f13.net

Just got me back from watching it, so I'll just offer a few thoughts....

I give it almost all the praise I could possibly give to a film.

Granted, I came into it already expecting a lot, but the thing is: It delivered on my expectations. When does that ever happen?! This was Sin City FULLY realized in film form.

Perhaps there was one weak part (and it wasn't even that weak): Which would be the second segment of the Hartigan (Bruce Willis) and Nancy (Jessica Alba) story. It may have been that I was getting a little tired by this time, but I thought the pacing was kind of slow.

Besides that, I can't really say anything negative about it. Even the bit actors were good!

It was also great to see Rourke (Marv) in action again. I'm a huge fan, and it's a fucking shame that Rodriguez is the only guy giving him parts these days. There have been many actors over the years that critics would hail to be the "next Brando" or whatnot, but Rourke is one of the only guy's who's been the real deal. 2 minutes of Mickey Rourke equals a lifetime of performances from a lot of other actors out there --- and the great thing about Sin City is that you get more than 2 minutes of him. It's about damn time.

A close second best would be Jacky Boy (Del Toro) and Dwight (Owen). But hell, my eyes would have been glued to the screen if the whole film was about Marv (well, my eyes would have been glued if it all about the girls of Old Town too).

Anyways, go see it. It's worth watching in a theater.

Fuck!  I mean.... Fuck!

Yah,  go see this thing.  Unreal.

Bizarre at times, but in a good way.

On a sidenote (for you Tarantino haters): He only directed *a scene* within the Jacky Boy segment (it's a driving scene with Jacky Boy and Dwight).

And y'know, I wouldn't have known that if I didn't just look it up. The scene in question was great (due to Del Toro), but Tarantino didn't make it better, nor did he make it worse. It was one of those types of scenes where the actors take over and the director is a non issue. Quentin was only there so Rodriguez could let him make use of digital filmmaking techniques.

Fan-Fucking-Tastic, that's all I can say.

Now, I am by no means a film buff. Hell, the last few movies I've seen are Mean Girls and Ghost in the Shell: Innocence. I saw Hero also, and I still want my money back for it.

Go fucking see this shit. This may be the closest we'll ever get to "Max Payne: The Movie".

If not for the great film techniques, art direction, actors, story, or even the girls of Old Town....then at least see it because it has a gyrating Jessica Alba. Mmmm....Jessica Alba. Here's to hoping that she'll make a few cameos in my dreams.

PS: After the film, I heard some kids saying that Frank Miller should be shot....pfft, kids.

I wasn't going to mention this, but some little fucking turds sitting above me were talking throughout the movie. About 30 mins in, I couldn't take it anymore, told them to "SHUT THE FUCK UP", yanked a box of (what I think) were Junior Mints out of one of their hands and hurled it down the stairs. No response was given.

Watching Marv will make you do crazy things.

Perhaps this would be the only valid reason not to see this in the theater. I put up with that shit in Constantine, but didn't have the patience today. Plus, I was alone this time. I didn't have to worry about scaring off my date.

That makes all the difference in the world. I've done some shit that would get me in trouble in theaters because I was alone and someone was bugging the shit out of me.

I do not tolerate your average citizen. Particularly when he's 8 years old and kicking the back of your chair. Hell, doesn't matter if he's 18. The fucker dies!

Sin City was superb.  Absolutely entertaining to someone who never read the graphic novels.  My girlfriend didn't like it, but that's only because of the green man.

I haven't read the books but this movie made me wish to do it. Also, IGN has an article with rodriquez where he says that on the DvD version you'll have the theatrical release, plus a second disc with each story as its own segment, complete with scenes put back in. (He mentioned Marv going to see his mother or something. Again, I haven't read the books.)

I'll be getting this on DvD. Damn amazing movie. I walked out so excited and so fanboyish feeling and didn't care. Marv stole the show in my opinion BTW.

Just saw the movie.  Wow.  That's all I can really say, because if I were to praise specific aspects of this movie, I'd have to go on for pages, lest I slight any of the myriad things that made it awesome.

I'd firmly recommend going to see this with a large crowd.  The crowd reaction is great,  since the movie is so brutul (and sometimes funny).

I've been a big fan of Robert Rodriguez for a while,  so it's nice to see him hit one out of the park.  (More a fan of the potential he had,  than the actual results.) 

Anyone have an idea how much Sin City cost to put out?  Rodriguez is the king of keeping costs down,  between his relentlessly pushing the staff and the fact he loves to do just about every movie job himself.

He also likes to include some real interesting stuff on his dvds.  The documentary on "From Dusk till Dawn" about the shooting schedule and union problems is pretty interesting.  As is his walkthrough and behind the scenes of his personal studio in "Once Upon a Time in Mexico".  Not to mention he takes 7 minutes to show you how to cook Agent Sands favorite dish....

Is is any wonder that this movie kicks-ass? I knew after Rodriguez did the Kill Bill 2 soundtrack for free for Tarantino that the their first movie together was going to be amazing. Robert Rodriguez has shown Hollywood that creativity actually saves money and Rodriguez has time and time again created some great stuff on a shoestring budget.  He still makes movies where he's usually the primary cameraman. I think he's listed as doing all the steadicam work as well (and the soundtrack, editing, special effects...)

Personally, as an independent filmaker (mostly documentaries) I stand in awe of Robert Rodriguez as his talents cover damm near every aspect of moviemaking.

You name it. He's good at it.


Is this real?

Apparently. But Tarantino still sucks the biggest balls in the animal kingdom. I'm going to see this tonight. Hopefully the theater will be packed.

I saw a special on E! last night about Sin City and man, Frank Miller looks like hell. Jesus, I remember seeing him in "Comic Book Confidential" what must have been 15 years ago or so. I remembered him as a youngish guy with long hair, now he looks like one of those Bushman brothers from the WWF tag team. (The guys who would stomp around and wave their arms, both australian.)

Alot can happen in 15 years. Then he was in his mid-20s probably. Now he's in his 40s. (At least).

I read an article in the WSJ about the movie and found out that Robert Rodriguez was told by the Directors Guild that he could not split the credit for having two directors.

He took the proper way out. Solution? Tossed his membership in the silly Directors Guild!

Kind of like George Lucas getting hell for not having a credit roll at the beginning of Star Wars.

Too many stupid people making decisions IMHO.

Yeah, they mentioned that in the E! special. (It was actually a decent special, not that I watch E! a lot...) Since Miller is a first-time director they thought that was in bad form for whatever reason.

