Sin City: A Dame to Kill For

Dustin: 3 of 5 stars Nick: 2 of 5 stars Average: 2.5 of 5 stars (Woozy canary)

Nick: The Sin City sequel brought its unique visuals, but left behind its endearing characters and hilarious dialogue. It’s been over a week since I saw the movie and I hardly remember a thing about it. That is not a good sign. Put it this way, remembering quotes from movies is not my thing. Yet, I could quote most of the original Sin City. It’s sad for me to say that everything from the dialogue to the characters feels clunky and forced. Nothing comes off right. Instead of enjoying myself and laughing with the movie, I found myself laughing at it more often than not. There are two stories I could describe in a single sentence and another that I would have no idea how to describe. Therefore it’s pointless to give a description. Shit happens in Sin City: A Dame to Kill For.

Dustin: I thought this was a fine movie for the most part. I think it suffered from having to follow the original, which was such a distinct movie. Tough act to follow. This felt sort of like a straight-to-video sequel to the first.

The movie basically had two plot lines. Eva Green plays against type as a woman named Ava, a manipulative femme fatale who uses Josh Brolin’s character to set up her husband’s death so she can inherit his fortune. The other plot line follows the various people who want to bring down a powerful and corrupt senator, including his illegitimate son (Joseph Gordon-Levitt) and the lover of a cop the senator killed (Jessica Alba).

I found the plot engaging and interesting. I liked the characters, especially Mickey Rourke. But the execution was a little clumsy, and it didn’t feel as well crafted as the first.

Nick: Did you know that Josh Brolin’s character was the same character that Clive Owen played in the original? Brolin plays Dwight before he has surgery and at the end all the make-up on Brolin’s face was to make him look like Clive Owen’s Dwight but ended up looking more like Marv (Mickey Rourke). The story lines were decent, but the way they were edited together made it hopeless. The original did a great job of this interweaving. Once again, the dialogue was one of the things that made me love the first Sin City while here it sounds so defeatist and depressing instead of fun and engaging, which is one of the reasons why I think so many critics are calling the film misogynistic. The first one was as well, but it was so silly and tongue-in-cheek it would be ridiculous to call it out, but now that the film has taken on more of a somber tone and has nary a laugh it’s more obvious and more unsettling.

Dustin: I only saw the first one once, shortly after it came to home video, so I only vaguely remember it. I’ll judge this movie on its own merit.

I also felt this one was depressing. I thought the dialogue was OK. It felt like an imitation of Jim Thompson. I won’t criticize it for that. I wish more writers would imitate the man who wrote the screenplay to Paths of Glory.

My criticism of the plot isn’t so much the way it wasn’t so interwoven. I did have a problem when the “Dame to Kill For” plotline ended, but the movie went on and on with the senator plot. That wasn’t so bad. At least it didn’t continue forever in a pointless direction like another movie we reviewed recently (Boyfood). But I didn’t like how the characters, especially Mickey Rourke and Jamie Chung (Miho) seemed to be invincible at times. It takes away tension when you know they will cut down their opponents without breaking a sweat.

Nick: I think all the problems here start and end with the writing, so I’m going to continue down that path. In Sin City, the three main characters are Dwight, Marv and Detective Hartigan. Dwight was the one who was between depressing and light, but was so charismatic all the depressing events he saw had a bit of levity with his hilarious insight. Marv was all about fun. His scenes were fan favorites because he thought anything that involved sex and violence was one hell of a good time. Hartigan is who brought the heart. His story was just straight depressing. Hardly anything to crack a smile about. His story was the one that made you feel and care. It is quite simple to put these stories together in terms of when you need a different emotion going through the film put a scene where one of these very different characters can bring what they alone can bring. Now in the new film the main characters are Dwight, Johnny and Nancy. All three characters are straight depressing. Johnny (Gordon-Levitt) smiles every now and then, but he is just a fast talker, not necessarily someone who brings light to a situation. Nancy is an alcoholic now who cuts herself and wants vengeance. Dwight’s wit is replaced with anger and being brutish, he is now basically Marv without the charm. While Marv is now given the intro, which is enjoyable enough, and a side character gig in all three stories to try his best to give some glimmer of fun to an otherwise all gloom-and-doom script.

Plus, get over Boyhood!

Dustin: I thought this movie did a great job with Ava. She was a great movie villain. She went beyond femme fatale to movie monster. If there’s one thing that’ll stick with me about this movie, it’s her character.

Nick: That’s a good point. Eva Green was fantastic, and I thought most of the secondary roles in the film were very well cast. Green was certainly the highlight of the film, and like you will be the one thing that I will remember with fondness.  

I’m also curious on why Rodriguez and Miller (directors) decided not to color random objects like they did in the original. It gave the world more depth and was another thing that was interesting. There are a couple in A Dame to Kill For, but nowhere near as many as the first.