year to year blitzkreig of PG13 movies, it I am not going to repeat what many critics and other have said about this great movie. What are these people who trash the movie on?? The violence?? I've seen worse and being exposed to Raiders of the Lost Ark in the theatre at 9 years old started the desensitization. Great movie, should have been rated R!! Austin Powers anyone?? After the year to year blitzkreig of PG13 movies, it was great to have something i wanted to see rated R and have it be great. There's a reason Ben Stiller is in countless movies, there are sequels to movies like Bad Boys, and why Anchorman was made. There are people out there who like those kind of movies. So as long as those kinds of films are being made, I do hope more great R rated movies will be made as well. Just a question. Why the hell is Batman Begins PG13?!?! Expand
  77. BobB.
    Apr 2, 2005
    10
    Best Movie Ever!!!
  78. IdekO.
    Apr 2, 2005
    3
    The look is original -that is the only reason I'm not giving it a zero. Seeing as how this is based on a comic book, I suppose the dialogue ought to be rather trite - it is. And it is delivered by cookie cutter characters. The whole movie seems to be the brainchild of some 13 year old. Constant violence and random nudity with no real story to make any of it meaningful. There are The look is original -that is the only reason I'm not giving it a zero. Seeing as how this is based on a comic book, I suppose the dialogue ought to be rather trite - it is. And it is delivered by cookie cutter characters. The whole movie seems to be the brainchild of some 13 year old. Constant violence and random nudity with no real story to make any of it meaningful. There are three main segments, and the "plot" in each of them is basically person A needs to kill person B because person B hurt/killed person C. Oh, and if anyone gets in the way, they'll be killed too. I do not automatically label all movie violence as bad, but I found this movie very redundant and pointless. Expand
  79. RonaldT
    Apr 25, 2005
    9
    Knew the storyline - knew the spoilers - knew all about the gore - expected it to suck. Still went to see it because a friend wanted to. Have to say I really enjoyed it. If you're not put off by excessive violence, give it a chance. I think this film easily falls into the "love it or hate it" category.
  80. MatthewF.
    Apr 3, 2005
    10
    I really enjoyed this movie. Mind you, if you are the queasy type, you might want to think twice about seeing this movie. As with other Tarantino inspired flicks, the blood flows freely. This movie had me saying "wow" through-out. Great Job.
  81. TomC.
    Apr 3, 2005
    0
    Style over substance wasn't mean to be a creedo.
  82. BuzzzKill
    Apr 3, 2005
    1
    Ridculous dialogue. Self-serving and preposterous. This movie uses every cliche in the book. It's gut wrenching watching quality actors seem like they are suffering through such a goofy movie with some of the worst lines ever written.
  83. H.Carter
    Apr 3, 2005
    9
    I think if you don't get this movie, just like Pulp Fiction, you're really going to hate it. But so far, I think it's safe to say that a majority of people get it (like most people did with Pulp Fiction). The Neo-Noir, ultra stylized, ultra-violent theme is translated perfectly from Frank Miller's graphic novels. There are underlying stories here that literally are I think if you don't get this movie, just like Pulp Fiction, you're really going to hate it. But so far, I think it's safe to say that a majority of people get it (like most people did with Pulp Fiction). The Neo-Noir, ultra stylized, ultra-violent theme is translated perfectly from Frank Miller's graphic novels. There are underlying stories here that literally are Shakespearean (King Lear) as well as just a straight love of 50s Film Noir. It's great to see someone (Robert Rodriguez) swing for the fences and actually hit a home run. Easily one of the better movies I've seen in quite some time. Bravo. Expand
  84. Devin
    Apr 3, 2005
    10
    Great acting, directing, cast, visuals, and audio. It followed the comic books almost word for word, which I liked. Overall a very good movie hands down one of my favorite.
  85. RyanH.
    Apr 3, 2005
    10
    As a reader of the graphic novel I have to say that this movie is the best comic book movie ever made because it stays so true to the books themselves. Everyone who gives this movie a bad review has no respect for both art forms (film and comics) nor do they have respect for fantasy itself.
  86. TY
    Apr 3, 2005
    4
    Great to look at, boring to listen to.
  87. DillB.
    Apr 3, 2005
    10
    This has to be one of the best movies I have ever seen. With its visuals and its huge cast with the fantastic stories mixed in with some of the most grusome visuals that you will ever see, I would have to say that this movie is perfect.
  88. CharlieB.
    Apr 4, 2005
    10
    This movie is amazing!
  89. 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).
  90. TerryD.
    Apr 4, 2005
    10
    Most perfect adaptation from paper to screen ever.