I also just read that it cost $40 million to make.

Well, you probably know by now that I'll disagree with you about that, but....I think this is better than anything Quentin has done. That might not mean much considering that you already dislike him to begin with -- But if a Quentin fan like me can say that, then that should give you a rough idea on where I think Sin City stands.

All the stuff Quintin stole his shit from is better also. I'm thinking maybe if you saw the early John Woo/Chow Yun Fat stuff you're admiration of Tarantino would go out the window. Where it belongs. And that's only one group that he stole from to make himself successful. It also helps that Woo hasn't done shit worth mentioning in America, so people tend to forget The Killer, Hard-Boiled and the Better Tomorrow series.

*looks at his DvDs* Not all of us have forgotten them.

I've seen all those movies schild and I agree that they are great but they are also totally worthy of emulation.  This little tirade of yours is silly, you're doing that thing about for something to be good it had to be created from whole cloth and it's just not true.

So what that Tarantino uses ideas from multiple sources in his movies?  The fusion of two things is a new thing.

Sin City slays my fucking face off. Go see it.

Tarantino is not great but he is hardly the anti-christ of directors. Anyone who seriously thinks that Tarantino is a terrible director needs to watch more movies.

He's technically proficient at mimicing. He's a highly unoriginal piece of shit. He'd be better off as a script writer, but only dialogue. Nothing else. His bit in the Four Rooms is proof of that.


He doesn't fuse 2 things. He puts them into his movies in subsequent scenes, he's a con artist and a thief.

Good god Schild. Can you show us where Tarantino touched you to form this unreasoning bile towards him? He's not an artiste but his movies are fun and have their own "feel". I didn't watch Kill Bill but I don't see how you can say Reservoir Dogs or Pulp Fiction are shit.

Tarantino's dialog is his *worst* area. It's cool at first; then you realize that every character in every movie speaks the same way and they all have basically interchangeable personalities.

Sin City isn't their first collaboration by a longshot.

http://imdb.com/title/tt0116367/

And I think Four Rooms even preceeded that movie.

See, I think the dialog was one of the only things that saved Resevoir Dogs. That entire movie was shot for shot Hard Boiled + The Killer. But then, Tim Roth can save any ship from sinking.

Pulp Fiction isn't my bag. I can see why people like it, I happen to despise Travolta.

Tarantino does a number of things that piss me off immensely. One is buying the rights to foreign movies and putting a big nasty "Tarantino Presents" on them. Sontine and Zatoichi are two examples that come to mind. Both are Takeshi Kitano movies - arguably one of the best writer/directors working in Japan today. Disney does this same shit with Studio Ghibli, and it angers me to no end.

Oh and he sucks donkey balls. Seriously. There's video of it.

Whoa there....You're not the only person in the world who isn't a dumbass. Maybe where you're at, ignorance abounds, but when I say I'm a fan of Tarantino, it doesn't mean my knowledge of film begins and ends with him. I'm not one of "those" fans. I knew plenty about films before I even heard of him. My parents taught me well.

Hell, I can still remember the first film my Dad dragged me to when I was 5 years old -- And it wasn't Rambo, ET or the Empire Strikes Back. It was the cheesy Richard Gere version of Breathless! And if I could have read subtitles, he probably would have dragged me to the Godard version.

As far as Woo goes, of course I've seen his old films. I know enough about him, and with the exception of Hard-Boiled, those movies just aren't very fun to me. The action scenes are great, but everything in between wears thin.

Anyways, I'm not here to argue about Quentin (or whatever). My only point was that I happen to like him, and I still think Sin City tops anything he's done. If you already hate him, well....Then you'll probably like this film even more because of it.  :-)

Just to give you an idea of how something so shallow as labeling a dvd could ruin it. Just take a look for yourself:

(http://images.amazon.com/images/P/B00077GS3Y.01-A22XP0Z2W4YOLT._SCLZZZZZZZ_.jpg)

Seriously. He's just that much of an asshole. Kitano was making movies before Tarantino was wet behind the ears and he still has the gall to slap his name across some of the best of asian cinema. Fucking leech.

And because he slaps his name on that stuff it actually gets RELEASED here.

Miramax wanted to hack up Hero until Tarantino said that he'd be willing to have the "Quentin Tarantino Presents" stuck in front of it.

But please, by all means, continue with your hatred of everything Tarantino.

Edit: Whoopsie, I apparently can't tell the difference between quote and edit.

Yea, I know. I mean noone (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/B0000CABGW/qid=1112572373/sr=8-1/ref=pd_csp_1/002-3963374-3781660?v=glance&s=dvd&n=507846) else (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/B0000CC885/qid=1112572373/sr=8-3/ref=pd_ka_1/002-3963374-3781660?v=glance&s=dvd&n=507846) is (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/B000095J2Y/qid=1112572373/sr=8-4/ref=pd_ka_2/002-3963374-3781660?v=glance&s=dvd&n=507846) willing (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/B00004W457/qid=1112572423/sr=1-4/ref=sr_1_4/002-3963374-3781660?v=glance&s=dvd) to (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/B000094J5Q/qid%3D1112572448/sr%3D11-1/ref%3Dsr%5F11%5F1/002-3963374-3781660) release (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/B000088NQR/qid=1112572467/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_1/002-3963374-3781660?v=glance&s=dvd) good (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/B0002UB2YQ/qid=1112572502/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_1/002-3963374-3781660?v=glance&s=dvd) asian (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/1559408677/qid=1112572536/sr=1-2/ref=sr_1_2/002-3963374-3781660?v=glance&s=dvd) cinema. (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/B0007Q6VXC/qid=1112572554/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_1/002-3963374-3781660?v=glance&s=dvd)


Interesting example. Particularly since Buena Vista brought it over, pimped it as a Tarantino attachment and it wasn't released as a Rolling Thunder picture.


Yes, it's certainly irrational to dislike con artists.

Hate to point this out, but Mirimax STILL hacked up Hero, even with the QT brand on it.

How many US theaters did Alive play in again?

huh?

http://www.fangoria.com/news_article.php?id=2129
http://www.chud.com/news/mar04/mar15qt.php3

http://www.miramax.com/hero/

Maybe I'm missing the obvious here...

The general public doesn't know a lick about asian cinema. They might possibly recognize Kitano from Most Extreme Elimination Challenge, but maybe, just maybe, they might grab a "Tarantino Presents" DVD and have their eyes opened to something new.


edit: Sorry I'll quit editting this...

