Is almost ten years too long to go between
making a sequel of a movie that not many people went to the
theater to see in the first place? Yeah… I think
so. I'm one of those that saw Robert Rodriguez's first
'Sin City' in the theater, and I enjoyed it. The look,
the feel, the style… the movie had some chutzpah, that much I
have to say. Many, many more saw the movie when it was
released to DVD and a large number of those people also
enjoyed the movie. So if the Powers that Be were to make
a sequel to this movie just a year or two later, after all
these people loved it on DVD, it might've had a chance.
Yes, this sequel might be a little lackluster, say like 'Sin
City: A Dame to Kill For' is a little lackluster, but it had a
chance. Ten years after the fact… not so much.
This version of 'Sin City' seems a little more disjointed than
the last one, if I remember correctly… it has been a number of
years… starting off with Marv (Mickey Rourke) eviscerating
some asshole college kids. No real purpose to this
particular scene other than to remind us what psycho whackjob
Marv is.
Now it's off to that strange gogo club where nobody gets naked
to watch Nancy (Jessica Alba) do her dance. All Nancy
really wants to do is kill the completely hateful Senator
Roarke (Powers Boothe) for the death her father (Bruce
Willis)… who is floating in this movie earning some easy
money… but alas she just can't bring herself to do this
thing. Back to her later.
Who we really need to focus on is Dwight, who no longer looks
like Clive Owen but now bears a shocking resemblance to Josh
Brolin. Something about plastic surgery. I can't
remember. Dwight is a photographer who takes dirty
pictures of bad people doing bad things, until he gets a call
from the Dame this title speaks of, that being the beguiling
bag of beautiful trouble called Ava, as played by the
beguiling Eva Green. We love us some Eva Green here at
the FCU because she has become a Market of One. That
being the respected actress who is completely shameless.
I do believe she is the only one of those working today.
Twenty or so years ago, that actresses name was Nicole
Kidman.
Anyway… Ava, who completely devastated
Dwight's heart some years ago, is being abused by her husband
and would like Dwight to help her out of this situation.
Dwight tries to fight it, says no, but this is a woman who has
an aversion to underwear and a love of being soaking wet, and
as such, she usually gets what she wants. Lots of stuff
happens, and stylistic violence and beheadings will occur in
the process of this stuff.
Then there's the story of poor Johnny (Joseph Gordon Levitt)
who also hates Senator Roarke, but for completely different
reasons than Nancy. Johnny is a lucky, lucky young
man. Lucky in love, cards, slots, plus he can take care
of himself in a pinch. But watching Johnny and his plans
to take on Roarke, Johnny just doesn't look to be all that
bright.
Then we circle back to Nancy who has decided to attempt to
deal with Roarke once and for all. She mutilated her
face before she did this. That made us sad.
'Sin City' circa 2005 was a revelation. Stylish, bold,
unique, creative, inventive… there were those out there
who didn't care for it, but that film stood out in a middle of
a crowd and demanded that you pay attention to it. 'Sin
City' circa 2014, I am sad to say, is an also-ran. It
has most of the same things that the original had, minus a few
actors who failed to show up due to other commitments or
tragic death, but it's no longer unique. Now 'Sin City'
has to rely on its story to get us over since its trump card
of Style will no longer be enough. It's possible the
original had a scattershot, unfocused narrative as well, but I
sure don't remember that being the case.
Not say there's not a lot of goodness in this film, with Josh
Brolin, Eva Green, Joseph Gordon Levitt, Rosario Dawson and
Mickey Rourke chewing up and spitting out this pulpy nonsense
like a square of Bubble-Yum. The look and feel, while no
longer fresh, is still something to see, Rodriguez moves this
thing on greased rails… but it's still not fast enough to
cover up the scattershot narrative… and it is still
pretty ballsy. And it's not like we weren't entertained
by it a little bit.
It's just that nine years is an awful lot of prep time for
what we ended up getting with 'Sin City: A Dame to Kill
For'. If this had been released like around 2007, all
those shortcomings that we were acutely aware of today would
certainly still be there, but we they would've been far easier
to ignore and I'm almost positive we would've had more fun
watching it.
