meritcoba Intense torment is part of the makeup of the denizens of Sin City, where people do bad things even if it was their intent to do good. And regardless of their intentions, torment is their due. The city corrupts and twists morals yet despite this corruption sometimes good comes from bad. This formula made the first movie work but the magic falters in this one because at heart the characters and story are incredible shallow. But this was all hidden from sight by the sheer intensity of its telling. As a concept, supported by some enigmatic filming, fitting dialogue and characters whose plight you care about(mostly John Hartigan and Nancy Callahan) the first movie was great. It was intense.But in this movie, despite everything, it is the characters that are lacking. The only really interesting person is Ava Lord played by Eva Green and,to a lesser degree, Senator Roark, played by Powers Boothe. The others, even Dwight McCarthy, Nancy Callahan and Gail, seem bland and the latter turned in an extra.Obviously the casting has suffered at some points. It demonstrates once more how the right actors can change a movie. Clive Owen has been replaced by Jos Brolin as Dwight McCharty, which made for a somewhat indifferent feel. Aiko is replaced by Chung as Miho which definitely changed her character dramatically. Aiko made Miho just look terrifying dangerous while Chung makes her look cute. The final nail in the coffin is that the movie lacks intensity. What looked awesome in the first looks bland in the second and once you are no longer charmed away from the movie by its intense telling the shallow depth of its story and characters are exposed and thus turns it the lesser movie.Still, this isn't a bad movie. It can be worse and it certainly is still entertaining even if it was only for watching Eva Green, Powers Boothe and Mickey Rourke.

dromasca There are films based on graphic novels (comics books) heroes and action stories and the genre is flourishing making happy studios and fans of all ages. And there are the 'Sin City' films which are graphic novels on screens. 'Sin City: A Dame to Kill For' directed by Frank Miller (who also created the books that inspired them) and Robert Rodriguez is only the second in this genre. I liked it. I will try to explain the reasons and the difference.The first thing to notice with 'Sin City 2' (as for the first one almost one decade earlier) is that it does not pretend to be anything else that it is. It is a comics story which is directly designed for the big screen rather than for the paper support of the graphic novels. The story (there are actually three almost independent story threads) is simple and relies mostly on action. No psychological or character development is to be expected from its heroes, they are from the first time they appear on screen until the moment they die or the end of the movie (what comes first) 'The Drunken Righteous', 'The Dangerous Vamp', 'The Corrupt Senator','The Nice Face Gambler', etc. The actors either wear masks (Mickey Rourke) or they are their own masks (Jessica Alba, Bruce Willis, Joseph Gordon-Levitt, Josh Brolin, Powers Boothe, Ray Liotta). Most of them create their own characters as graphical novel heroes. The only one who holds some mystery and hides - at least for some time - her real intentions is the character played by Eva Green. All seem to enjoy themselves greatly to be in the film.All this concept is supported by a superb cinematographic solution which places the actors on sets that seem to be drawn in comics style and uses mostly black-and-white with touches of selected colors as in the mid 20th century comics books combined with the cinema masterpieces of 'film noir' from the same period. The execution is perfect, and the action scenes not only support the stories but also create moments of aesthetic wonder and fit perfectly in the atmosphere. The concept and the execution make of 'Sin City: A Dame to Kill For' a rare combination of good entertainment and stylish cinema.

gemandeye1 I'm not an avid 3D lover. Many give me a headache. But some are just so much better and enhance the movie. This is one. While I definitely love the first and it will be a classic, iconic, cult hit for generations to come this was a great sequel that does not deserve some of the hateful remarks, yet everyone is entitled to their opinion. The simplest of the 3D is what blew me away. Take note of the smoky rooms and the falling snow. It truly looks as if it is all around you. It wasn't the usual bullet or weapon flying at your face routine. It was those subtle touches that added the quality. I for one enjoyed the story line. I watched the movies back to back and that added even more to the viewing experience. Don't let the haters sway you away from this. Check it out yourself. Preferably in 3D.

shotglassanhero I could tell there was something wrong with this film just by the way it started. There is this sense in the air. A muddled script, nonsensical plot, confusing timelines...Mickey Rourke looks so old in this film. I think one of the issues with making a sequel like this is that it took too long to be produced. Between the 8 years the former actor playing Minute died of a heart of attack in 2012, Clive Owen probably read the script for the character Dwight and presumably didn't want to reprise the role (which I don't blame him), and Bruce Willis shows up to play a ghost probably for a sweet paycheck. Jordan Gordon Levitt is also mistaking cast into this film who does a poor job trying to act. I'm not even sure I can talk about the story because it's very incoherent. Mostly because if you haven't seen (or read) any of the chapters in the previous film recently, you are constantly trying to piece together how it all fits in. The shock and awe that comes from the gory film noir and classic black and white canvas style shots are still here with a stunning return; but the violence is mindlessly carried out to excess without purpose. Some of the best kinds of tricks it can pull are pulled and run into the ground--into futility. Such as the touches of coloring. Look, coloring is a powerful tool in film--and Sin City is all about how tints, shadows, and light affect the picture. When they added touches of color it really sent a vibe to pay attention to that particular object. But in the very first 20 minutes an ongodly amount of light and color is shoved onto the portion of the screen that is the empty space and not the center of attention. It doesn't make sense thematically. Moreover, sometimes the color would annoyingly disappear and reappear in the same shot. Also, voice over is overused. There's no cadence to the words spoken anymore--it chokes up your ears and incessantly tells you what's happening rather than what the characters are feeling. Granted it sometimes does both now--but it's a crutch that doesn't need to be too gratuitous all the time, every time. I'm not making this review to just talk about color and voice-overs--I'm just trying to make a point. The film-makers responsible here wanted to shove something out there that obviously was not meant to be. And you feel with a project like this they decided to put any type of creative spin to make it work. The re-casting of the former's roles do not hold up. The story is not as poignant or interesting as they were in the last film. And I feel as if they had just tried harder to make this sequel sooner rather than later--perhaps it would be a different story. Then again sequels like this are mostly a cash grab but you get a sense that the filmmakers who let the former success go to their heads. Yeah, they want to make something good--but it's likely they wanted to make a sequel just because they like writing and directing movies like this. So when 'The Spirit' flopped and enough years passed, I'm guessing the studio green-lit this project which probably was in development as soon as Frank Miller saw more dollar signs in his future. Unfortunately our ride is probably finished with this franchise. I'm assuming it didn't make enough money back to justify any more of it. And with the forever aging, dying, and or negligent cast, along with poor critical and film audience acclaim, I'd bet I'm right. And you don't even need to blow on my coin for good luck.