Sin City: A Dame to Kill For - Analysis and Review

Too little too late

I've been waiting for this movie for 9 years. I can't believe that the first Sin City came out in 2005 while I'm writing the review of the second one in 2014. That is insane.

The Plot

A hot shot on a winning streak (Joseph Gordon-Levitt) plays a deadly game with the wrong man (Powers Boothe). Elsewhere, a broken man (Josh Brolin) rekindles an old flame (Eva Green) whose intentions may not be what he expects them to be. While all of this is going on, a stripper (Jessica Alba) is losing her mind after the loss of someone she loves (Bruce Willis) as a hulking brute (Mickey Rourke) watches all three paths go down the way they do.

Analysis

The first Sin City was an eye opener for me. It was the first movie to actually faithfully adapt a comic book with extreme detail. From shot composition to the dialogue spoken, it wasn't a movie. We were literally watching a comic book come to life. Not like superhero movies of the early 2000s that only take a few things from the comics then add a lot of things to make it something watchable for the general audience. The first Sin City wasn't thinking about the general audience. Directors Robert Rodriguez, Quentin Tarantino and original creator Frank Miller were thinking of how do we make this come to life. Not how do we adapt this comic to the screen. How do we make it move on the big screen. Not work. Move.

Its success became a rallying cry among comic book fans who pointed out that being faithful to the comic books does work. It lead to two other comics that are 85-90% faithful to their source material in the form of 300 (another Frank Miller creation) and Watchmen, both directed by current DC Comics film overseer Zack Snyder. It would also bring about the Marvel Cinematic Universe which has been considered to be mostly faithful to their properties in a way that other studios have not been. Bryan Singer's X-Men may have been the first film to prove that comic books can be the source of great dramatic material, but it is Frank Miller's Sin City that showed faithfulness to the comic can indeed transcend the pages of the comic to the big screen.

However, given that it has been 9 years since that rallying cry of creating better comic book adaptations, the luxury of having something like Sin City is no longer wanted.

Review

This film came out too late. Would it have been better received if it was released a couple of years after the first one? Just a little bit better. But the wait and the loss of interest in this project can be felt. The Box Office Numbers show it. And as a huge fan of the original Sin City, I have to agree. The wait is not worth it. It's not just the long wait that made this movie so so, it is the handling of the narratives within the story.

In the first story we got Johnny, played by a charismatic Joseph Gordon Levitt, who is literally the embodiment of victory when it comes to games. His feeling of having endless good luck on the slots and card games puts him up against Senator Roark played very evilly by Powers Boothe. His story was cut in half, acting like book ends sandwiching the titular "Dame to Kill For" story in between. Because of this the emotional impact of what happens to him is not really felt. It could be because his story doesn't have any large impact on anyone, even in the first half of the story. Had this story been really strong, then when the second half came back, the emotional impact would have made the conclusion a lot more satisfying. But it just wasn't. It probably would've been better to just play his story all the way through, but in the end it just didn't feel necessary. No matter how much you like Joseph Gordon Levitt, you will definitely like his character but you will not care about his story.

Then there is the second main story that takes up a majority of the film known as the "A Dame to Kill For" story. As I stated before, it cuts through the turning point of Johnny's story and takes up a large portion of the film. This story marks the return of Dwight McCarthy played by Clive Owen in the previous Sin City but in here he is now played by Josh Brolin. In it he finds himself entangled in a web of lies created by his former mostly naked lover Ava played by Eva Green. Through her manipulation of Dwight and every other man she comes into contact with, it all spirals out of control into a savage retribution story that we know will not end well for Ava. It is the longest story out of the many that are shown in this film, yet at a certain point you want it to end. As nice as it is to see Eva Green naked 90% of the time she's on screen, it almost becomes boring to look at her. And while Brolin does a nice job as Dwight, I do have to wonder why Clive Owen didn't come back when his rendition was suppose to appear. As comic book fans know, the Dwight in this story would later transform into the Dwight seen in the previous movie, but trying to transform Josh Brolin into Clive Owen just doesn't work.

