Sin City

User Score
8.2

Universal acclaim- based on 786 Ratings

User score distribution:
  1. Negative: 80 out of 786
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. Aug 25, 2014
    3
    Expected so much more from this one. Sin City starts out intriguing, but in the middle gets so terrible I had to actually fast forward through parts of it and fight the urge to press stop and quit watching it. The problem, obviously, is not with the graphic presentation - it's stylish and sometimes very gory. Also gotta take note of the female cast - Jessica Alba is adorable, and othersExpected so much more from this one. Sin City starts out intriguing, but in the middle gets so terrible I had to actually fast forward through parts of it and fight the urge to press stop and quit watching it. The problem, obviously, is not with the graphic presentation - it's stylish and sometimes very gory. Also gotta take note of the female cast - Jessica Alba is adorable, and others (especially Carla Gugino, to my surprise) are outright hot. (Boobs included) But a movie isn't all about its presentation (and boobs), it's also very much about the plot, and it's pretty damn awful here. The main problem are the characters and the overall goofy comicbook crap that it's based on. Mickey Rourke's ugly-as- **** character throwing people like he's superpowered, Clive Owen jumping down buildings, creepy cannibalistic Elijah Wood, people surviving totally grave wounds and some ugly disgusting yellow freak are ridiculous and just plain stupid.
    It is impossible not to see how hard this tries to be "noir". with all the black-and-white colouring, constant rain or snow and neverending inner monologues. But it tries too hard, not achieving much. What the movie lacks is a good source to be based on - maybe some detective novel, some real literature, not this comic book junk from Mr. Miller, who can hardly be called a writer.
    Only good thing is that now I know that I'm in no way spending money on a cinema ticket to the Dame to Kill For, despite its boob-cast now including Eva Green.
    Expand
  2. Dec 19, 2011
    2
    While the film does start out interesting, It gets pretty old and boring the further you get into it. Also the stories are rather stupid and pretty generic, They lack interest as well. Also the acting is well below what I expected from the star studded cast. It looks good but thats about it.
  3. 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
  4. 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
  5. 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.
  6. 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.
  7. 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.
  8. Arturo
    Apr 19, 2005
    0
    Awful, noisy mess witout a decent plot.
  9. Heather
    Apr 3, 2005
    3
    Blah.
  10. 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
  11. 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
  12. RogerR.
    May 8, 2006
    2
    Definatley one of the worst movies i have ever seen.
  13. 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
  14. 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.
  15. 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.
  16. jefff.
    Aug 23, 2005
    2
    Good looking but so what. Elijah Woods was in this where? Vile and bloody.
  17. BobA.
    Feb 22, 2006
    1
    One day someone will have to explain to me what use "cool" is in praising a movie. It can't be quantified, or analyzed, or particularly defined. Something is "cool" when it is "cool." That's Sin City. All the men are big gritty types with fast cars and guns and hard fists -- "cool" All the women are prostitues or strippers in various states of undress who also have guns, though One day someone will have to explain to me what use "cool" is in praising a movie. It can't be quantified, or analyzed, or particularly defined. Something is "cool" when it is "cool." That's Sin City. All the men are big gritty types with fast cars and guns and hard fists -- "cool" All the women are prostitues or strippers in various states of undress who also have guns, though require protecting by the men -- "cool" The writing is cliche, the dialogue is bad, the acting is worse. The only thing that can be said positively is that the visual style of the movie is sometimes interesting. If Sin City is the essence of "cool" then that whole concept has come perilously close to "corny" Expand
  18. PaulH.
    Jun 6, 2007
    1
    a disgusting blend of mind-numbingly banal cliches and over-the-top sadistic violence..i really wonder about those infants who find this film entertaining. It is about as original as a snuff movie and is a worrying sign of the direction Hollywood is taking. Bravo rayo for your wonderful critique...when kidnap,torture,rape and cannibalism becomes mainstream popcorn-fodder you really have a disgusting blend of mind-numbingly banal cliches and over-the-top sadistic violence..i really wonder about those infants who find this film entertaining. It is about as original as a snuff movie and is a worrying sign of the direction Hollywood is taking. Bravo rayo for your wonderful critique...when kidnap,torture,rape and cannibalism becomes mainstream popcorn-fodder you really have to ask yourself about the world you're living in. This movie really does not have any redeeming features. Sorry to sound like an evangelist but as someone who loves cinema i find sin city empty, shallow, fake, offensive and in the end plain dumb. Expand
  19. gretcheno.
    Oct 19, 2005
    0
    This is by far the worst movie ever made. The positive reviews MUST be a complete conspiracy of those who made or are paid to promote the movie.
  20. MangoP
    Jun 5, 2008
    0
    "Sin City" is a depressing, anger-inducing headache for anyone who cares about humanity. The only thing this film accomplished is to make me loathe the worst of human nature just a little bit more. The comic book visuals could not get me to detach from its turgid subject matter.
  21. Gordy
    Aug 22, 2005
    3
    Overrated and overhyped crap. Teenage boy's wet dream, and comic book geeks will love this but those with any taste in movies will be hugely diappointed. The violence is over the top and disturbing, the whole thing reeks of misogyny and the dialogue is crap. Mickey Rourke's story is ok, but the rest of the acting is weak. Shame with such good acting talent on board too. Overrated and overhyped crap. Teenage boy's wet dream, and comic book geeks will love this but those with any taste in movies will be hugely diappointed. The violence is over the top and disturbing, the whole thing reeks of misogyny and the dialogue is crap. Mickey Rourke's story is ok, but the rest of the acting is weak. Shame with such good acting talent on board too. Comparisons with Pulp fiction are all wrong. Expand
  22. DZ
    Nov 14, 2006
    3
    Quentin Tarantino's most well liked movie is The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly. Undeniably these are the premises of which this movie may be judged upon. The Good: The singular notion of a theme is the principal reason of why this movie is notable. Rodriguez struggles to concentrate on depth and heaviness in his movie's eternal soul. He pelts on superficiality rather than Quentin Tarantino's most well liked movie is The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly. Undeniably these are the premises of which this movie may be judged upon. The Good: The singular notion of a theme is the principal reason of why this movie is notable. Rodriguez struggles to concentrate on depth and heaviness in his movie's eternal soul. He pelts on superficiality rather than exploring the rigid atmosphere, the characters, and why in Sin City each of the characters is interwoven. Neither of any of these is explored. He explores confidence. Never achieving any merit with his central theme. All he centres on is his characters obsession with vengeance; other themes are not targeted. The Bad: Characters. Dialogue. Themes. Mood. Atmosphere. The painting that Rodriguez and Miller paint with each of their characters feels as if it were painted by cheap water colors that were purchased at a second hand store. Their intention with their paint and brush is to only fufill themselves with covering that blank sheet. That is what their characters are. Cheap, flat and abysmally written. Rodriguez is the only individual that is aware of how the audience is able to resonate with each character; they are never given an opportunity. Expand
  23. HanselH.
    Feb 25, 2006
    1
    All style and no substance. It's as ugly and as fake as Mickey Rourke's makeup (whose story was the only enjoyable one). Definitely for geeks who masturbate to cartoon women.
  24. 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.
  25. 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.
  26. 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.
  27. 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.
  28. 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
  29. 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.
  30. 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
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.