Sin City: A Dame to Kill For

Sin City: A Dame to Kill For is not a bad idea on paper. Frank Miller's Sin City universe is a rich and interesting setting, and as the first Sin City film proved, it translates to the silver screen beautifully. Unfortunately they decided to stick all the best stories into the first film, thus guaranteeing its success, but leaving the possible sequel without much material to use. Not that the stories used here are bad, they're just not as great as the ones used in the first one. Tellingly Miller was actually called back to write two new stories exclusively for the film. It shows.

However, there is one exception. The story named A Dame to Kill For. Considered to be one of the better stories in the original comic books, it's a good thing they still had one such story to wrap their movie around. And it is awesome. Just as good as the stories in the original film with same great quality acting, hardcore action and brutal visuals. No complaints.

The second adaptation story, Just Another Saturday Night, is really nothing more than an Ode to Marv (Mickey Rourke), and that's okay in my books. It doesn't have much of a plot, and the supporting characters are nonexistent, but it's a good opening piece.

The Long Bad Night, the first of the new stories, works because of its actors. Both Joseph Gordon-Levitt and Powers Boothe have amazing screen presence and as they're pitted against one another throughout the night the stakes keep getting higher and higher, with satisfying results. A fine story and I could see this as an original Sin City story.

Nancy's Last Dance, our last story, is unfortunately the weakest story by far. They clearly wanted to give Jessica Alba something more to chew with her character, but it just doesn't have that edge. You don't buy it. Still not awful, merely average.

Aside from the material, the biggest problem is the common sequel problem where they want to do the same that worked so well in the original, but with more oomph. Here it means more colour spliced into the black-n-white, and it's very distracting. The original used colour carefully, for emphasis, for popping up important details. Here it seems that every single frame has a splotch of colour in it, usually for no reason, they just wanted colour in their frames. And thus the distinct visual style of Sin City is shattered.

All in all Sin City: A Dame to Kill For is not a bad film by any means. It's disappointing, certainly, but only because I love the first film so much, and wanted more of that greatness, no matter how impossible it is to achieve. Still, a great movie to check out if you're a fan, but don't expect miracles.

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.

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.

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!