Sonatine never hit wide release either. Thanks for playing.

You are. It's right there in the Fangoria article. They'd release it uncut if Tarantino would slap his name on it. Basically, if it flopped, they could be rid of the little weasel.


I'm sorry, when did anyone here start caring about the general public? The "General Public" has probably never heard of the Criterion Collection either. What's your point?

Hero did. Back at you.

This is seriously what you would call "art faggery." The guy releases a movie and your complaint is about the fucking DVD cover. Give me a break. Of all the things that could go wrong, the DVD cover having a sidebar on it is pretty inconsequential.

OMG my cinema is forever ruined by a sidebar on the DVD cover! Oh noos!

Hero did, because once again, it was Buena Vista. And because of Crouching Tiger. Not because of Tarantino.


It isn't about the fucking sidebar. Way to miss the forest for the trees. It's about taking credit for something he had nothing to do with.


Yes, that's what I was saying. And here, I didn't think anyone would get it.

About the only thing they had in common was there was an undercover cop and a bunch of crooks. Oh, and lots of deaths.

Woo-fu. Nope. No Woo-fu in Reservoir dogs. (Woo-fu being the dual pistol routine)
Highly stylized action. Umm..nope. Reservoir Dogs had so little action it could almost be redone as a play.
Doves. Slow motion. Nope. Nope.
Hospital filled with a weapons stash. Nope.
Hitman with honor. Nope.
Heist? Yes. Reservoir Dogs had one. The others didn't. So Nope again.
Lots of Dialogue. Yes in Reservoir Dogs. No more than the movie needed in the Woo films.

Come on Schild, if there is a director he doesn't steal from it's Woo. Partly because Woo's style is so damn His that it'd be blatantly obvious if you stole it. Except the dual pistol thing. Everyone does that one now.

[qupte]
Pulp Fiction isn't my bag. I can see why people like it, I happen to despise Travolta.
Pulp Fiction is a movie that I like and would be hard pressed to explain why. I think Travolta and Samuel L Jackson's bits are the best parts of the movie though.


Well, you can look at it two ways. It's all ego. Or he means it when he says he loves this stuff and wants to get it out to the public. I happen to think it's a little of both. Personally, I like Tarantino cause he's a geeky fanboy who made it into movies.

Jesus Christ. If you are going to act like you know everything, at least get the damn source material right.

Resevoir Dogs is an Americanization of  City on Fire  (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0093435).  A damn good one too (although City on Fire is great). Who says you can't redo something and bring something to the table.

Can't we just talk about how much Sin City kicked ass instead of this retread garbage.

Sin City summary:

Mickey Roarke is amazing. His best work ever.

Del Toro is great.

The Willis segment dragged a bit, should have been reversed with the Marv segment as it would have been better ordered with weakest to best segment.

Rodriguez finally showed some of the genius that has been missing since El Mariachi.

Many, many beautiful asses.

Abragado, at the risk of restarting the argument over Tarantino, I found myself thinking that Sin City could do for Rourke what Pulp Fiction did for Travolta. Give him a second chance. Hopefully, he'd do a better job at picking movies with that second chance though...

My only complaint about Sin City is that I wish I could have seen Jessica Alba naked. Also, as far as dragging, I liked the segment with Clive Owen and Del Toro the least probably.

I could have watched the movie had it been nothing but Marv though.

The lack of Alba nekkidity was more than made up for by Jamie King, Carla Gugino and and Rosario Dawson

The only problem is now I'll get a hardon everytime I watch spy kids as I think of Carla's body. *sighs* Damn you Rodriquez!

Ya, who knew?

I liked the Clive bit the best. The "Marv Section" as it was, felt a little....out of place. This is coming from someone who has Not read the comics. It seemed more fantastical than noir would allow it to be. Yes, I've studied noir film. Yes, I think this is the best noir film ever made. And yes, I can point out which scenes were the result of Tarantino's limited involvement. Luckily he didn't drag the film down. It will likely be the best picture of the year, if people can get over the fact it came from a comic book. Which they won't. It will probably take the Watchman movie for comics to really jump into the critics lovebasket (Spiderman 1 & 2 aside).

Riggs, by the way, it's not Woo-Fu. It's called a bullet ballet. He invented the fucking bullet ballet.

Ab, as far as City on Fire goes. Resevoir was shot for shot stolen from Woo's other stuff. I didn't once touch on the premise or story. Which you did, and in the very least managed to be mostly correct.

Loved the Rourke segment.  It's no overstatement to say he steals the movie.  The Willis one was solid, too.  The Owen one didn't do much for me though.  Rosario Dawson and Del Toro were pretty good.  So was Owen, for that matter, but he just doesn't have the grit and presence that Rourke and Willis had.  Britney Murphey and Michael Duncan sucking didn't help either.

And nobody likes Tim Roth.

I don't think America is ready for movies like Ichi or Vistor Q etc etc.

That's the smartest reply I've seen in this thread.

We're still a horde of people willing to swallow shit like Kill Bill. And it's depressing.

Yeah, Marv and the Cardinal Roark stuff isn't Noir. You don't have to read the comics to get more out of it though. It was never meant to be Noir there either. Frank Miller wrote Sin City to simply get away from all the contracted work he was assigned at the time (Superheroes and the like). Just to let loose and write something "he" wanted to write. He romanticizes a lot of different things. Noir was a big part of that, of course, but it didn't encompass it.

On a sidenote: Batman Begins will suck hard compared to this....Now that we can see just how well Miller translates to film.

Took the wife to see it today. She wasn't that thrilled with it. She put it up there with City Hall.

I liked the Rourke section a lot. Thought it was the strongest by far, acting wise. I also liked the Owen section but not as much, but it could also be I find Devon Aoki a bit sexy.

Was funny - I think I was sitting in front of Schild's evil/good more anal twin. I laughed at some point because the dialog was so poor (along with 20% of the audience). And they went into a whisper with the person next to them about how that scene wasn't funny and how the unwashed masses just didn't get it.

I think people going in expecting anything other then a comic book are in for a disappointment.

Yeah, as great as I think it is, I don't think it will appeal to just anybody. I don't agree with what some critics are referring to it as ("feral" and "adolescent" seem to be the popular designations), but I can see how certain types of people won't see the elegance in it. Squares beware.

Devon Aoki = Worst Miho evar.

