Sin City: A Dame to Kill For (2014)

The greatest movie ever made..!

Let's be realistic.

It's fun, it's light, [but] it has a hard time when its tries to get heavy.

While it doesn't offer any answers, it both thrills and makes you think.

It's funny. Sin City was a semi-film noir, and was pretty popular. The sequel, Sin City 2 IS a film noir - and people didn't like it.Personally, I thought it was better than the original.One thing stands out though: why were Jessica Alba and Rosario Dawson billed higher that Eva Green, since this movie is about her? She's luminous, in one of her "goth" performances, and stunning in the role. Mickey Rourke yet again shows that he is the premier "heavy" in Hollywood today as Marv. And Powers Boothe shows that he still makes most "corrupt" actors look like amateurs. His sneer is award-worthy. The plot, action scenes and look of the film are as distinctive as the first film, and the plot twists are even stronger. Perhaps that's why this one isn't as well-liked? Because you actually have to think? Who knows. It's a good movie. I add my standard disclaimer (and rip) that anyone who reviewed this film based on seeing on TV didn't really see the movie and has no basis to review it. This film, like most, must be seen on a movie screen, not a "device" or some 36" TV screen.

"A Dame to Kill For" is in every way a copy of "Sin City", just telling a different story. The same team is "behind the camera", and in front of it part of the actors from the first movie reprise their roles, enriched with some other big names, such as Joseph Gordon-Levitt, magnificent Eva Green, Ray Liotta i Christopher Meloni. The only disappointment is recasting of Dwight, although Josh Brolin did a very good job. I consider "Sin City" one of the greatest movies of all time, so it could be assumed that this is a ten too. But it doesn't work like that. A perfect ten, in addition to quality in all aspects, must have something of its own, characteristic, something that stands out from the mass, which will be remembered and that will resist tooth of time. This movie, however good, is a copy of the first one that does not bring anything new and, even if it does not fall into oblivion, it will be remembered as a copy. Extremely good, maybe even as good as the original, but still a copy. I think its bad ratings are not based on objective quality, but on the disappointment of the spectators who expected to be blown away in the way that the first film did. But the same people who was amazed by "Sin City" in 2005 can hardly be amazed ten years later by exactly the same things. If they came out in reverse order it is possible that the ratings would be reversed too. Personally, I think that the film is top-notch in every way, but the effect of "already seen" affects me too, so I have to distance it from the original.8,5/10

The original "Sin City" movie is currently ranked as one of the best movies of all time on this website. While I saw it and didn't find it to be great, I had no problem with it. I actually enjoyed this one. I admit that its main problem is how confusing it is with the first movie. It actually has scenes that take place both before and after the original movie, so it's kind of like a "The Godfather Part II" thing. While that film obviously did it better, I really did like this. It helps that there are so many wonderful actors in this. I'm kind of a sucker for stuff with Joseph Gordon-Levitt and Christopher Lloyd. Wait, they were in "Angels In The Outfield"! What a strange movie reunion.The film just looks beautiful. While I still like the first one better, it's great to see all this cool action and interesting scenarios play out. It's not as much an anthology series as the original film as the characters do interact with each other. It is less confusing that way. Still, the original was better done. I still love the outgoing color effects in this film. Everything just sticks out so perfectly and the atmosphere is great. While a lot of people didn't like it, I myself would recommend it. ***

Like the first "Sin City" film, this one is made up of sub-stories that, in some way or another, tie in to the main plot.There seems to be a difference of opinion on whether this is a good film or not. The reviews are mixed, tilting negative, with many praising that same great look but saying the sequel is "dull". I can understand that, but I love that these characters are given more time to tell their stories and I hope a part three will happen (though that seems unlikely).If the film has any shortcoming, it is that certain aspects are both a sequel and a prequel to the original film. That tends to make the chronology a bit more complicated. Now, if there was a way to mix this film with the first, and straighten out the plot in some ways (though not all), maybe that would balance it out. Of course, because of Manute, that won't happen.