That article displayed a mixture of feeling if I do say so myself, it covered alot of points that momentary overwhelmed me. It took a minute to collect my thoughts.

The most intresting part of the article was probably how the author referred to the leading men of sin city as God and us as the leading damsels in distress. I agree that Jesus (Trinity) saves us for we are in need of saving but we do not just "let" him save us so helplessly with our doe shaped eyes wide in awe. No, that is not how it happens. It does portray a symbol that i agree with, that we are Sin City and we need to be delivered.

Critics are paid to proclaim what the US thinks of something. It loves violence, gore and bloodshed. It's all the same they are targeting that paticular crowd, twelve through thirty, because it's all about the money. Sin City may display the violence that goes about today that is held secret and whispered by top dogs of society who have the power but do nothing about it. Sending out a movie, Sin City, filled with such violent images is not the best way to inform people of such violence.. because it's not real, therefore people are not going to take it seriously. I mean really, would you? To be exposed to the truth, we would probably shy away, our tails between our legs and simply back away, from the reality that we choose not to face.

If one were to watch Sin City they wouldn't think, "Oh, so this is what happens in Third World Countries." They would just say," What a disturbing movie," or for those sadistic people,
"That was frickin awesome. *rewind to guy chopping off head* AW-ESOME." Further more, even if a documentary was shot of what really happens in the world it would just go in one ear and out the other. "Thats... really depressing. Maybe I should care, then again maybe I won't."