Sin City 2: A Dame to Kill For

Looper007

Eva Green casting is perfect, she's a Frank Miller character come alive, hopefully she get her kit off too :P. Josh Borlin and Joseph Gordon Levitt are good casting too. I'm not getting my hopes up for this seen as the last few Robert Rodriquez films haven't been that great and Hyping up films always let you down. If it's just as good as Sin City then we all should be pleased.

krudler

Saw this earlier, it's more of the same with added Eva Green and an awful American accent, least I think it was American. Pity they didn't/couldn't get Clive Owen to reprise the Dwight role after his surgery.

There is a MASSIVE continuity/bad writing error in it though. Spoiler if you havent read the graphic novels

Nancy's revenge story takes place after the events in the first movie obviously, but Marv died in his story and Senator Rourke was still alive then, and Nancy didn't have her facial scars in Marv's story then, the timeline is bollocked up

. did Rodriguez not watch the first movie again before filming this? or just didn't care?

cloud493

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nqRRF5y94uE

Looks good, but heres my question, do I need to have seen the first one to get it? I have the first one's blu ray on my shelf, but I cant be bothered watching it right now.

Burky126

cloud493 wrote: »

Looks good, but heres my question, do I need to have seen the first one to get it? I have the first one's blu ray on my shelf, but I cant be bothered watching it right now.

Yes,only because Nancy's storyline is carried on from the first movie. Marv and Dwight have a backstory and the rest are from other Sin City comics. Though judging by the reviews and poor opening,I think you should just stick to the first one!

johnny_ultimate

Deliciously vitriolic review of this from The Dissolve: http://thedissolve.com/reviews/1025-sin-city-a-dame-to-kill-for/

Nothing like a proper hatchet job

charlie_says

Scathing!

AnonoBoy

I was bored by the original so I don't think I'll bother with this one.

If you look at anything that Miller has been involved in over the past decade or so and you'll find little that isn't just sexist, racist, xenophobic, homophobic trash. His most recent run on All-Star Batman is some of the worst comic book writing that has ever existed and his Holy Terror is a juvenile, disgusting piece of trash. There's a lot of talk of how he used to be a drug addict and if it's true, his giving them up was just before his work went to shit.

The original Sin City film was a visual treat but also one of the most redundant films ever made. You can appreciate what they set out to do but the end result was little more than a live action motion comic and that's not the least bit interesting to anyone whose read the graphics. Miller's subsequent film, an adaptation of Will Eisner's The Spirit is cinematic crap and felt more like a sequel to Sin City than it did anything to do with the Spirit. I'm not the least bit surprised that Sin City 2 is being savaged by most who watch it and I do hope that it puts to bed Miller's directing career.

Burky126

Deleted User wrote: »

If you look at anything that Miller has been involved in over the past decade or so and you'll find little that isn't just sexist, racist, xenophobic, homophobic trash. His most recent run on All-Star Batman is some of the worst comic book writing that has ever existed and his Holy Terror is a juvenile, disgusting piece of trash. There's a lot of talk of how he used to be a drug addict and if it's true, his giving them up was just before his work went to shit.

The original Sin City film was a visual treat but also one of the most redundant films ever made. You can appreciate what they set out to do but the end result was little more than a live action motion comic and that's not the least bit interesting to anyone whose read the graphics. Miller's subsequent film, an adaptation of Will Eisner's The Spirit is cinematic crap and felt more like a sequel to Sin City than it did anything to do with the Spirit. I'm not the least bit surprised that Sin City 2 is being savaged by most who watch it and I do hope that it puts to bed Miller's directing career.

Thank you for this. I for one just can't stand Miller's recent output and how people continue to fawn over his work due to his previous achievements in the medium of comics. When I'd heard he was writing an offical sequel to Nancy's character in the new Sin City film,I knew for sure this was doomed. Also,whos bright idea was it to decide now is the time for another one of these? Coupled with the lack of promotion and the late August release date...yep,all the makings of an ultimately deflated experience that seems to be more of the same.

P.S. Holy Terror! is really ****ing bad.Really bad.

Looper007

Deleted User wrote: »

The original Sin City film was a visual treat but also one of the most redundant films ever made. You can appreciate what they set out to do but the end result was little more than a live action motion comic and that's not the least bit interesting to anyone whose read the graphics. Miller's subsequent film, an adaptation of Will Eisner's The Spirit is cinematic crap and felt more like a sequel to Sin City than it did anything to do with the Spirit. I'm not the least bit surprised that Sin City 2 is being savaged by most who watch it and I do hope that it puts to bed Miller's directing career.