It baffles me why they would go to the trouble of Marving up Marv, but then cast the one tart in Hollywood who is everything that Miho is/was not. Fuck, Heather Graham would have been as logical and she's already been on rollerskates so she's got that going for her.

Yeah, I know it's called bullet ballet but my friends and I have this running joke where we call things some form of fu or jitsu. Like Kirk-jitsu is that silly move Captain Kirk always did where he'd hit someone on the shoulders with his stiffened hands.

Anyway, still gotta disagree. I'm a huge Woo fan and I saw no similiarities in shots or style to Reservoir Dogs at all. Other than the fact that alot of Hong Kong Woo movies were violent and had some criminal element involved in them. That's about it.

As for the segment discussion, IE, which ones we all liked best, I'm looking forward to the DvD assuming Rodriquez keeps his word. In addition to putting all 3 segments as their own little mini-movie on Disc 2 he said he'll have a 20 minute film school segment and of course, his usual cooking segment. Here's the article it was in:

Here (http://dvd.ign.com/articles/600/600858p1.html)

(http://www.filmzonen.dk/images/articles/pictures/tarantino_collection/rd/6.jpg)

(http://www.fongnet.net/images/tkcyfdl3sm.jpg)

(http://www.movieconnection.it/schede/the_killer.jpg)

Edit: If I were a real jackass, I would have gone into my boxes, gotten out Resevoir Dogs and the Woo stuff and had a field day with the "P" button on my keyboard (what I have screen cap attached too). But I don't think that's necessary.

Damn you're fast. Yeah, gotta admit, Woo is famous for his Mexican standoff scenes.

Bulllet Ballet, Woo-fu, every one knows what you are talking about in the end anyhow (and besides, its not like there is a "big-book-of-movie-terms" out there somewhere with a deffinition of Bullet Ballet enscribed in stone or anything)

Hell, I played a PnP RPG that had a combat skill called Woo-Factor.  In any hand gun, on a roll of 1d6, a roll of 1 ment the bullet fired didnt count as being subtracted from the magazine. Typical Woo style "How many fucking bullets does that fucking gun HAVE" shootuts ensued.

Thing is, I couldn't find the cap from Hard-Boiled I wanted. I did, however, find that Resevoir dogs cap in my search for "The Killer John Woo." Heh.

I warms my cold black heart that movie threads are always on the brink of turning into a Tarantino hate-fest. That guy molests collies.

I'd been wondering why you'd removed the word "Lukewarm" from your sig for a while now. Thanks for clearing that up.

Mornings make me angry. Coffee makes me better.

The shots aren't even the same, in the Woo shots the arms cross and are much more intimate.

I really think it's stretching to say that 2 guys pointing guns at each other is a Woo rip-off. I hear in Woo movies people also run and drive cars.

As I said, I wanted a certain shot from The Killer or Hard-Boiled. I forget which. One guy was backed up against a door frame point his gun up while the other guy was pointing his gun down. I'm far to lazy to dig them out of a box.

I Don't think one similiar scene qualifies for a shot by shot remake. By that logic Star Wars is a total ripoff of various World War 2 Air combat movies.

I was *just* using the most famous shot (s - in the case of Woo) from those movies. Apologies for having to spell it out.

I'm ready to drop the Tarantino thing. It's apparent to me that no matter how hard I try most of the people here will still like him. And while that goes against standards of good taste, I've seen worse. One of my guilty pleasures is "A Knight's Tale." But you'll never hear my stand up for it in a fight.

Its good to know that Schild's hatred of Quentin knows no bounds. In a thread about Sin City he manages to use one post to call the movie the best Noir Film made, and then uses 27 posts to bash Tarrentino. Oh well.

Back on topic - fucking amazing, absolutely disturbing movie. Deffinately not for everybody's girlfirends. I am glad that I wasn't the only one that thought the third story dragged a little, but I'll forgive that.

I was worried that a movie with Rourke and Willis might not work, since at times they seem to have been seperated at birth. No such issue here. Why the hell is the last movie I can remember with Rourke -  Wild Orchid? Crap, he owned this movie, even if he morphed in to Hellboy when he put that glove on...

One of the quotes from a critic at RT went something like this (don't feel like looking it up) - "This movie did two impossible things, made me admire Mickey Rourke as an actor, and made Elijah Wood scare the crap out of me."

Warning to those that haven't seen it - at least two full out grap your nuts and make sure they are still there moments in this movie.

Oh, and all those beautiful bums and breasts. Rodriguez knows how to shoot beautiful women. I'll agree with everyone, best work he has done since El Mariachi.

After seeing the movie, I thought Elijah Wood was the best cast role. I think I'm going to stick by that.

Its weird how really little details can blow you away in a movie, but the shots with the light reflecting off of Kevin's glasses so you couldn't see he eyes did just that for me.

OMG!!! That Heath Ledger is soooo hot!!!

And here I was thinking that movies were just fucking movies. Let me out of this fucking film art deco thread, waaaaah!!

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAARG.

It's obvious you've never seen City on Fire or you wouldn't say such things.  The Killers stole a lot of elements from it (it was made 2 years after it), so it is understandable, but there are many, many, many shots taken from City on Fire (one that sticks out is the undercover cops watching his criminal buddy blast cops through their windshield, but also the ending in the wharehouse, the gutshot criminal, etc. etc. etc.)  There is also the Mexican standoff at the end. Plus, that has been a staple of Honk Kong action flicks (not to mention Segio Leoni movies) long before The Killers.

Saying that Woo and QT have similar styles is just asinine. There is no slow mo in RD (excpet for pushing on a damn hand dryer in the Comode Story), no birds, no mass shoot outs in crowded places, no bullet perspective, no operatic score, no NOTHING to compare it to Woo.  RD is much grittier, like, I don't know, CITY ON FIRE.

A little fun fact: Nicky Katt, who played the Nazi dude, also played Atton from Knights of Old Republic II.

I don't know why that guy only gets bit parts either. He's been around awhile, and in everything I've seen him in, he's stealing the show (ex. the Limey).

And since I was giving most of my praise only to Rourke earlier, let me just add in that Clive Owen is the fucking man....Probably the only guy who can actually get away with pushing Del Toro's face into a toilet.

Yeah, Wild Orchid was part of his "I don't give a shit" period. That period would also include Harley Davidson and the Marlboro Man. The remake of Desperate Hours isn't too bad though.

