Sin City: A Dame to Kill For

After 9 years Robert Rodriguez and Frank Miller finally made a sequel to their masterpiece from 2005, Sin City, and.... no-one went to see it. One of 2014's biggest and definitely the most surprising box office bomb, critics were also fairly unkind to the film. It's not as bad as some say it is, but it's best summed up as this: The Kick-Ass 2 of 2014. An enjoyable sequel which lacks the original's impact and misses the point, and struggles to hit a peak when the scene stealer from the first is off screen. In Sin City: A Dame To Kill For, we return to the nastiest, darkest and grittiest city in comic book movies for more brutal stories of justice, sin and moral corruption. In one Marv becomes an amnesiac, in another a cocky gambler finds himself in trouble when he beats the wrong man at poker, in another Nancy Callahan takes revenge on the man who caused the death of John Hartigan and another involves Dwight's encounter with a mysterious femme fatale played by Eva Green. What's noticeable about these stories? They emphasize action and that wasn't the point of the first.

Sin City was a great film because of its emotional power and characterisation. Here, mostly we're getting black and white shapes beating each other up like some generic beat em up flash game with little subtlety or grace. The script sags in places and the film refuses to focus on developing its characters or some sort of emotional impact. It never goes into unwatchable territory, but it's just curiously flat some of the time and it's hard to understand why. All you know is you'd rather be watching the first movie. It's still visually mind blowing and has some beautiful shots. It's well acted by its ensemble cast with Mickey Rourke and Eva Green being the standouts. There are many different voice overs but the film manages never to feel pretentious. You'll likely find yourself moderately enjoying it throughout without ever being particularly interested in what's happening. It's pretty safe to say Sin City 3 will not be happening after this, but the legacy of the original has not been tarnished.

6/10

OK, maybe this movie isn't aimed at "mature" audiences, but for adults looking for a trashy good time at the movies then you won't get a movie any better than this. If you want to see unrelenting brutality & most of Eva Green you will get your money's worth & then some.

Green totally owns the "Dame" role that she was perfectly cast for. When her story ends the movie does drop off (fortunately her story is most of the movie).

The "Sin City look" is enhanced by 3D (I normally avoid 3D) & rates as one of the best uses of 3D I've ever seen. Fans (like me) of Miller's "A Dame To Kill For" comic book will be thrilled at it's obsessive loyalty to word & frame screen treatment. It looks fantastic! (Maybe, I mean to say that Green looks fantastic. It's both.) I don't get all the criticism of how this "look" has grown tiresome --not for me in 3D.

All the actors in big roles to small look like they are having a sinful amount of fun, but Joseph Gordon-Levitt is almost as strong as Green in a new role in one the new stories written for the movie. If you saw "Looper" (or "Inception") you already know that JGL can play a tough guy despite his physical size.

Make no mistake this movie is a feature length Roadrunner cartoon for adults --emphasis on "adults"--with all of the ridiculous action & over- the-top violence that only a cartoon can get away with because of the way it's rendered.(No kids, please: there is just enough gore that isn't so cartoonish to make it unfit for children.)

Like the first Sin City 9 years ago, this new Sin City is B-movie bliss. (I still don't like Jessica Alba as "Nancy".)

Sin City was one of my favorite movies of the 2000s. A fun, creative film noir cartoon with unique visuals and a style all its own. The first problem you run into with this sequel is that it offers nothing new. It's a stylistic retread of the first movie, only less impressive. The visuals copy the first movie but somehow seem cheaper. The makeup effects aren't as good either, with Marv's jaw easily twice the size of the last movie. The action is weaker, with no memorable sequences and a final showdown that is derivative of the first movie. The other big problem is that the writing is very poor this time and the stories don't flow well together. The Dwight story is lame. The Johnny story is pointless. The Nancy story is impossible to take seriously, especially the ghost parts. Sadly, this movie is boring, listless, and disjointed. It's a movie that didn't need to be made. Still, it's always nice to see Eva Green naked. That's something that never gets old.

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.