  91. BrianS.
    Apr 4, 2005
    10
    Those saying that this movie limits it's audience because of the styling, well no kidding. It was made for the fans of the series and pretty much for no one else. It's a direct adaptation of the series and that is because you cant make a faithful comic book movie and at the same time have it be good for all naive audiences. It's either one or the other, this time someone Those saying that this movie limits it's audience because of the styling, well no kidding. It was made for the fans of the series and pretty much for no one else. It's a direct adaptation of the series and that is because you cant make a faithful comic book movie and at the same time have it be good for all naive audiences. It's either one or the other, this time someone finally chose to make a faithful rendition of a graphic novel. The movie was by far the best adaptation of a graphic novel to date. Expand
  92. ChrisH.
    Apr 5, 2005
    8
    Excellent realization of Miller's comic on film. The plot could have had more depth but the surface and the texture is really what the film is all about. Bravo!
  93. 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
  94. DwightV.
    Apr 6, 2005
    10
    Whoa this movie is awesome. It was unpredictable, funny and crazy. It's one of those movies you have to watch twice to get what it's about.
  95. PonR.
    Apr 6, 2005
    9
    Sin City was way more than I expected. It's powerful and provocative without being either a feel good movie or morbidly Se7en-esque. Nitty, gritty, Machiavellian, Darwinian. I was never big on noir, but this film does for the genre what Star Wars (the original trilogy) did for sci-fi.
  96. JosephC.
    Apr 7, 2005
    0
    I have read and watched Science Fiction and Graphic Novels and associated films since I was 13, WAY long ago. It amazes me that anyone sees Sin City as anything but dreck. Dark, demoralizing, confused, gratuitously violent, it makes Kill Bill v.1 a Nursery tail. Women are treated with contempt, people exist to kill or be killed. It makes Clockwork Orange into a light-hearted romp, and, as I have read and watched Science Fiction and Graphic Novels and associated films since I was 13, WAY long ago. It amazes me that anyone sees Sin City as anything but dreck. Dark, demoralizing, confused, gratuitously violent, it makes Kill Bill v.1 a Nursery tail. Women are treated with contempt, people exist to kill or be killed. It makes Clockwork Orange into a light-hearted romp, and, as usual, spits at anything in a position that would otherwise be held in honor. Police, the religious, government, anything is held in contempt and the characters do not even act consistently. Eeeeeuuuuuuuuuu. Where is the Pepto Bismo. Expand
  97. MisterThomYorke
    Apr 7, 2005
    10
    [***SPOILERS***] Warning Spoilers: To answer Edward's question: Josh Hartnett's character at the beginning and end was a hitman. That's why he killed the woman at the beginning (he was "going to cash her check tomorrow"), and at the end he was hired by the hookers to kill that chick for betraying them. She looked scared because she knew who he was and what he was there to[***SPOILERS***] Warning Spoilers: To answer Edward's question: Josh Hartnett's character at the beginning and end was a hitman. That's why he killed the woman at the beginning (he was "going to cash her check tomorrow"), and at the end he was hired by the hookers to kill that chick for betraying them. She looked scared because she knew who he was and what he was there to do. Great movie if you ask me. Reminded me of "The Maxx" cartoon from MTV a few years back. Expand
  98. JeffL.
    Apr 7, 2005
    7
    Pulp Fiction meets Tales From the Crypt (meets Sam Fuller, Stan Lee, David Lynch, and God-knows-who-else) in this ambitious, visually stunning realization of Frank Miller's graphic novels set in a dark, blood-soaked, noirish city populated by world-weary cops, bad-ass crooks, hookers without hearts of gold, corrupt clergymen, and the occasional cannibal. Director Robert Pulp Fiction meets Tales From the Crypt (meets Sam Fuller, Stan Lee, David Lynch, and God-knows-who-else) in this ambitious, visually stunning realization of Frank Miller's graphic novels set in a dark, blood-soaked, noirish city populated by world-weary cops, bad-ass crooks, hookers without hearts of gold, corrupt clergymen, and the occasional cannibal. Director Robert Rodriguez's astonishing panel-by-panel recreation of Miller's work (he even controversially credits Miller as co-director) is unlike anything else ever filmed; its rich black-and-white images punctuated by well-chosen splashes of color (green eyes, splatters of red blood, even a bad guy who's a literal Yellow Bastard.) But for all of Rodriguez's inventiveness and visual dazzle, I was only truly knocked out by one of the film's intertwining stories: the one featuring Mickey Rourke in a sensational comeback performance as Marv, a seemingly indestructible tough guy with a Rondo Hatton face who wakes up to discover that the dame he loves was murdered even as he slept next to her. It's a classic noir situation that escalates to dizzyingly over-the-top comic heights (involving the aforementioned cannibal, whose brilliant casting I shall not give away) without losing our basic sympathy for Marv. The other segments are just as visually arresting, but I grew a bit worn down by their weaker stories and characters, which made the film's 126 minutes seem long despite the frenetic pace and tons of sex and violence. The best comic book movies - Superman II, the 1989 Batman, both Spider-Man movies, even Road to Perdition - may not recreate their creators' work in quite so literal a fashion, but their emotional core and well-modulated perfomances still make them more engaging and rewarding films. Expand
  99. 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
  100. WhoC.
    Apr 8, 2005
    8
    What is the problem...It's just a movie based on a comic! Was it entertaining?..Yes!
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.