Sin City: A Dame To Kill For

This is one badass movie.

Visually, the film’s technique is thrilling. There’s hardly a camera setup anywhere that doesn’t look like it could be a frame ripped from a comic book or graphic novel.

A Dame To Kill For shares some of the downsides of the first, particularly dubious female characterisation. But this retains the gritty, gruelling vice-grip on graphic-novel noir that made Sin City so enjoyable.

The cartoonish mayhem in Sin City: A Dame to Kill For aims for a film noir sensibility, but too frequently the script simply resorts to anachronistic scenes of Jessica Alba twerking.

In just about every way, the film is an inferior sequel — dumber, flatter, lacking even the barbaric extremity of its predecessor. Where’s a flesh-eating Elijah Wood when you need him?

Green is sexy, funny, dangerous, and wild -- everything the film needed to be -- and whenever she's not on-screen, we feel her absence as though the sun has blinked off.

It’s so egregiously awful, so utterly without merit, that it makes its predecessor seem much worse by association. The film’s brainless, chest-beating brand of hyper-pulp calls into question whether Sin City was any good at all, or whether the novelty of its visuals and storytelling merely masked a howling nothingness at its core.

I definitely preferred it to the first one but I didn’t think this was a particularly good movie and it definitely is not convincing me to go back to buying Frank Miller comics or even going in to the Sin City franchise. I will say I definitely came out of this film feeling a lot better than the previous one. Mainly because it is mercifully a lot shorter than the first one and this is definitely one of the films that makes me think 3D is worth going with. Though it still only manages to be a point above the other one and I still think there have been better films that have come out this year.

I definitely preferred it to the first one but I didn’t think this was a particularly good movie and it definitely is not convincing me to go back to buying Frank Miller comics or even going in to the Sin City franchise. I will say I definitely came out of this film feeling a lot better than the previous one. Mainly because it is mercifully a lot shorter than the first one and this is definitely one of the films that makes me think 3D is worth going with. Though it still only manages to be a point above the other one and I still think there have been better films that have come out this year.

Considering the unique style of this movie and how it is made very close knit with the graphic novels it comes from, initially, without any background on Frank Miller or the Sin City world, this just seems like a reckless opportunity to show sex/nudity and violence **** which it did. But, because of the style it stems from I still think it was entertaining and well done. These random strips of scenes are meant to simply plunge into the happenings of each character and to further characterize Sin City itself, not really to create a nice flowing stream of story line as was established in the first film. Although, on a scene to scene basis, the first Sin City was more disciplined and they were easier to connect to each other, which is why I don't give this one a great score. Definitely not a show for kids or even teens. And because every character is so important to the details of Sin City, to even try a movie like this you need the best actors available, with that they did well. Easily Jessica Alba's best performance and Joseph Gordon-levitt went above and beyond what I could have expected. Mickey Rourke's defining character once again, gotta love Marv. Wish there was more Bruce Willis though. Josh Brolin was solid but I really wish Clive could have come **** well. Eva Green is so lovely. I wouldn't be able to resist her, I'll be honest... The comic-to-movie attempts are often hit and miss, but Sin City claims a spot all its own far away from the good vs. evil superhero conflicts which are becoming very common these days. For that, they deserve props.

I don't know why this is rated so highly. It's one of the worst movies I've ever seen. Ridiculously over the top, jarringly gruesome, juvenile in delivery, and generally dopey... though its worst "sin" is being often boring. I liked the first movie and its stories and characters. This one lost a lot of the heart and believability of the characters. It's a very surface-level schlock shock movie. Maybe Rodriguez and Miller did it for the paycheck. It focuses on cheap endless attention-grabbing thrills, and regurgitates many of the same kinds of visuals and scenes that made the first movie stand out... but gets old fast. I suppose audiences when this came out were easy to please. I found it painfully mind-numbing, and besides a few good performances form a few actors, worth tossing in the bin. Hopefully I'll forget about it soon.

Some great visuals and a lot of style... and that's pretty much it... Bad dialogues, some terrible special effects and a movie that just drags on.. Not a good sequel,.. at all...