Angel Heart and Barfly are his best, I think. Year of the Dragon, the Pope of Greenwich Village, and Diner are great as well. And though he has a small part in Rumble Fish, it's just all kinds of cool. Animal Factory is another bit part, but he's amazing in it.

I liked the movie.  I really enjoyed the use of color, every damn shot brought something new.  As said through the thread, Mickey owned this movie.  Elijah was good, but damn I really liked Carla Gugino...even outside the naked goodness.

Keep up the tickle-me-elmo slapfest going on about Tarantino, it reminds me of highschool in a sad mopey kinda way.

I'm a huge Clive Owen fan.  I seriously believe he should've been the next Bond.

As for Rourke and Sin City, that fucker did a hell of a job.  I swear he was in this movie, "Spun", that I saw last year on DVD about drugs.  He did a bang up job in that too, playing a steady slightly crazed drug cook to Brittany Murphy's crazy chick character (she's always crazy).

On the subject of girlfriends, mine wasn't exactly enjoying the movie but she didn't start hating it until Rourke Jr./Yellow Bastard showed up.  Since he was puke green and everything else was black and white, he really really sticks out and into your mind.

Edit:  Yup: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0283003/

Double Edit: I am the american audience.  I must be entertained.  That is all that matters.  I have so far been entertained by all QT's stuff.

Okay if you thought the yellow bastard was puke green than you sir are either A) very color blind or B) were in a very crappy movie theater.


kaid

That's the only reason? I'm sorry, but that's silly.

He's the Yellow Bastard. He's a pedophilic, human sack of piss. He's supposed to be disgusting. Characters like that are intended to be hated, *HIGHLIGHT*  just to make their fate is that much more anticipated.. If she simply didn't like the movie that's a different thing, but I don't understand why someone would just latch on to that.

I feel like an idiot for ignoring Nick Stahl all this time too. I've only seen a few minutes of Carnivale, and didn't like Terminator 3 at all (but he wasn't bad, I guess). Then I saw a movie called "Bully" recently and the guy surprised the hell out of me. In Sin City, I think he had his role almost finely tuned as Rourke did with Marv. Not a cool character by any means, or the kind I'd want to heap praise upon, but Stahl, the actor, is someone I won't ignore again.

Well, yes, obviously for other reasons too, which is why she didn't exactly hate it (didn't like it), but that did it for her.  Plus the whole, "I rape small children", was a little off.

I saw "Bully" ages ago, and thats why it's hard to see him play other roles.

Heh, I guess my use of "HIGHLIGHT" is out. Doesn't exactly work in quotes, I see.

Oh well, it's not really a spoiler anyways.

Is Bully the movie based on the true story about those teenagers who killed one of their friends? Which part did he play?

The Bully.

Totally agree.  He did a great job in the role, although it was not a character you want to praise.

I'm a big fan of Carnivale though, so I'm sorta biased towards Nick Stahl.  Nobody can say, "Goddamn Sonofabitch" like him. :)

Have to put Bully on my Netflix queue.

Oh and for those wanting to see Alba get nekkid

She missed her once chance to get nude in a movie that would have been A. "More Artsy" and B. "More Acceptable" than any other movie she'll ever been in.

Idiot.

As much as I'd like to see Alba nude, I'm glad she didn't.

As much as like seeing any woman nude on screen, I find myself with more respect for the ones who don't do it than the ones that do.

/shrug

Don't ask why. I don't really know myself.

Maybe because 95% of the time the nudity has nothing to do with the movie and is implausibly thrown in?

That is no reason not to include it!

Personally, I think a stripped Alba would have been just more gravy and cheese on top of an already supearlative movie. Marv's probation officer was all I needed, Mmhmm.

Marv's officer is about the only case of nudity I've seen in a movie that was actually important to the characters.  Almost every other kind I've nudity I've seen could've been shot around, but that whole scene wouldn't have worked if they hadn't just shown her.  It also let us know that Marv really is an okay guy, because she's clearly comfortable being almost completely nude around this monster of a man just because she knows him and knows he won't do anything.

And here I was thinking that, much as I enjoy it, there never really is a reason for a movie to have b00b13s other than for b00b13s sake.

But Alba defends the film from accusations that it is misogynistic. "The women are completely empowered," Alba said. "It's not just women being victimized. It's everybody."

-------------

Hah.


Edit:  ( . Y . )

This is the only film I've seen since Street Fighter (the Chiba version) where a guy rips another dude's testicles off with his bare hands.

Heh. Even if a woman didn't commit that specific act, I'd say it's pretty empowering for them nonetheless.

I already expounded on why I really didn't enjoy the movie all that much on Corpnews, but I'll put it in a nutshell here.

A) Slavish devotion to mimicking the comic books does not equal quality.

B) Clunky dialogue.  Works for the comic books, doesn't work when you have real people saying the lines out loud.  The dialogue then becomes silly.

C) Infantile subject matter.  Really, this shit is just tailor made for teenage revenge fantasies.  I don't mind movie violence, in fact I quite enjoy most of it.  Nothing in this movie offended me, so much as seemed over the top silly and gratuitous.  It just seemed immature to me.  Every woman's a hooker, every guy's a psychopath.  *yawn*

That's the feeling I got from some of the reviews I'd read and it's the main reason I have no interest in seeing this. Maybe when it hits DVD and it's $0.99 day at the video store. Then again, maybe not.

Everyone's different I guess.  I just recently finished reading all of the Sin City novels, as I hadn't read them.  Each reason you list is a reason why I liked the movie.  It was a dark parody of film noir.  It was like what would happen if you took Sam Spade, put him in a dank cellar, tortured him, fed him heroin and steroids for a decade or two, then turned him loose in modern-day Los Angeles.

Hulk had all of the same features you list, but I didn't really care for it.  I have no idea why I liked Sin City but not Hulk.  Go figure.

You see, Hulk was a shitty action movie with subplots of the civilized man vs. the animal man. It sucked ass.

Sin City was pretty much the last noir film that ever needs to get made. It was complete with corny dialogue, extremely stereotypical males and females, and everyone had inner conflict to deal with. That said, all of those parts added up to a whole that was just plain art. Noir isn't easy. Noir used to be cheap.

The most recent Noir movies I can think of are Hard Eight and L.A. Confidential. The latter was more of a modern cop drama and the former was more of a dark comedy. Sin City was 100% noir. Some people hate it, some people don't. But comparing it in any way at all to The Hulk is more of an insult to the genre than an insult just to Sin City. The Hulk was shit.