What's with all the hate on sin city in here?. I thought it be at least one of those Comic book films that get away from the film snobbery from some on here. Now I read people ****ting on a film they've yet to see. I loved Sin City, it's certainly was one of the best films in 2005. I think it was a massive mistake to be leaving a sequel 9 years to make really, they should have knocked one out in 2008/2009.

I doubt Miller directed much on Sin City to be fair, they probably gave him a scene here and there and gave him a directed credit cause Rodriquez is such a fanboy for him. Anyone before Sin city knew Miller wasn't the greatest in the Film world, he did write the awful Robocop 2 and 3. The Spirit was a load of crap, one of the worse films of 00's.

Looper007

Looper007 wrote: »

What's with all the hate on sin city in here?. I thought it be at least one of those Comic book films that get away from the film snobbery from some on here. Now I read people ****ting on a film they've yet to see. I loved Sin City, it's certainly was one of the best films in 2005. I think it was a massive mistake to be leaving a sequel 9 years to make really, they should have knocked one out in 2008/2009.

I doubt Miller directed much on Sin City to be fair, they probably gave him a scene here and there and gave him a directed credit cause Rodriquez is such a fanboy for him. Anyone before Sin city knew Miller wasn't the greatest in the Film world, he did write the awful Robocop 2 and 3. The Spirit was a load of crap, one of the worse films of 00's.

Just because people don't agree with you doesn't mean that any snobbery is involved. Really, is there anything more irritating than when people use such nonsense. Sin City is visually a treat but for anyone familiar with the source material it's boring. It's a valid, empty film that's all about the surface gloss. I tried watching it recently and it simply doesn't stand up, it's agreed poorly and is to slavishly loyal to the graphic novel to work.

No one is hoping the sequel is terrible, merely pointing out that all the scathing reviews aren't surprising. Miller did more than direct a few scenes, he was heavily involved in all aspects of the production though Rodriguez shares the blame.

Looper007

Deleted User wrote: »

Just because people don't agree with you doesn't mean that any snobbery is involved. Really, is there anything more irritating than when people use such nonsense. Sin City is visually a treat but for anyone familiar with the source material it's boring. It's a valid, empty film that's all about the surface gloss. I tried watching it recently and it simply doesn't stand up, it's agreed poorly and is to slavishly loyal to the graphic novel to work.

No one is hoping the sequel is terrible, merely pointing out that all the scathing reviews aren't surprising. Miller did more than direct a few scenes, he was heavily involved in all aspects of the production though Rodriguez shares the blame.

But when a film isn't Slavishly loyal to the source material people still complain, the filmmakers will never win with some people. This isn't about you and me disliking what each other thinks, but every time a Comic book film is released some look down on them like its beneath them. It's not nonsense at all, people won't admit that they simply can't stand Comic book movies cause they are afraid to get the "Film Snob" tag thrown at them. But they gladly come on and slaughter these film.

Not going by the last few messages written, some are clearly loving the fact it's getting a beating.

Looper007

Looper007 wrote: »

But when a film isn't Slavishly loyal to the source material people still complain, the filmmakers will never win with some people. This isn't about you and me disliking what each other thinks, but every time a Comic book film is released some look down on them like its beneath them. It's not nonsense at all, people won't admit that they simply can't stand Comic book movies cause they are afraid to get the "Film Snob" tag thrown at them. But they gladly come on and slaughter these film.

Not going by the last few messages written, some are clearly loving the fact it's getting a beating.

Yes cause me, someone who has read comics since they were 4 and still does looks down on comic book films. If people won't admit that they don't like comic book based films then why would they bother to watch and comment on them? People are criticizing this film because everything about it screams crap. The trailers look poor, reviews are tearing it apart and perhaps there is certain enjoyment found when the work of a *snip* filmmaker fails.

Burky126

Looper007 wrote: »

I doubt Miller directed much on Sin City to be fair, they probably gave him a scene here and there and gave him a directed credit cause Rodriquez is such a fanboy for him. Anyone before Sin city knew Miller wasn't the greatest in the Film world, he did write the awful Robocop 2 and 3. The Spirit was a load of crap, one of the worse films of 00's.

Since the film is almost completely shot for shot of the comic and how staunch he was on creators rights back in DC, I'd say he had a lot of influence on this film and the previous Sin City film. It's a shame as once I did discover the comics, the movie became secondary to me. It's the same thing with The Watchmen film. I really wish sometimes they would just take a risk and do something new with the source material, I already paid for the comic, why did I pay to see a mere visual accompaniment that is verbatim the same plot?

