Great review, as usual. Only thing I differ in opinion with you is the miscast of Gordon-Levitt. Even though I hoped for a different outcome of the his story, but I guess I get the conflict it creates in the finale of the film.
Something I want to add is that it feels like less work was done on the elaborate costumes. Many characters were just 'to normal' compared to the first one. It all feels more rushed and less detailed. Which is weird with a 9 year time-gap.
But maybe my/our expectations are just too high after such a long wait.
ps. Gordon-Levitt isn't that young (33) and has been on screen for major projects since the 90s with the (in)famous 3rd rock series.
Review by DeletedBlockedParent2014-09-05T13:05:36Z
In 2005 Robert Rodriguez presented us with Sin City, a great cinematic work based on the graphic novels of Frank Miller, who brought something new with a very original style of Film Noir but with an absolutely brilliant visual concept. After nine years Robert Rodriguez returns to carry us to this "world of sin", and this time he is not alone, since Frank Miller leaves only the writing to join him in direction.
In Sin City: A Dame To Kill For, Frank Miller wrote two unpublished tales purposely for the film and two other already existing in his works. The problem is that they all does not seem to have the same impact of the first film. The originality, vitality and energy of the first film is not reflected in this one.
It remains brutal, violent and visually is definitely worth seeing on the big screen, but when it comes to the characters, can not be as strong and charismatic, and the story always seems to be unsatisfactory given each end. The interest that is awakened in each one of us is not even close to what the first film managed to make to the audience. Despite being entertaining, sometimes we find ourselves kind of bored.
The characters we already know from the previous film are not as solid or raise as much interest as the first. As for the characters introduced for the first time, they do not have the same strength and effectiveness. With a cast full of pretty big names, many of the actors are underused having very little time on screen.
I was expecting to see how Joseph Gordon-Levitt would be in this project. He is one of the young actors I most like to see on the screen today and after all this kind of role does not seem to fit well in his profile. That does not mean that he had a bad performance, but it was simply a bad choice of role I guess. Eva Green is the only one who can give the film a certain feeling of seduction and danger, she is totally the femme fatale but the overuse of nudity (nothing against it, I have no problem about it) despite they are quite artistic, just made the most important segment in the entire film turned into something inelegant. Eva Green's performance however is the best of the film, she can be all that her character requires, sensual, engaging and totally fatal.
What was missing in Sin City: A Dame To Kill For was the same attitude, enthusiasm and freshness of the first film. Perhaps the fact that they had waited nine years to make a sequel also was not the best decision.