Don't know if this is relevant but it left me with a strong urge to play Max Payne 2 again.


Which I did.  And it's still fantastic.

I'd be surprised if you haven't seen it, but I'll add The Woman Chaser to that small list. It really has nothing to do with typical Noir subject matter, but I'd be hard pressed to label it anything else. Great shit.


I respect your opinion Big Gulp, but I think that's a just a little too simplistic. It's somewhere in between. I've noticed that many kids absolutely hate it -- Just as much as those who consider it "infantile".

It definitely has a specific audience it's garnering to, but I don't think that would be it.

Well, guess we had to have one borderline politically correct viewpoint on this movie. You're in the minority on this one Big Gulp and I think it's for a reason. This movie appeals to the primal part of people, and throws in just enough themes of redemption and sacrifice to make it fun water cooler talk as well.

Noir isn't about high subject matter. It's always been infantile bullshit. It's just part of the genre.

I'm not sure what the problem is here. Sin City is a noir movie and nothing else.

Bitch, please.  I'm a fucking drill sergeant, for Christ's sake.  How politically correct do you honestly think I am?

There are no "moral dilemmas" in this movie, it's all cardboard horseshit about psychos rescuing sluts.  It's a character movie without character.  As to it being "the ultimate noir movie", pull your head out.  The Killing, Touch of Evil, hell, even Blood Simple are more definitive examples of film noir than Sin City could ever hope to be.

Please please please Hammer don't hurt'em. Sin City is the result of 50 years of Noir. It did everything right. Miller and the other filmmakers obviously read the Noir Reader and got their shit together before filming this one. It could not have been more noir. Given what it did and how it did it, it's genetically impossible for it to be MORE noir. Touch of Evil, The Killing, and hell, even Blood Simple were noir by genre. Sin City was NOIR ON PURPOSE. It's a character movie with character, just because you didn't LIKE it doesn't mean the character wasn't there. It had as much if not more character than other noir movies. In addition it was fun to watch. Maybe that's the problem, you're looking for pain, when it doesn't provide any. Sorry, it's just not trying to be boring.

Good Sir, in this particular situation, claiming it's not a noir movie - or assuredly a noir classic - you are so in the minority you might want to step back, see the movie again, read a something or two about noir and revise your opinion. Cuz it smells like bullshit.

I didn't say it had moral dilemnas. I said it had some themes. Redemption was a big one. Unless you slept through all of Marv's story. Or missed that Dwight was a murderer. Or missed that Hartigan was rescuing Nancy because he wanted to save at least one person. (Admittedly Hartigan's was less about redemption and more about doing the right thing at any cost.)

It doesn't aspire to be high drama, it aspires to be noir. Perhaps a modern twist on noir because of all the violence, but noir nonetheless. I could easily see Humphrey Bogart in this movie.

I'm having a hard time figuring out how you could watch Marv's story and say something like that. His motivation for doing what he did speaks for itself. I mean, that one scene in the car with Goldie's sister says enough.

I wasn't comparing the two.  I was pointing out that Hulk had all the same bulleted features that Big Gulp listed yet was a vastly inferior movie.

Just making sure. My brain stopped functioning after I saw the word Hulk in this thread. Jennifer Connely boobies are the only reason I'm still alive.

I saw this today. I was completely blown away. The only part that I didn't like was right at the beginning, after the Josh Hartnett bit. The first part of the Hartigan story. It felt like Willis and Madsen were phoning their parts in, and fell totally flat. It wasn't anything but their performances, which just didn't feel organic. But when Rourke starts talking as Marv, shit, that's the medicine. Rourke is just made for noir, he's got the perfect voice for it. Owen and del Toro were fucking incredible as well. Del Toro is just crazy on a stick. Brittany Murphy vacilated between quite good and barely tolerable, depending on what line she was speaking. Some people can act noir, some can't. She can't reliably.

Madsen and Willis can, when they try. The rest of the Hartigan story was good, well-acted stuff.

Clive Owen needs to kill his agent. Seriously. Because no one who can act as well as he can should be put in shitty movies like King Arthur. But I'm sure he got a good paycheck for it, but fuck. He's much better in this.

All the women were just amazingly hot. I love black and white, it's what I use for artsy photographs, and it made these women more gorgeous than they already are. Carla Gugino and Jaime King were fantastic looking. B&W is good to them.

Nick Stahl and Elijah Wood were fantastic. Powers Boothe did the kind of role he can do in his sleep, and even Rutger Haeur made his part better. The only performances that really disappointed me were Murphy and Madsen, and with Madsen, I don't know why.

As for noir, you either like it or not. And if you aren't a fan, this is like a non-junkie getting a mainline of heroin. It's just not going to agree with them.

I think the only really "noir" story was Marv's (probably why I liked it best).  The others were more "pulp" with, suprisingly, a bit of a cyberpunk edge without the technology aspect (contradictory I know, but that's just how it felt).

Not a criticism, just an observation.

Yeah, but I wonder what happened to his voice. It used be pretty high pitched. His entire physique has changed as well. He looks like he's packed on 100 lbs of muscle in the past 10 years. Then his face, of course:

(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v231/lonestar627/Misc/mickey-rourke-after.jpg) (http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v231/lonestar627/Misc/mickey-rourke-before.jpg)

I actually got to meet him once when I was a kid. I just about idolized the guy. But I've got to say, if I met him now as a kid, I'd probably be a little scared. He looks like he came straight out of a Dick Tracy comic. He isn't any less talented than before, but it's almost like watching an entirely different actor in these newer films. Kind of like the difference with Pacino post Sea of Love.

Supposedly he had pretty much switch from acting over to running a club in Miami and doing a lot of semi-pro boxing.  Which certainly explains his change of appearance.

Two things I didn't like:

1.  All three stories boil down to the same thing, I found myself wondering if they could have just done one of them and made it a full movie, you would miss out on sticking so many big names in one place but I could have gone for Marv or Hardigan's story as a full movie over seeing the same twisted male hero can't stand to watch women suffer story 3 times.

2.  I can't believe this massive Clive Owen bandwagon, what movie did I miss?  Frankly he rubs me the wrong way but that may be because he got to makeout with Jolie in that one movie in the 3rd world country.  I have always hated Billy Bob due to the Jolie thing...

All in all, it was very different and very enjoyable, Jessica Alba is so incredibly fucking fine I'm always surprised when I see her.