That_Guy

Has to be the most pointless film to be given the 3D treatment. Pointless.

corcaigh07

So who gets naked in this?

FortuneChip

corcaigh07 wrote: »

So who gets naked in this?

It's gotta be Eva Green!
Her clothes:skin ratio is usually 1:35

corcaigh07

FortuneChip wrote: »

It's gotta be Eva Green!
Her clothes:skin ratio is usually 1:35

Let's hope for the best!

cloud493

I watched the first one last night, thought it was really good. Ready for the sequel now :pac:

castletownman

I can confirm that it is Eva Green who gets nekkid in it.

And my word it's glorious

LuckyLloyd

It's repetitive, disjointed, derivative, clichéd, juvenile, misogynistic, sexist and needlessly violent. But worst of all, it's just very dull and uninteresting for long sections. The JGL strand is the most interesting by far.

I suppose fans of the previous effort will love it, I can't comment on the comic crossover aspect and how it satisfies fans of same.

A minor bugbear would be 'why 3D'? I didn't see any advantage over Sin City in that regard.

OldRio

Watched it last night. Very disappointing. Agree with LL comments above. Also Eva Green is not a femme fatale. It requires a little more subtlety than 'getting them out for the lads'.

krudler

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

It's repetitive, disjointed, derivative, clichéd, juvenile, misogynistic, sexist and needlessly violent. But worst of all, it's just very dull and uninteresting for long sections. The JGL strand is the most interesting by far.

I suppose fans of the previous effort will love it, I can't comment on the comic crossover aspect and how it satisfies fans of same.

A minor bugbear would be 'why 3D'? I didn't see any advantage over Sin City in that regard.

Powers Boothe stole the show for me, always plays a great villain. Pity Stacy Keach was only in it briefly another great villainous character actor.

cloud493

Well I liked it a whole lot :pac:

ancapailldorcha

I saw this last night and I was blown away. Not nearly as good as the original but definitely a worthy sequel. The 3D made for a few nice shots but I had to hold my tongue when picking up my ticket as I'd no idea the thing was only in sodding 3D.
I do wish they'd gotten Clive Owen back as Dwight. I've no idea why they replaced him with Josh Brolin who did a really good job it has to be said. I wish they hadn't added the arc with Nancy at the end. It felt tacked on and added nothing to the film.

krudler

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

I saw this last night and I was blown away. Not nearly as good as the original but definitely a worthy sequel. The 3D made for a few nice shots but I had to hold my tongue when picking up my ticket as I'd no idea the thing was only in sodding 3D.
I do wish they'd gotten Clive Owen back as Dwight. I've no idea why they replaced him with Josh Brolin who did a really good job it has to be said. I wish they hadn't added the arc with Nancy at the end. It felt tacked on and added nothing to the film.

Dwight has surgery to change his face though the Clive Owen version is after this movie. It's a pity they couldn't get Clive Owen back to play him post-op in A Dame To Kill For though.

Devostator

yupppy Eva Green!

JayRoc

I have to admit I'm surprised I haven't heard a lot more grumbling about the HUGE liberties they took with the continuities between the two movies, it kind of spoiled it for me.

The powers-that-be clearly figured out that Marv was the most popular character from the first film, so I understand why they wanted to feature him as much as possible, but why didn't they make it a straight prequel?

Having half a film a prequel, and the other half a sequel-that-ignores-the-death-of-a-major-character-in-the-first film is stupid and unnecessarily confusing to many, I'd say.

That combined with the deaths of several characters who couldn't have died as they'd already appeared in Sin City 1 in a story set later on, just annoyed the piss out of me and marred a film I was really really looking forward to.

Other than that, it was a good couple of hours, obviously not a patch on the original but how could it be?
I thought the Joseph Gordon-Levitt storyline the most interesting, and the utterly unnecessary return of Jessica Alba's Nancy, the worst.

LuckyLloyd

JayRoc wrote: »

I have to admit I'm surprised I haven't heard a lot more grumbling about the HUGE liberties they took with the continuities between the two movies, it kind of spoiled it for me.

Having half a film a prequel, and the other half a sequel-that-ignores-the-death-of-a-major-character-in-the-first film is stupid and unnecessarily confusing to many, I'd say.

You'd probably have to care about the story or the characters first!

krudler

The continuity was a load of balls, I honestly don't know what they were thinking. Sure

The killed Manute, he's in Dwight's story again from the first movie, unless they didnt actually kill him but you never see for certain