Sin City: A Dame to Kill For

The "Sin City" stories are the best thing to come out of comics since the 1990s. No question about it. The film version is also more than worthy. I wouldn't approach the two films as separate projects, but as a single unit, and I'm very comfortable with that. Acting wise, Eva Green reigns supreme with another unmistakable variation on Angelique from Dark Shadows, Jessica Alba has gone dark and the whores from the old town have the beautiful twins, wearing the face of Jaime King, in their midst. Julia Garner with her curly head is a delight too, and who else would one want to bind but Juno Temple? (06/09/2014)

The second to Sin City is again full of very suggestive and imaginative visuals, but story-wise it is noticeably weaker than its predecessor, which had the primacy of the first (and therefore novel) film. From the cast, the one who impressed me was Eva Green, who enjoyed her role properly. In short, a sequel that didn't need to be made at all, but then again I would be lying if I said that the screening was a waste of time. (22/09/2014)

I didn't believe that anything bad could be made out of this movie, but it really happened. The new plotlines that Miller wrote for the film are not particularly interesting and may be overly stylized. Especially the new Nancy is a monster. "A dame to kill for" lacks the necessary charge and the overall stylization feels strange to me. It's like it's a different "Sin City" than the first one, different in terms of approach and the actual filming. It still has good moments, but there are too few of them. Unfortunately, most of the characters are just decorative. (09/10/2014)

Not much has changed since the first part. And that’s despite that fact that ten years have passed since its release. Once again, the world of Sin City is brutal and unpleasant. It will literally make you vomit. Once again, all the people here are either guys who are ripped or half-naked chicks. Gallons of gray blood are dripping through the screen and there is the odd good moment, but that doesn’t save the entire movie like it did with the first part. But I must say I liked Josh Brolin’s character very much. I liked his cynical attitude to everything, which is something I miss in movies in general. But for instance, Eva Green’s acting performance was such that I’m starting to get pretty bored with her. She is exactly the same in everything. Tough, mean and cranky. I really like her as an actress, but too much is too much. Well and Bruce Willis? Could somebody please try and explain to me why he even makes an appearance in this movie? It didn’t make any sense whatsoever. He’s away throughout most of the story, then he shows up, says something and disappears again. He was probably there only for the effect. Which could be said about the entire movie. (27/08/2015)

My relationship with film is best illustrated by the fact that I managed to avoid it for almost 8 years after its premiere. Rodriguez has never been among my favorite directors, and even in moments of weakness, I only gave him a maximum of 3 stars, and with the passing years, I feel that I am moving further away from his work. Therefore, today I am much stricter when it comes to his films. Since the first trip to Sin City, Rodriguez has not advanced anywhere, and he hasn't understood anything or learned anything new. In this film, we can once again witness the failure of narrative techniques and the pitiful inability to work with characters. The film quickly becomes an unintentional parody of itself. Miller's exaggeratedly affected comic book vision needed cinematic cultivation and sensitive development of its world, not mechanical takeover and cramping literalness. Rodriguez did not become a visionary, but rather a discoverer and advocate of a typical dead-end in filmmaking. If it weren't for the fetishistically seductive visuals and the presence of Eva Green, who lends her deceptive femme fatale with confidence and wit like no other actress, I would rate it even lower. Overall impression: 35%. (27/12/2021)