After I watched the first Sin City I thought to myself “This needs a sequel.” Then I heard they were making one and I kept hearing coming soon and all of a sudden it’s on DVD. It could be me not paying attention, not seeing enough commercials or a lack of promotion in general but “Sin City: A Dame To Kill For” slipped right past my radar. I have a feeling I wasn’t the only one missing the train since it was released in theaters in August and DVD in November (quicker than the average 4 – 5 months). Releasing a sequel 9 years later with no marketing was obviously an error in judgement. I hope whoever dropped the ball on that one learned that lesson.
The script was solid, all Frank Miller and the tone from the original was maintained. The characters from the first movie had all of the same actors and didn’t feel like anyone missed a beat. Josh Brolin did a great job as being the same character as Clive Owen, he was the same guy with a different face like he was supposed to be. It was only 102 minutes but it felt long to me. It had to do with some slow pacing and the stories being chopped up. This could have easily been chopped up into a mini-series and could have been far more successful.
Robert Rodriguez has directed some real classics including El Mariachi, From Dusk til Dawn, and Sin City. Bringing him back for the second Sin City was an obvious choice and not a mistake as I see it. He kept most of the positive things from the original and the look was identical. Minus Spy Kids, I have liked all of his movies but this is much lower on the list than I would have thought. He dropped the ball on making sure Bruce Willis’ scar was the right shape and location and that bothered me more than it should have.
I wish my scars would move and glow
The makeup and special effects were ‘meh’ at best. Everything was the same as the last movie, which for most things is good but for effects it isn’t. Attempting to emulate decade old special effects isn’t exactly ambitious. I was hoping to see some top-notch stuff but I was severely disappointed. Don’t get me wrong they weren’t bad but they weren’t as good as the first time around. The portrayals of the characters were top-notch to say the least. The dialog is as weird as it was in the first Sin City but the actors did their job and didn’t make it sound labored or forced. Jessica Alba was very good at ‘getting crazy’ as opposed to Micky Rourke’s ‘quite crazy’. There wasn’t any actor in this movie that I thought they did a bad job, even Eva Green’s boobs were quite noir.
The title “Sin City: A Dame To Kill For” annoys me because it ends in a proposition. I know it isn’t always bad to end a sentence in a preposition but it bothers me because I was taught that was bad. Better title to suit my neurosis “Sin City: A Dame For Which You Would Kill Others”. Beyond that, it wasn’t a bad flick. If you loved the first one then you’ll love this and remember to take your pills.