Croupier (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/B0001BKACG/qid=1112906815/sr=8-1/ref=pd_csp_1/002-3963374-3781660?v=glance&s=dvd&n=507846).

I had that same moment of unease, where during that opening conversation I was thinking that this movie wasn't going to be very cool. Fortunately, it was a brief interlude from hard core, jaw-on-floor, well done noir that would soar to - in my opinion - great heights.

Schild: I trust your opinion on QT. Before, I only had a shapeless feeling of unease involving his 'style'. I'd see his movies with friends and just kind of silently have too many issues with too many of his scenes. Then came the Guy Richie films.

I'll say this for Guy Richie, he's not original but goddamn if he doesn't know how to work a camera. His films are shot beautifully. They're a pure joy to watch. Except for that shitty one with Madonna. That was terrible. But ya, he's an unoriginal slob also.

Best poker scene evar in Lock, Stock

No more mentioning of Quentin.   :-o

Please.

No way.  Rounders!

Bruce

I thought about it, I really did Bruce.  Ended up coming back to Lock, Stock -- really, watch them back to back.

*ahem*

I take it you guys have never seen:

The Cincinnati Kid
The Sting
Anything with Doc Holiday in it

I've seen them, but I wouldn't put those at the top of my list.  Better would be 5 Card Stud, Maverick, and Big Hand For The Little Lady.

Still, Rounders is to poker as The Color of Money is to pool.

Bruce

??

Five Card Stud may be called "Five Card Stud", but it barely has any poker in it at all. Wtf? You would have been better off mentioning Vegas Vacation.

Maverick better than the Cincinatti Kid? Okay, now you're just being contrary for the hell of it.

I'm not trying to be a dick or anything, but you have me confused.

Nah, Rounders in the lodge with all the cops.  Thats probably about the best rendition of a game of poker on film as there has been.

Rounders probably does have the best poker on film. That said, I love me some Robert Redford in The Sting. I wish that fucking movie would come out in widescreen so I can replace my crap fullframe dvd.

I hated Color of Money.  Just because Tom Cruise was very very whiney in it.

(http://www.newdeco.com/billiards/photos/Photo4.jpg)

Now that's a movie.


Hell, I'd take Poolhall Junkies over The Color of Money as a pool movie.

(http://images.hollywood.com/images/large/l_1707220.jpg)

Walken for teh win.

I highly recommend the special edition of "Rounders" on DVD.

Yes, Poolhall Junkies is the best Pool movie.

Yes - but does it have Carla or Jessica?

Yeah, I support Guy being imitative, because Swept Away probably accounts for when he was trying to break away and do his own thing.

Back on topic you go....


1. I totally agree. Maybe not with making it one movie, but fuck me if the heros didnt all seem to be versions of the same guy. Cant watch women suffer, and are ready (trying even) to die to bring the bad guy down.

2. I didnt mind Clive, I think people liked him becasue he was the closest to your steriotype anti hero badass. I REALLY liked the Merv part, I think it was VERY well done. The Clive was probably my least favorite one, but it was also the least dark of the three stories. That could be another reasion why so many people liked it. Deep down, people are suckers for a happy ending.

Jessica Alba was a lot hotter than I thought she would be. She didnt do a half bad job imo. But wow, grayscale really makes Brittney Murphy look hot.

She definately looked better then she ever has before.

I still can't get over the climatic poker game. The whole bit with the tells, ugh. It's like they had to put some blatantly obvious device out there for the audience to pick up on before Damon did. Had the cookies been a red herring, then maybe I'd have liked that scene.

The other scene that bugged me was where he watches the judge's poker game for two minutes and then tells everyone what they are holding. Again, it just felt hollywoodized to me.

It might be the best poker on film, but that doesn't mean it was really a good rendition of poker.

Funny- the first time I saw it, I thought it was total BS. After playing A LOT of poker and then seeing it again, it seems more plausible to me. He would have to take a leap of faith on one or two of the hands, but an experienced eye could pick up a lot.

Somehow, the black and white actually lessensd the cocaine-fueled racoon eyes she normally eyes.

Yes - exactly that. Then again, maybe someone just gave her a sandwich.

Arise, chicken!  Arise!


Okay, so I rewatched it after buying the DVD and something occured to me...

SPOILERS

Why couldn't they figure out who Nancy was in the letters?  I mean, I know she signed a different name, but obviously they had her name on file and she went through the whole system and was picked up by the cops at the scene where Hardigan was shot.  Um.  If she ran from the scene I'd understand, but she talks about how she was trying to convince them that she was a virgin.  Soooo... yeah.  How come they didn't make her disappear?  I would think they'd want her a lot more than they'd want some random person writing letters to him.  Confused about that.

Secondly, okay, so they give Hardigan the finger in jail (like, hand a finger to him, not flip him off) and he freaks out thinking it's Nancy's, etc etc.  So he signs the confession and.. they let him out of jail?  A self confessed child rapist and attempted murderer?  They were just holding him until he confessed then it's all cool? Confused there, too. 

Can't be sure if they covered this stuff in it, because I watched it with a friend who won't SHUT THE FUCK UP WHEN WE'RE WATCHING SIN CITY GODDAMNIT!  I'd like to watch it again to see if they cover that stuff, but my brother borrowed it for "a day" which has grown into over a week.  I fear I will never see it again.

Signing the confession meant that the public wouldn't have any doubt that the Senator and his son were innocent in the matter. And at that point, Hartigan didn't care about his pride and wanted to save Nancy.

As for the DVD....I'm kind of disappointed. Total lack of features.

I know it's the film itself that matters, but I've come to expect more than just a 15 minute behind the scenes featurette when I buy a DVD. I could have sworn Robert was talking about how the DVD release was going to have all kinds of shit, including an extra segment of Marv (with his mother). No commentary either (and he's one of the guys worth listening to). It doesn't even have a segment of his "10 minute film school" thing....He even does that for Spy Kids. I figured he'd be all gung ho about talking about HD or something for the Sin City DVD.

Yeah, I get that, but generally when you confess to a crime you serve a sentence for said crime, yes?

Oh and I agree about the DVD.  They couldn't have made it much more obvious by this pitiful release that they're going to do a super special collector's edition with 32 hours of extra footage and commentary.

Fortunately, I don't give much of a shit about that, I just wanted the movie.

Oh...I see what you're asking: Why'd they let him out to lead them to Nancy when they probably already knew where Nancy was?

