Support NeoGAF

[border]

It's up on Netflix now if you've never seen it. Watch the first Sin City though, if you haven't already seen it.

I don't recall why I never saw A Dame To Kill For despite really enjoying the original. A Dame to Kill For got ravaged by critics - 42% Rotten versus 78% Fresh for the original film. It was a commercial bomb as well.

I watched it for the first time recently and had a pretty good time with it though. If you liked the first film, I don't really understand what there is to dislike. Is it more of the same? Yeah, sure. Is it as well-executed as the original? Not really, but it's not that much worse either. It takes a little while to get used to the heavily green-screened environments and for a while you're not sure if this is just a cheaper cash grab, but once you're enveloped in that world it's still pretty fun.

I like how the movie introduces nearly supernatural elements. Joseph Gordon Levitt's character has impossibly good luck at gambling, to the point where it's almost a superpower. Eva Green is able to control mens' minds so effortlessly that she seems like a witch or a siren. I thought this was a cool way of expanding the mythos without diving completely into fantasy.

My only big gripe would be that the Joseph Gordon Levitt story ("The Long Bad Night") has a really limp and unsatisfying ending, when most other Sin City tales have endings that are much more affecting and visceral. The continued story of Nancy ("Nancy's Last Dance") just feels like an un-needed epilogue to "That Yellow Bastard", but it's still nice to get a little more closure on that tale. The main problem is that her story overlaps with "The Long Bad Night" in such a way that it minimizes the ending of "Bad Night".

I never read the Sin City comics, so I don't know if there's better material that could be adapted to film in the future. But watching A Dame To Kill For made me wish that Sin City was still a viable anthology franchise. I'd love to see other writers and directors take a stab at such highly stylized neo-noir.

 

[ERotIC]

It's a bad movie that I enjoyed.

 

[Hero_of_the_Day]

Never saw it. They waited wayyy too long to get the sequel out. The world simply lost interest.

 

[Frostinferno]

Never saw it. They waited wayyy too long to get the sequel out. The world simply lost interest.

The truth right here. I say that as someone loved the first movie.

 

[TheRedSnifit]

I enjoyed Eva Green's chest. I also liked The Long Bad Night, my favorite of the stories. The last story with Jessica Alba sucked.

 

[Apt101]

It's a bad movie that I enjoyed.

Yea pretty much. I'm also a sucker for Jessica Alba. I actually watched that movie with her and Fast and Furious guy underwater because yeee-uhh.

 

[Megalosaro]

I was super fucking drunk.

I don't remember much, but I remember it being alright. I remember Eva Green being FINE.

 

[daviyoung]

Yes, I enjoyed it more than the first Sin City.

 

[maomaoIYP]

I hated what they did to Jessica Alba's character.
Eva Green was mad fine.

 

[TheTylerDurden]

Had to see it for myself, given how much I loved Sin City. It was ok.

Eva Green. Oh my goodness.

 

[Grizzlyjin]

I enjoyed Sin City when it came out. Caught A Dame to Kill For recently and found it a slog to get through. Not sure if the movie is just that bad or my tastes have matured. There were a lot of cheap-o "me too!" movies in the wake of Sin City and 300, so maybe that's soured me on these green screen heavy projects.

 

[NotTheGuyYouKill]

I enjoyed Eva Green's chest. I also liked The Long Bad Night, my favorite of the stories. The last story with Jessica Alba sucked.

Everyone does.

Perfection.

 

[Fury451]

Took too long to come out, but I don't remember hating it. I actually think I may have even liked it better than the first movie, it seemed far less gross, for lack of a better word.

Speaking of the first movie, yeesh that did not age well in terms of content. Miller's stuff is pretty icky if you're not 16.

Overall the whole series is one I don't mind leaving behind at this point.

 

[jack_package_200]

I enjoyed the second 300 movie much more

 

[border]

Never saw it. They waited wayyy too long to get the sequel out. The world simply lost interest.

Damn! I did not realize that A Dame To Kill For was 9 years after Sin City. If you had asked me, it felt like there was only a 3 year gap. I am surprised that it took Rodriguez and company that long to get it out. They are like a movie assembly line.

 

[Fury451]

I enjoyed the second 300 movie much more

This I can also second. I hate 300, but the prequel/sequel thing was actually really good.

Connecting thread....Eva Green. She's the secret sauce to good follow-ups that take to long to come out.

 

[Strangelove77]

I don't remember most of it. Only thoughts I had was that it was like the first Sin City but not as good and definitely not as fresh.
And Eva Green.

 

[border]

There were a lot of cheap-o "me too!" movies in the wake of Sin City and 300, so maybe that's soured me on these green screen heavy projects.

What other imitators were there? I can only think of Sky Captain and the World of Tomorrow, if we are talking about stylized movies with mostly digital sets.

 

[Fury451]

What other imitators were there? I can only think of Sky Captain and the World of Tomorrow, if we are talking about stylized movies with mostly digital sets.

Pretty sure that movie came first. Even if it didn't, it was a passion project the director had been making on his own for years in his home.