Then there is the final major story that takes place after Johnny's and Dwight's which is referred to as Nancy's Last Dance. In this story, Jessica Alba reprises her role as the stripper with heart of gold named Nancy, who is suffering from the loss of her one true love, Hartigan played by Bruce Willis. Hartigan appears as a ghost in the story, but is unable to comfort the girl who loves him as he watches her go crazy. So crazy to the point where she decides to kill Senator Roark, the man responsible for Hartigan's death. This is definitely the best acting that Alba has done, but given the length of the story and how most of her screen presence throughout the movie consists of her doing sexy dancing, she didn't have enough time to grow. Which is a shame, because as the big finisher of this movie, you'd think it would be longer and more exciting.

I shouldn't really compare this movie to the first one. but it has to be done. In the previous movie, the stories were all given enough time to breathe and were able to complete their runs from start to finish before the next one takes over. Even the opening short story of the first one was more compelling than the cartoon violence opening of this film. In here, the stories have uneven lengths and it is never really sure when their stories end. I'm sure the cast is having fun doing this film, but for some reason this film looks like a complete step back from the previous one. It feels fake. Unlike the previous one that feels like a comic book, this one just looks cheap and poorly made. The action scenes in this one look even more unrealistic compared to the stylized action in the first one. It just becomes jarring and could easily remove an audience member from the experience.

The only good thing about this movie was Mickey Rourke as Marv, but even then his compelling character from the first movie devolves into being observer and muscle in this movie.

Final Thoughts

This was a huge let down. The 9 year gap didn't help this movie. And in a world where comic book movies  evolved, this movie didn't seem to evolve with it. It is stuck where it was back then, and while that is more attributed to them being trapped in the boundaries of the comic book, it really shows how far we've come from wanting faithful adaptations of comic books. We seem to have grown past the literal faithfulness and just want faithfulness. This film is more of a cheap imitation to what the first one is. Still made with the same mindset in mind, but that is probably why it failed. And given it has to remain trapped in that mindset, then this film should've came out earlier than later.

SCORE: 4/10 - A big disappointment yet still looks cool but will get boring

300: Rise of an Empire - Analysis and Review

The return of the Historically Inaccurate Manly Movie!

300 was a movie that spawned a rebirth of stylized slow-mo action films back in 2007. It along with Sin City (both the comic book creations of author Frank Miller) also helped upsurge the comic book film genre and the hyper stylized green screen filmmaking. Both were considered revolutionary at the time that they were made as well as being lauded for being literally accurate to the text and images of their respective graphic novels. But the key words there should be "at the time."

The Plot

In this follow up to the original smash hit, Rise of an Empire shows a different side of the war. While Leonidas and the Spartans held the Persians back at the Hot Gates, the Athenian Navy held the Persians back from making complete landfall on Greece. Leading the charge of the Athenians is the military commander Themistocles (Sullivan Stapleton) who goes against Persia's most vicious naval command and military genius, Artemisia (Eva Green). While the Spartans may rule the land, the Athenians rule the seas in an epic battle that will stain the ocean with blood!

Analysis

It is a wonderful thing to be considered a "revolutionary" film. Whether small or big, if something comes along and then others try to emulate, then that film really should be called revolutionary. Unfortunately, that usually means imitators are to come. Now, the TV Show Spartacus may be a stylistic rip off of the testosterone, blood shedding, female nudity bonanza of 300. Coming off of the 300 craze there was a definite need to fill that void and Spartacus does that. But like The Matrix caused an abuse of bullet time, 300 would result to an abuse of "ramping." As in the action slows down then speeds up then slows down to put emphasis on a certain attack. It works wonders the first time it is seen, but when used over and over again it is clear that there is not much originality with action. At least it is not as bad as the shaky cam action introduced in the Bourne Films.

Then of course there is the other subject that has to be addressed: Historical Inaccuracy. I can argue that the narrative of the 300 graphic novel was meant to be a visual propaganda storytelling by a soldier trying to rally his troops for war. So of course the story is exaggerated and the enemy is made out to be monstrous. Though in the movie they took the "monstrous" portion of the propaganda to the extreme. But then again the best propaganda does make the enemy literal monsters. And that's how the story was intended. A soldier rallying his troops by telling them an exaggerated story of true events that make them feel superior and the opposing party as monsters. Unfortunately because of the times we live in, people will not see it that way and they have every right to see it that way.

