braindog

Think of me as you will. My opinion is based on the film and it's message and not the Mr. Comes, just to make things clear. This film is supposed to show the traumaitzation of a man who was abused by a member of the Catholic Church when he was a young "boy". The problem with the whole story is, the stories that are being told are from men who claim to been abused at the ages from 12- 16. They say that they were unaware of what was happening to them and that they (the victim) would wake up and there was a man from the Church having their way with them. These story tellers say that at the time they weren't sure what was happening and that they let it occur. Right off the bat, I would say that those statements have no validity. In and around the age of thirteen, teenagers know about sex in way or another. You learn it from school, society, or family. To say you don't seems to be the way to cope with allowing your curiosity to happen. I remember I was in the fifth grade when we were given the crash course on sex, so at that age I was 10 or 11. Things that weren't taught (obviously) I learned from peers. So at that age I was aware of what sex was and would have some sort of idea of what may have been happening. What the story tellers also fail to mention is that they weren't coming forth about the abuse (if that's what they thought it was then) to anyone. Not parents of friends, or any one else in the Church. They allowed it to happen and happen multiple times. I mean, once they were 16 and the abuse was continuing, there was no excuse that they would still have no idea what was happening. They show a man referred to "John Doe" who remembers being drunk and naked and being in bed with a alleged sex offender and nothing else. He goes on how that experience disturbed him, but then he recalls experimenting with this man. How? First he said he didn't remember, but remembers everything else and was disturbed, but then allowed it to happen on another occasion. Why? This is only one small example, there are many other points that are trying to be made that get spun around based on the reactions and delays of the "victims" described in the film. Another example (a large one at that) is that even though one person in the film claims he is haunted by what happened everyday and that he is against the church (due to a lawsuit he's filed about 18 years later), the Church is still a big part of his life. He was married in a Catholic Church, sent his daughter to a Catholic school, and we see her receive her first Communion. And feeling all this bitterness and frustration with the church, he goes in and accepts Communion with his daughter. Once again, if this is all so traumatic and one claims to be abused or raped and lied too, why go back to this church? Why accept Communion, something sacred to this church? It's backwards. It's things like this that hurt the credibility of this film and it's story tellers. It rides the wake to a major controversy in America. It doesn't seem like a documentary, but like a movie of fiction. It tries to strike emotions with circumstances that seemed staged. The point and message of this film is lost with it's irony. I feel sorry for the story tellers not because of what they claim has happened, but because this film hurts what they have to say.

to the film makers, this is a bad film.

D- To all of you users here on IMDb, I stand by what I say. It's simple psychology since we are now being told a story decades down the road from what they claim happened. Over the years stories stretch and wear, till the very foundation has changed. I still find this movie to be dis-miss able. And personally to colorscheme, my review of a bad film was straight forward to the point using references from the film, therefore I am backing up my opinion so you can see for yourself. It's your review that has the wide array of emotions, not mine. I told you to think of me as you will, but truth be told and I'll say it again, this movie is awful and has a message lost in translation.

"Walk down the right back alley in Sin City, and you can find anything", and isn't that the truth. Sin City has everything a movie goer could want in a film. It has an amazing cast that portray their gritty characters with a distinctful hard edge and compassion, which is helped with a fantastic script. The movie is driven by the actors and their ability to make the audience feel as if though they are in the characters shoes as they describe with vivid details their emotions and conflicts, and the steps they mean to take to make things right.

But it's not only a script or a great cast that makes this new tale of love and revenge come full circle, it's the images. Each scene is painted or drawn just like the pages right out of Miller's comic book that the film is based off of. The black and white makes the mood feel more dark and desolate (as it should be) making the city feel more alive. With it's splashes of color, one can only vast in it's brilliance. The visuals to this movie are unlike any I have seen and they should be recognized.

The movie follows three stories that are interwoven by the characters passions and ambitions. They live in a city of power and murder and they seek what little honor or dignity they can find in such a dark place. The film open up with a sequence with Josh Hartnett and a beautiful women glowing with a red dress and rich red lips. Hartnett's narration of his thoughts are crucial and set the tone. He explains to this woman who is on the run that he is there for her, and that it's not her figure or face, but her eyes that attract her. Her holds a lighter near her cigarette and the flame fades her eyes to green, so that we may see the beauty. He tells he loves her and there's a whisper of the gun. Sin City in a nutshell.

Mickey Rourke play Marv, a large man with a beastly looking face and temper to match. he falls in love with a woman who treats him kindly, but she is murdered and he is framed for it. Marv's quest and story in the film is to find the truth behind the murder and set things straight. Rourke does an excellent job in this movie, which was surprising to me. He brings life to a man that lives to get his answers by violently interrogating men and viciously murdering them. He does this by constantly reminding himself why he does what he does, for the woman that treated him nice.

Clive Owen plays Dwight, who gets caught up in a kill that could shake a truce that keeps young women alive. His story is a little more shallow than the others, but the element that keeps it true is his willingness to see that none of the girls are hurt.

Then there is Bruce Willis, who play Hartigan, the one honest man in the whole city. He rescues a young girl, Nancy, from the harm an lunatic pedophile (Nick Stahl). But Stahl's character is connected. His father (Powers Boothe) is a Senator and takes his anger of what Hartigan left his son out on him, by making Hartigan look responsible for kidnapping all the children his son did. Hartigan spends eight years in prison, helpless to keep Nancy safe, for it becomes his only will. When he gets out, he knows what he must do and knows that whatever it is, it must keep Nancy (Jessica Alba) safe.

Sin City is one of the best movies of the year so far. It goes beyond the expectations of any mere action film and does it well. With a great story, strong cast, and amazing visuals, it will be easy to see why this film is absolutely stunning.

Four out of four stars.