 

[border]

Pretty sure that movie came first. Even if it didn't, it was a passion project the director had been making on his own for years in his home.

Damn, you're right! Sky Captain was first. I would have bet my life savings that Sin City was released ahead of it. I guess it's the Mandela Effect.....or as it's less commonly known, the "Millenials Are Getting Older and Can't Remember Stuff That Well Effect".

 

[DietRob]

No I remember I was looking forward to it back when but was majorly disappointed. I can't remember much about it at all.

 

[BadAss2961]

It's okay, has its moments. Seen it a few times now.

Obviously not as effective as the first. Somehow it doesn't even look as good nearly a decade later. Not just a rose-tinted glasses thing... The original still holds up well.

 

[Fury451]

Damn, you're right! Sky Captain was first. I would have bet my life savings that Sin City was released ahead of it. I guess it's the Mandela Effect.....or as it's less commonly known, the "Millenials Are Getting Older and Can't Remember Stuff That Well Effect".

Honestly the fact that you remember it at all is a big deal. I routinely forget it exists and I really enjoyed it. Shame it flopped so hard it destroyed the director's career.

 

[G-Bus]

Really like the first. Forgot they made another until it popped up on Netflix.

Don't think I made it further than 20 minutes in until I shut it off. Just couldn't get into it.

 

[Trouble]

I would definitely kill for that dame.

The movie was more of the same. Didn't pack quite the same punch as the first because it had been done.

But Eva... sweating.gif

 

[border]

The movie was more of the same. Didn't pack quite the same punch as the first because it had been done.

Obviously not as effective as the first. Somehow it doesn't even look as good nearly a decade later. Not just a rose-tinted glasses thing... The original still holds up well.

This seems to echo most of the contemporary criticism I've read. "It doesn't have the same impact as the first movie." Well yeah, but how could it? The same motif and style is definitely there, but I don't really understand how they could be expected to top the first movie's impact. It seems a little unreasonable to expect A Dame To Kill For to somehow be as fresh and satisfying as the first film, while still being true to its origins.

Out of curiosity though, what is it that makes the first movie "still hold up" while the second one doesn't? There's nothing inherently dated or silly about A Dame To Kill For, if you're willing to accept the conventions of the first film. I feel like I want to chalk up the "Meh" reactions to the sequel as people just having grown out of appreciating the noir/hard-boiled style.

 

[Inceptional]

The first movie had great cinematography, flowed really well and had great moments and characters that stood out. The second one was a rush job that looked like shit, just going through the motions. Huge disappointment. It makes the 300 sequel look like The Godfather part 2.

 

[Sketch_Turntable]

I thought the use of 3D was actually pretty good.

 

[Count Dookkake]

Thoroughly enjoyable sequel. Would watch another.

I enjoyed the second 300 movie much more

But this, too.

 

[Yaboosh]

Carla Gugino > Eva Green

 

[KentP]

What other imitators were there? I can only think of Sky Captain and the World of Tomorrow, if we are talking about stylized movies with mostly digital sets.

The Spirit? That was a pretty terrible film!

I really liked Sin City, but the sequel I found a chore to get through.

 

[Bjoern the Smexy]

I didn't like it as much as the first movie but it was definitely not bad at all in my opinion.

It's basically more of the same. It's good. Not great. Just good.
Way better than many people make it out to be anyways.

 

[XAL]

They waited way too long to make it.

By the time it came out no one gave a shit to watch it.

The studio didn't care either because it was weaker and didn't look as good as the first.

 

[Trouble]

This seems to echo most of the contemporary criticism I've read. "It doesn't have the same impact as the first movie." Well yeah, but how could it? The same motif and style is definitely there, but I don't really understand how they could be expected to top the first movie's impact. It seems a little unreasonable to expect A Dame To Kill For to somehow be as fresh and satisfying as the first film, while still being true to its origins.

Out of curiosity though, what is it that makes the first movie "still hold up" while the second one doesn't? There's nothing inherently dated or silly about A Dame To Kill For, if you're willing to accept the conventions of the first film. I feel like I want to chalk up the "Meh" reactions to the sequel as people just having grown out of appreciating the noir/hard-boiled style.

Personally, I just thought the first movie's stories and characters were more interesting. Don't get me wrong, though, I like the second quite a bit.

Carla Gugino > Eva Green

You just made the list.

 

[BadAss2961]

This seems to echo most of the contemporary criticism I've read. "It doesn't have the same impact as the first movie." Well yeah, but how could it? The same motif and style is definitely there, but I don't really understand how they could be expected to top the first movie's impact. It seems a little unreasonable to expect A Dame To Kill For to somehow be as fresh and satisfying as the first film, while still being true to its origins.

Out of curiosity though, what is it that makes the first movie "still hold up" while the second one doesn't? There's nothing inherently dated or silly about A Dame To Kill For, if you're willing to accept the conventions of the first film. I feel like I want to chalk up the "Meh" reactions to the sequel as people just having grown out of appreciating the noir/hard-boiled style.

