All of these art / movie reviews on solo smell a lot too much like post-modern deconstructionism. They are opportunities to see your own predilections emphasized and judge the art based on that. (refer to the past discussion on 'the incredibles') Deconstructionism is an irrational form of critique, it presupposes an outcome and chooses specific evidence only because it supports that outcome. Performing these 'readings' of the text is how one is expected to critique an artwork. I see that alot here in these discussions on movies. If one goes into a film with a distaste for what they consider the film to be focused on, they will focus only on the negative and review it as such.
For those familiar with Frank Miller's work one could certainly argue that he presents very strong objectivist themes. People familiar with Tarintino and Rodriguez works will argue that they present very strong anti objectivist themes, perhaps even nihilistic, though one could argue that Kill Bill is about Revenging a wrong and the atonement of a main character, and righting great wrongs was certainly a major theme in El Mariachi and Desperado. If you think Rodriguez is all nihilism and violence, check out ‘Spy Kids’ or ‘The Adventures of Shark Boy & Lava Girl’.
Sin city has an artistic flare inspired by the comic book, filmed mostly in black and white or very washed out, and occasionally shown as literal two tone black and white with something occasionally colored for whatever reason you want to read into it (blood sometimes yellow, sometimes orange, tears sometimes highlighted, etc) You might like it, you might not. I thought it was interesting, but distracting from the story telling at some times.
It has some heroic themes, where people beaten and broken stand up and fight for what they believe in against overwhelming odds and endure great pain to further their highest values. It has outsider heroes trying to right great injustices and normal people in difficult situations standing up for what they believe in. Often the heroes are themselves flawed, is that glorifying the heroic or glorifying the flaw? Take your pick.
Picking on the apparent enjoyment some of the protagonists have when killing or taking their vengeance out on the antagonists could be argued to presume they should be acting out of altruism when righting these wrongs. Since, if they enjoy it, they must actually *want* to do it. Sometimes it is ok to find joy in doing something that is right. Should Bruce Willis’s character act sad and burdened when he kills a mass murdering serial rapist (In self defense)? No, I don’t think he should, and nor would I.
It has some nihilistic themes, it is overtly violent features routine killings, very gruesome, a serial killer mounting heads of victims on his wall, etc. And it has a dose of altruism, where a main character sacrifices himself to save the person he loves (is that altruism, or a prioritization of values?)
Personally I found the heroic themes and the great struggles they represented as enjoyable. I generally enjoy Miller, Tarintino, and Rodriguez, and I liked this movie.
But hey, I guess I’m just a nihilistic gen X/Y’er and perhaps no ‘true objectivist’