Sin City: A Dame to Kill For

Nine years after visually reinventing and presenting a new form of filming, directors Robert Rodriguez and Frank Miller are reunited to adapt the graphic novel 'A Dame to Kill For' and also bringing elements of 'Just Another Saturday Night', a tale taken from Booze, Broads, & Bullets, sixth volume in the comic book series. Two stories are unpublished: 'The Long Bad Night' and 'Nancy's Last Dance'. Most of the cast returned to this sequence. Josh Brolin takes on the role of Dwight in Sin City 2, originally played by Clive Owen and Ava Lord, the title's Dame to Kill For - a role originally thought for Angelina Jolie - was played by Eva Green.

After the death of John Hartigan (Bruce Willis), Nancy Callahan (Jessica Alba) thinks only of revenge. She spends her nights dancing in the same bar, but now in the company of a bottle of drink, while taking courage to face the powerful Senator Roark (Powers Boothe). At the same time, Dwight (Josh Brolin) tries to help the enigmatic Ava (Eva Green) only to find himself betrayed once again by this fatal lady. Virtually destroyed, he will seek the help of Gail (Rosario Dawson) and his gang to face the beloved, while Nancy will have the support of Marv (Mickey Rourke).

Just as it was in the first film, this new journey through Sin City maintains the structure adopted in the comics and is composed of small stories that are told in parallel and without worrying about chronology - that is why Marv (Mickey Rourke) is there. return. The script seeks to divide the story again into three main plots, trying to maintain continuity with the events of the previous film. The big problem with this sequence is that the directors create an evident problem of rhythm, putting the climax practically in the middle of the work. The main narrative arc, which gives the film its name, is resolved quickly, when it could have been fragmented and interspersed with the other stories. The end result sounds like a great collection that does not necessarily follow a line of reasoning.

The short story that gives title to the film, 'The Dame to Kill For' is one of them and shows Dwight McCarthy who tries to forget his violent past, working as a private detective and leading a sober life. After saving the life of con artist Sally (Juno Temple) from being killed by businessman Joey (Ray Liotta), he receives a call from ex-lover Ava Lord, who had abandoned him four years earlier to be with a wealthy tycoon, Damian Lord (Marton Csokas). Ava Lord is a woman who, when she touches a man's heart, becomes her greatest desire. A predator that usually destroys lives, sometimes for power, sometimes for profit and sometimes for sport. Ava Lord knows this and uses her sex appeal to get everything she wants from men.

The directors and the beautiful Eva Green manage to impress the scenes with sensuality, a factor amplified by the plans in which we see her portrayed as a goddess surrounded by a whole mystical atmosphere. But there will certainly be a lot of people in the cinema who will see just one more macho movie there, wanting to boycott the work, after all, nowadays if any material produced does not fit the politically correct, that is, a censorship endorsed by the majority of the artistic class worldwide, it is doomed to fail, at least by critics. This segment is, without a doubt, the most involving plot of the work and manages to keep us immersed and curious waiting for its conclusion. It is interesting the mystery that was built at the beginning, in which we did not know whether Ava was telling the truth or not. Ava's nature is built slowly by the work and is revealed to be harmful with the passing of minutes. The controlled use of color is present in the eyes and lips of the seductress. Afterwards, the viewer is anxious for Dwight's revenge with the help of Gail (Rosario Dawson) and the Old Town prostitutes. We see a plethora of knives piercing brains, swords severing heads and a lot of digital blood in the best 'Sin City' style.

The segment 'The Long Bad Night' is one of the unpublished stories written by Miller especially for the film and that brings Johnny (Joseph Gordon-Levitt), a mysterious young man who decides to show his poker talent at a table full of influential and dangerous people . In this plot we learn that Johnny has a personal difference with Senator Roark (Powers Boothe). This plot proves to be very interesting, but its outcome leaves something to be desired, making us wonder why Miller simply does not use the original material, instead of creating this new arc that starts well, but fails for repetition in its closure.

'Nancy's Last Dance' shows Nancy Callahan suffering from deep depression over the death of John Hartigan, four years earlier. She is obsessed with getting revenge on Senator Roark, until with Marv's help, she invades the senator's house to kill him and to realize her revenge. Nancy's bow is interesting and is what closes the film, while still being interesting, even if predictable. Chosen to defend a plot of bitterness and revenge, all Jessica Alba can do is to force a face of suffering while babbling her dialogues. Still, we have excellent scenes in the mansion invasion and even in the final confrontation with Senator Roark.

Time was one of the great enemies of The Dame to Kill For. The sequel happened too late to accompany the commotion generated by the first film, and too soon we tried to use nostalgia to its advantage. In addition, Rank Miller's script is simply unable to fill all the stories with enough content. They are fast, empty and pale before the central plot. 'Sin City, A Dame to Kill For brings us everything we love about the first one as fun dialogues, full of catch phrases, neo-noir mixed with graphic violence. Everything follows the same pattern. It is more of the same, with the difference that in this case the narrative lacks rhythm, as previously said, and the three stories are connected in some way, but they seem to be stories played at random many times. There are also no memorable and shocking scenes as in the first, perhaps due to the public being more accustomed to this type of violence in other productions in recent years.

Obviously the technical part is once again impeccable, as well as the direction, but it no longer brings innovations. It is certainly a story that will please fans of comics, since again it is an almost literal transposition of the dialogues of comics to the cinema and fulfills its role of amusement. However, for the vast majority of the audience, those behind a consistent plot, characters with whom it is possible to root and get involved, the conclusion is somewhat frustrating. Either way, it's always great to walk the streets of Sin City and not know what to expect around every corner.

Let me begin by saying that the first Sin City is one of my favorite movies of all time. I thought it was an absolute blast to watch, and the filming style blew me away.