Well for starters, the stories in A Dame to Kill For just aren't as good. JGL's first chapter is nice, but momentum is all over the place after that.

The long wait hurt in that many returning characters are either recast or washed up. Mickey Rourke had a resurgence around the time of Sin City, he was swole. He's not in shape at all in a Dame to Kill For. The fan favorite that was Marv isn't the same this time around. He's also just support for Dwight and Nancy throughout the movie and doesn't really have anything of his own going on.

Speaking of Nancy... Alba was never the greatest actress. She was used perfectly in the first having lots of support from Willis, Rourke, and Stahl, but they had her carry the last chapter of this one. The results weren't good. Alba also doesn't have the body she did in 2005. The dance scene was pretty big for the original, this one was whatever.

On the recasts... Clive Owen was missed. He's perfect for the noir style. Haysbert was as good as it gets to replace Duncan, no problems there.

Not really sure what to say about Rodriguez other than the movie clearly not being as inspired as the original. Overall, it looks and feels like it was only made because it should've happened a long time ago.

JGL, Powers Booth, and of course Eva Green carried the movie into something enjoyable.

 

[IrishNinja]

i just got around to seeing it last week - as a fan of miller & noir, i really dug it..but it's obvious they used the more interesting stories in part 1.

Never saw it. They waited wayyy too long to get the sequel out. The world simply lost interest.

i'm guessing that was it; i was surprised as hell at the movie's launch to see it do so well...yeah, all star cast but it's still noir & damn near verbatim from a comic, wasn't expecting so many to enjoy that. i think if this might've been sooner & had a few things changed up it would've done a lot better.

powers booth was a joy here.

 

[Dice//]

Never saw it. They waited wayyy too long to get the sequel out. The world simply lost interest.

Which reminds me, I'm curious if people will be ready for another James Cameron 'Avatar' movie.
IIRC the sequel was set to release this year once upon a time ago.

 

[Monocle]

I liked parts of it, and Eva Green is a goddess.

As an overall package it doesn't stack up to the original. It's got the same style and tone, but the dramatic heft and plot substance are lacking. The original had better stories to tell.

Worth watching though.

 

[golem]

Nah this film was terrible

I enjoyed the second 300 movie much more

Yup, surprisingly entertaining!

 

[Discotheque]

not really, it felt like a step down from the first in quite a ways.

however, I did enjoy the 300 sequel moreso than the first one tbh. kinda weird how both Frank Miller sequels had Eva Green in it. She was flames in both of em.

 

[TheRedSnifit]

I enjoyed the second 300 movie much more

I enjoyed Eva Green's boobs in this too.

 

[Skiptastic]

I enjoyed the second 300 movie much more

Agreed but I still like A Dame to Kill For.

 

[DeathyBoy]

On the recasts... Clive Owen was missed. He's perfect for the noir style. Haysbert was as good as it gets to replace Duncan, no problems there

Problem with Dwight isn't that they recast per se (he gets a new face after all), but that they didn't have Clive Owen in AFTER they got the new face.

 

[eggandI]

Didn't even watch it

When the first movie came out I was 15 years old. When A Dame to Kill For hit theaters I was 24. My tastes changed pretty drastically during that time. I had no clue the sequel was coming out until like 2 days before it did.

 

[TheWraith]

The biggest problem with the movie is that the Dame to Kill For story itself was really a let-down when compared to the original comic book.

 

[SandTorso]

I saw it in theaters. Man was it forgettable. It totally feels like a knock-off version of the original, and I can't really recommend spending any time on it.

Well, maybe watch the 30-45 seconds with Christopher Lloyd in it. That's the only part I remember.

 

[crazy monkey]

I liked Jessica alba and Eva green. I liked it.

 

[TheOnlyOneHeEverFeared]

I seem to recall I did when I saw it in theatres.

 

[Ash735]

It was a let down to fans of Sin City too, mainly because Nancy's story, which Miller pushed most, doesn't fit in anywhere in the Sun City timeline and you can tell it feels out of place. At least with The Gambler story it didn't feature anything out of place timeline wise and could happen during other stories.

Casting was a let down too, they waited too long to the point where some cast members died, and even more a problem was that they didn't want to "wait" for Clive Owen to finish up on another film, so they just slapped a damn wig and make up on Josh Brolin and that was supposed to be his big change?? Michael Madsen turning down the film too, in a universe that's supposed to feel connected with the events surrounding these characters, it sadly lacked that where the cast changes made people think they were new characters.

I mean how good of a pay off would it be after the first film where Dwight talks about having a new face, etc, and then to see Clive Owen's Dwight step off the train after Josh Brolin's underwent extreme heavy facial surgery? It should've been a "ooooh" moment, but instead it was a "is that Josh Brolin in a wig and bad makeup?".

 

[NekoFever]

I had to go and check the synopsis on Wikipedia to remember whether I'd watched it. I had. Probably says a lot.

I didn't dislike it. Just wasn't as good as the first and was apparently very forgettable.