The only two movies I’ve seen in the past few weeks were “Sin City” and “Sahara”. Although I kind of liked both of them, I wasn’t really impressed by any…The only thing that really freaked me out was a certain hit man with a short but significant part in the beginning and in the end of “Sin City”. Women were his specialty. As he knew they were running from something, he used this pretending to “mind-read” them. Then they’d kiss, he’d say “I love you”, then pull the trigger…She was dead and his line was, if I remember correctly, “I never even knew what she was running from…”

Other than that, what is interesting about Sin City is the way it is filmed. It looks exactly like a Batman magazine, it seems black and white, but it has some colors added and the blood has this strange yellow-greenish color. But it turns ruby red when it covers the perfect face of a deadly prostitute guardian of Old City – a land ruled by women who sell themselves, but following their own rules.

“Sin City” has too many psycho killers – a cannibal, a serial rapist with a taste for very small girls (“skinny little Nancy”), a policeman hooked on beating women – and they all pay for their deeds…A little bit too much altruism for that kind of town…But it would definitely be my first choice between the two!

Sahara is a nice and very predictable movie. Action, drama, a plague which turns out to be a mass poisoning, a WHO doctor, considered beautiful (I can’t say she is because I personally cannot stand Penelope Cruz), a very good-looking adventurer obsessed with a Civil War ship and a lot of armed men – good or bad! Yet the scenery of Mali and the Niger river, the golden dunes of the desert, the camels and all of that actually do the trick. And a very good use of Murphy’s laws…

Conclusion: both movies are very good time killers! Or wasters, as you prefer…