Sin City 2: una dama por la cual mataría

I got to see an advance screening last night. If you're a fan of the first Sin City, you won't be disappointed. It's more of the same, but that's a good thing: hyper-stylized visuals, intense violence, plenty of splattered blood. Film Noir cranked up to 11.

Jessica Alba doing her stripper grind? CHECK. Mickey Rourke causing much harm? CHECK. Josh Brolin is new to the franchise and he is GREAT! JGL is new to the franchise and he is GREAT! But the film really belongs to Powers Boothe. He is just pure evil. If you liked him as Cy Tolliver in Deadwood you'll love him in this.

The only drawback is that the original Miho (Asian female killer) was apparently pregnant at the time of the filming of the sequel, so they had to replace her. That's kind of a bummer.

Fans of the comic / graphic novel will be happy. Fans of Robert Rodriguez will be happy. GO!

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.

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!

*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.