I don't have an answer. I guess I'll have to watch it again..

This movie will get an uber special edition.

Hartigan had already been in jail for 9 years when he signed the confession.  He may have been up for parole. 

Alternatively, the Senator has found out that Nancy is still alive and is trying to find her to tie up loose ends. This explains why the Yellow Bastard is following Hartigan around from the moment he leaves jail.  Torture isn't working,  so they kick Hartigan loose to track down Nancy for them.

I have a bigger problem with his age.  Tried to do the math on it,  and I was left with him in his late 60s leaving prison.  Yet his wife had remarried and had kids?

I wouldn't worry too much about facts or reality in Sin City.  The movie is all about style and theme over reality.  Hell, look at Marv.  He should have been dead a couple dozen times over in his sequence.

But you generally go to trial after you sign a confession, right?  I got the impression that they were holding him in jail under sketchy legal loopholes, trying to get him to confess, that he wasn't "officially" in there serving a term for child molestation.  But then he admits to the molestation and they set him free?


Okay so... why didn't they quietly kill her ages ago when they framed Hardigan for her molestation/rape?  She went through the official avenues, which the Senator seems to control, as evidenced by her saying that they wouldn't listen to her when she was trying to tell them she was still a virgin.  Also, why would they have lost track of her?  She didn't change her name or anything- the only sneaky thing she did was send letters to Hardigan under a psuedonym.  But they knew who Nancy Callahan was already, so what did she accomplish by signing her letters "Cordelia"?  If Hardigan was able to track her down by her name, why couldn't they (since her name had to be on file)?

Don't get me wrong, I still love the film, but those are some pretty big plot holes.  The first one, okay, I can give them a free pass.  The second one?  That's not stylized reality breaking like Marv's inhuman toughness/strength.  That's a big ol' plot hole.

Assuming that I understand it correctly which, so far, I believe I do.  I'm seriously asking, though, if they maybe covered this and I just missed it.

The impression I got was that forcing a confession was meant to be some sort of 'final victory' by the senator, and was somehow an implied condition by the senator for his shamed release back into society.  The fact that he was followed as he tracked down Nancy seems to show however implausible it seems, that after their conversation in the hospital Nancy somehow was forgotten by the authorites and they wanted to know who this 'cordelia' was.  Maybe it was one of the stretching points in the plot but it certainly leads to a dramatic conclusion so it can be forgiven.

The movie has been in the cinema here for a few weeks now in Australia, saw it last week and absolutely loved every part of it.  Best movie I have seen for a long time.

I seem to recall Senator Roarke saying that he would release Hartigan to "show his mercy" (Good press for a man of power and all that). So, if that's the case, he had additional motives for doing it (besides wanting to find out who "Cordelia" was). I may be wrong though...

Okay, that explains the release.  Good, I'm glad that part makes sense.

Still don't really buy that they forgot about Nancy, but hey whatever, movie still kicks all kinds of ass.  Hell, I think I'll watch it again tonight.

I think Roarke had forgotten about the girl as she was just one of many and no one believed her anyway, Hartigan was in jail for raping her despite what she said so they had no reason to kill her.   The son who wanted Nancy was in a coma for who knows how long and when he is finally awake and has his treatment done he personally wants to track down Nancy so he gets his dad to set him free, after he was unable to find her on his own of course.

If Roarke's son couldn't find him with all his dad's resources, how come Hartigan found her in, what, a day?

He searched her old house and found a matchbook, remember? Haven't you read enough stories or seen enough movies to know that that is how all cops will solve a mystery?  :wink:

[edit] Oh wait, it's not a mystery. It's just a simple comic that Frank Miller felt like screwing around with to take time off of superhero stories. It's not going to really satisfy on some kind of narrative level, nor was it meant to. It's just Frank mythologizing 20th century American machismo and style. The details on what Hartigan does isn't the "story" so much as who he is. The narrative is just an excuse to put the archetype in action....But it's not the thing itself that we should be focusing on.

Yeah, like I said, I still love the film and holes or not I will continue to love the film.  I was just hoping that maybe they really DID explain this better and I hadn't noticed.  Shame about the plot holes, but whatever, it still kicks ass.

Just watched this over the weekend- I loved it. The visual style allowed it to be very comic book-y without seeming hokey. Plus, seeing Carla Gugino run around naked was a nice bonus. Pity that the rest of the distaff cast didn't follow suit  :Love_Letters:

Okay.  So I might have figured it out.

They didn't give a shit about Nancy in particular.  That's the whole reason.  Junior was in a coma (though only for a bit, notice that Hartigan mentions he's in jail for 8 years and Junior mentions later "They've all screamed.  Every single one.  Dozens, maybe a hundred.  Eight years worth.") and his father probably doesn't give enough of a shit about his son's sick fetishes to actively hunt this girl down so he can fuck and murder her.  By the time Junior's out of the coma, he's consumed with hatred for Hartigan largely- Nancy's just another little girl, and it'd probably be hard to cover up the same girl getting abducted twice when the guy you supposedly nailed for it before is already in jail.

As I mentioned, Junior hates Hartigan.  He wants to fuck with him.  That's why he wants to get this Cordelia- she's his shining ray of hope, and Junior wants to crush that.  So they try to figure it out for a while, but can't, and eventually they come up with the plan to let Hartigan lead them to her.

So it was never about Nancy- that was just an unexpected coincidence for them.  It was all about getting revenge on Hartigan.  That's why they never tracked Nancy down- they didn't care.  And as for Hartigan's release right after his confession, I'm betting Roarke pulled some strings to get him out at that point.

Not sure if this has been mentioned in the thread yet, but we just printed the Tentative Summer Release List for 2006 at work today:

Sin City 2 is on the list :P

Sounds a little early since they're supposed to start filming in January.

I seem to remember hearing something about Sin City itself getting done and pushed out to theaters extremely fast, though.

It IS a tentative release list, but the release date we had listed was same week as X-Men 3.   I expect it to change though.

He could shoot a feature script in 2 weeks, if he had to. Despite the qualities of the movies themselves, the guy is just phenomenal. I forgot how long Sin City took, but it wasn't a lot. OUATIM was filmed in four weeks, I think.

After shooting, he finishes mixing, mastering, and scoring at home. Now that he basically has a cast, a crew, a pallete of Sin City scenery already made, and of course, Miller's immediate blessing and the other SC issues to shoot by, he'll probably finish SC2 faster than the first.