This is about how I saw it...Didnt like it as much as alot of people did, but was still a pretty entertaining action movie, that "looked" great.

Lets say you made a movie based on the game GTA vice city. In the movie nobody dies, they don't have any bad words, and replace 80s music with hip hop and rock of today. Could the movie be good, sure. Will every fan of GTA hate, most surely for the sole reason a GTA movie without violence isn't a GTA movie.

Same thing with this movie. The comic is violent crime noir with black and white pages splashed with color here and there. The lines and scenes are straight from the comic. They could have taken the violence out and used nice words instead but then they couldn't have put frank miller's Sin City on it, instead they would have to call it Dick Tracy.

My points:

Loved the characters.

Chewed the scenery.

Beat-to-shit-by-the-world-Marv was so badass.

The whores' vignette was the least entertaining. But it sped by the second time I saw it.

The last moments with Bruce Willis were poignent, and absolutely beautiful.

Lacked conversation. Everything moved very briskly. Almost unbearably frantic. Bruce Willis' scenes held the only moments to breath.

The action is vibrant. But there wasn't really time to build up to a payoff. Marv was so badass, that I never had any doubt that he'd just beat the shit out of everyone and move on (and, yes, I do consider his finaley victorious!). Again, Bruce Willis' parts were the only ones that built up and paid off in good time.

The whole movie is fun. And it moves fast enough to be as rewatchable as Die Hard 3 or The Big Lebowski. 90% of the movie clicked. When it didn't, the efforts were valiant.

Very soild picture. I hope we can expand on the characters (namely Marv) in the sequels.

I guess Im pretty frustrated because I REALLY wanted to like this movie.

But you clearly don't. Those who read the graphic novels will almost definitely like it, if for no other reason than it stays true to the source material. Ironically, that's precisely the reason you don't like it. No biggie.

I was going to type that, but alas, you beat me to it. Hence, I will just say, "What he said."

I just finished watching it and this is probably the best description I can come up w/ too. I really thought I would like it but in the end it just came across as over-stylized and over-hyped, which means about par for the course wrt anything QT is invovled w/ It wasn't really bad, but frankly I just didn't find it that good either. To give credit where credit is due the visuals were great and while I'm not really into graphic novels it definately had the feel of a moving novel, which is what I assume they were going for.

I liked it. Thought it was a hoot. So over the top it was like watching a cartoon. It remined me of Heavy Metal more than anything else.

I am a huge fan of the film. It is true pulp fiction and is over-the-top, over-the top. The dialogue and violence have to be taken in this context to be properly appreciated. Applying a standard of subtlety will necessarily find the film lacking. It is certainly my favorite "comic book" movie, and while I was familiar with Miller (Dark Night, Daredevil etc), I had never read the Sin City novels.

The dialogue is reminiscent of Jim Thomson novels and is only a slight exaggeration of Dashiel Hammett, James M. Cain, Raymond Chandler writing.

The visuals were outstanding.

Im sure i would like it, but I actually havent seen it...Should probably netflix it.

It is cliched because that is the whole point of the graphic novels. They were supposed to be highly stylized cliches of film noir/crime/pulp movies. The movie succeeds at that. I can see why people wouldn't like it, though. Anything that stylized is bound to polarize opinions. I thought it was mostly good, and for the record, I am a fan of the books. I agree that it was too gory.

I'm a fan of pulp fiction from the 30s to the 50s. I bought the comics as soon as they came out. If Frank Miller wrote any more, I'd buy them too.

But the movie was too frenetic. It may have been storyboarded from Miller's drawings, it doesn't have the same sense of time. In the comic, when you have a 1-1/2 page spread of someone jumping out of a window, with hundreds of shards of glass, it takes time to take in the panel. Everything seems to float in space. In the movie, it's a 2 second action shot. Wham!

I thought that too. Also, it seems like some of the quieter scenes were dropped (Marv going to see his mother etc). I thought I read this board that they were all filmed and would be on the dvd, but cut from the movie to make it shorter. I hope that's true.

I hope that's true because that's part of the reason why I didn't love the film (though I did like it). It was all ra-tat-tat with no time to reflect on what happened. That's fine for some of the time but it happened too often. This is why "That Yellow Bastard" was my favourite chapter. I really would have prefered they excised the whole "Big Fat Kill" chapter, even though I loved the scene in the car, because it was the low point of the whole film (great eye candy but extremely shallow).

Didn't read the graphic novels and probably won't. I loved this movie though. Mainly because it's so different from everything else out there.

I enjoyed Sin City for the visuals and for the great performance (once again...talk about a guy who doesn't get any respect) by Bruce Willis. I did think the violence was a bit over the top...it didn't bother me, but after a while it was just gratuitous - the movie could have packed more punch with a few bursts of violence instead of the constant barrage

I was just pissed of that they forgot to take the color out of some of the scenes in a black and white movie.

I was bound to be slightly let down, because everything I'd read was unbelievably positive. But I still enjoyed it a great deal.

It's interesting that in a thread where people are debating whether it was a good movie or not, that there is also the issue of who liked which story the best. It seems to vary quite a bit.

Personally, I liked the second one the best (Alexis ), the third was my second favorite, and, lastly, the first one. But none of them were bad.

I never understood the Jessica Alba hype before, but she was stunning in a film loaded with beautiful women.

B+

It was mediocre. The biggest thing about it seems to be comic book fans comparing the film to the comic, and being impressed with how close it was to the comic. Why not just make an animated film of the comic if all you care about is how closely one form resembles the other?

I don't get the deification of Frank Miller, either...Sin City is really minor compared to the revitalization of Batman and Daredevil, but even that isn't that big of a literary achievement, unless your idea of great literature is comic books. Mine isn't.

That said, Sin City was about what I expected it to be, and if nothing else, it was a lot better than Fantastic Four.