A Dame to Kill For is the same type of movie as the first, but it is not executed quite as well. It may just be be cause the style lost some of its original appeal, but I thought it didn't live up to its predecessor. With that said, I still thought A Dame to Kill For was a great time at the movies. Everything about it was solid. It continued the action from the first and did not fail to keep me at the edge of my seat. And, Marv was his normal, b.a. self.

A Dame to Kill for consists of two story lines that are prequels to those of the first Sin City and one that is a sequel. I felt that it delivered very well in its attempt to support what happened in the first movie. I would recommend re-watching the first one so that you're fresh for this. Sometimes you can forget the names if you haven't seen it in a while.

Overall, this movie was great. If I had not seen the first Sin City, I would have been blown away.

I give it a 8/10. A definite must-see.

I didn't really like the character of Ava, not a lot of depth with her and a little too much back and forth. I also feel like there wouldn't be that many great hands in a poker game happening so often, those scenes felt a little bit rushed. Aside from being a bit more unfocused, it's about the same as the first movie which I liked! The graphic/artistic action and directing were really good and Mickey Rourke was a complete badass, as well as Joseph Gordon-Levitt and Josh Brolin. The villain was definitely good at making me desire justice against him and the actor who played him played a good bad guy. A mediocre follow up but still not that bad!

A Dame to Kill for is by no means a boring or bad film. It succeeds as a satisfying sequel to the far more novel and perhaps stronger Sin City... it is bloody, violent, beautifully made, with cool deep voices, nudity and clearly fitting into the film noir genre. Where it falls short is in the charactersationssliding a bit, the strength of two original stories, the change in actors and the gap between the first and second film. There is also a desperate need for more iconic moments which the Sin City comics and the film has plenty of, but they never really come in A Dame to Kill for.

The characters seems less edgy, less strong charactered and some despite being far more stereotypical carries less of a punch. Especially Marv and Dwight who are the central characters fall a bit short. With Dwight almost feeling detached from the story he is the centre character of. I never thought I would find myself ever thinking that Owen over Brolin. Rourke however seems to have lost some of his edge again, but still causes plenty of mayhem. The new original story lines is probably as good as the rest, but it feels like we never get a very satisfying end out the first one of it especially because it plays as probably the most straightforward story with less of the iconic art work or stunning scenes put in it, it relies on Gordon-Hevitt's abilities more than anything else. The second original story however fairs better mostly due to Alba's dancing and Rourke's brute. If one has not recently seen Sin City and goes to see this it can be a bit hard putting things into place in it's sequel... most people benefit from having seen Sin City recently in order to truly enjoy the film's anachronistic narrative.

It is an awesome film, I will not argue against that, and it does give people more of what they want from Sin City. And there is maybe couple of camels to swallow. But I think in time when seen in union with it's predecessor and sequel(s) it will come out stronger than it might appear now.

I saw the 3D version and surprisingly it actually works well for the film, although I am sure the film would be just as good in 2D alone. It is worth seeing in the cinema, it has the scale/action/importance and beauty to justify that. It will not be remembered for it's visuals as much as Sin City, but it will be recognised for how it fits into the Sin City style.

*Minor spoilers involving structure of the film, no plot points*

In short, it isn't nearly as bad as everyone is saying. Let me elaborate.

In case people don't know, the first Sin City from 2005 was based on the 1st, 3rd and 4th books in the 7 part series by Frank Miller. These follow the story lines of Marv, Dwight and Hartigan respectively. In addition to those, there are also a few shorts thrown in, either from the books or not. So, needless to say, Sin City and its sequel are both anthology films. If you want one single story that takes 2 hours, this may not be your thing.

Sin City 2 follows almost the exact same structure as the original, which I found nice. Sure they didn't do anything original with the structure, which was sort of playing it safe, but I liked it. It felt familiar and reminded me of the original which I loved very much. It begins with another short story, this time starring Marv. It rocks. It continues on with a new story not contained in any of the books. It stars Johnny, a gambler who "never loses". Mid way through, we cut to another story. This is the 2nd book, titled "A Dame to Kill For". If you've read this, you won't see anything new. Like with the first film, they essentially translated the story from page to screen, and it works for the most part. There was one detail I didn't like, but it doesn't last long. Then after that, we finish up the story with Johnny, and finally, we get to the revenge mission involving Nancy and her hunt for Senator Rourke. That's all I'll say about that.

Everyone is complaining about how the movie looks like a cutscene from a video game. They are sort of right, but not entirely. Even after waiting 2 weeks, I was unable to find a theatre in my city showing the film in 2d. It seems like this is happening more and more now. If you want to see an action movie in theatres, it's 3d whether you like it or not. Now, having not seen a 2d version to make a comparison, I can say that the 3d is most likely what makes it look so video game-y. I'm sure in 2d it'll look slightly better at least.

Update: I did see it in 1080p and in 2D, and it does look less like a video game cutscene. You can still tell that there's a lot of CGI, but it's done better than a lot of films.

Also, greenscreen sets have been used for over a decade now, I don't see why people are complaining so much. Everything is a CGI-fest these days, and this story, with a fantastic setting and extraordinary physics pulls it off nicely. You can tell, but it's far from awful.

Everyone is saying they loved the first one, but hated this one. I don't see how that's possible. They stuck very close to the original in most ways, such as cinematography, soundtrack, and directing, all of which were great (for a Sin City movie). Sure it isn't a masterpiece my any means, and it's not as good as the first, but it's super entertaining, very violent, and is sure to please anyone who enjoys the books or the first film. Forget all those jaded movie snobs saying it sucks. They're just focusing on all the negatives, and letting that cloud their vision of the awesome stuff.