Sin City : J'ai tué pour elle

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.

Visually is more of the same and that's good because Sin City visuals are amazing. When it comes to the story itself I personally didn't enjoyed it as much as the first movie especially that with Joseph Gordon-Levitt, that one seemed really pointless. The main story and the one that gives this movie his name was acceptable and the last story gave closure about a previous story. It lacks the brilliant narration of the characters thoughts that the first one had, this still has it but in a minor quantity and without the poetry that the first one had that should be also due to the change of writers because the overall writing in this one felt worst. The action scenes were good but again not as enjoyable as in the first movie and not as violent too. Not a bad movie by any means but when you have that first masterfully done Sin City to compare this doesn't feel as god as it could.

*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.

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.

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!