The Persian Empire were not monsters and they were in fact more civilized than the Greeks who were known for keeping slaves, something the films and the comic completely leave out. But because the movies is visual propaganda to serve the movie's storyteller, it does come off as a literal propaganda against modern Persians. It is their right to take offense in this. I have a Persian friend who is offended by this. But at the same time I could say that I should be offended by Act of Valor for portraying Filipinos as monsters. But I'm not. And is it the same thing? No, because at least the Filipinos still looked Filipino whereas the Persians in 300 look like monsters. But this brings me to another point. Everyone is capable of being a monster, but it takes an intelligent person to see that. It also takes an intelligent person to know that this movie is not by any means trying to be historically accurate nor claim that this is historical truth. It is a film that is meant to just give a simple message of freedom is worth fighting for but the characters just happen to be based on real historical people.

But does this sequel have the same message? Well...

Review

I enjoyed the film. That doesn't mean I think it is good. But I enjoyed it enough to where I think it meets up to the standards of the previous film. But it doesn't surpass it. The fact that the most memorable scene in the movie is the ultra violent and extremely hot sex scene between Eva Green's Artemisia and Sullivan Stapleton's Themistocles, and I mean this is one of the hottest sex scenes I've ever seen in recent films so far, then that kind of tells you something about the rest of the film.

Zack Snyder was working on Man of Steel when this film was in production so directing duties got passed on to Israeli director, Naom Murro, who does an adequate job of mimicking Snyder's style from the first film. But that's where the problem lies, the director was mimicking the exact same style from the first film. That shouldn't be a problem when dealing with a sequel, but when the notion of bringing in a new director to take on an established property usually means something has to be changed. The stylistic difference between Kenneth Branagh's Thor and Alan Taylor's Thor: The Dark World are obvious but they still feel like they're related and connected. Murro doesn't show a distinct style difference or flair here the way Snyder does when he was at the helm. This may not be his fault as this is his first foray into large action epics having only directed a romantic comedy previously. And while the Naval Battles are indeed fantastic there wasn't really a memorable moment that stood out. All the action was just fine and acceptable entertainment for the time. I could even say that it wasn't as gory as the last movie. Hmmmm.

Usually I'd go on to say how the actors are incredible, but for this film that praise only belongs to one person: Eva Green. She comes in to this saga as Artemisia, a Greek Woman who was forced into slavery then rescued by Persians who would then breed her into the ultimate military genius. It is interesting that the film would acknowledge that the Greeks had slaves yet completely ignore it when they keep establishing that the Persians are the ones who enslaved people. So that was a little odd, but it is her backstory. And Eva Green fully loses her self in the role. She is a powerful presence who remains in one's memories well after the movie is over. She is the ultimate villain, far more interesting and scarier than King Xerxes from the previous film, who in here even he has reason to fear her. And like I said, her sex scene with Stapleton's Themistocles is incredible and extremely hot. And I saw that in IMAX 3D with a lady friend who dragged me to movie... Thank you IMAX 3D.

Which brings me to Sullivan Stapleton. The only memorable thing about him in the film was he was the guy who got the savage warrior woman to bend over. But I really have to place a lot of blame to the script more than his acting. His character is not Leonidas and his army is not the Spartan army of killers but an army of ordinary people who really want to fight for their people. So he's not as testosterone fueled on overdrive as Leonidas but rather a smart and caring leader who does worry when his troops die. This would work great if Gerard Butler's Leonidas was not a precedence. It leaves Themistocles and his forgettable supporting Athenian cast looking like terrified soldiers rather than the manly blood thirsty soldiers introduced in the previous film. While it does offer a clear distinction that Sparta really is different from Athens, that distinction lacks the punch this film needs.

Final Thoughts

This is an enjoyable passable entertainment. It is not a history lesson so don't view it that way. This is more like a historical fantasy imagined by a teenage boy who just discovered that girls look better naked. That is not necessarily an insult, but that's how it feels like. It is still entertaining and weirdly enough it can be edited with the previous 300 film into a single 3 hour epic. It is possible to do that with these two films. And that would be incredible. But as a standalone, it is just okay.

SCORE: 6.7/10 - Eva Green is ridiculously hot... oh yeah and cool action