I think sometimes when we see something different in filmaking that we tend to overrate it quite a large amount. And no, I'm not saying that anything that fits into this category such as the Christopher Nolan Dark Knight trilogy (2005-2012), Paranormal Activity (2007) which in particular was inventive at first and now has just turned into every other cash-cow horror franchise like SAW (2004-) or Final Destination (2000-) and yes...unfortunatley the highly stylised and praised Sin City (2005) is slightly overpraised. But was the first of the two movies based upon Frank Miller's popular graphic novels bad? OH HELL NAW! In fact, if I did make a long list of my favourite films I would likley put Robert Rodriguez's foray into the noire in 2005 somewhere between 30th and 25th place somewhere between Spy Kids 2: Island of Lost Dreams (2002) and Home Alone (1990).
Now is that to say that there are few flaws in Sin City? Well...for a noire, comic-book adaptation its near pitch perfect with the gratuitous comic-style violence and sex attributable to Mr Miller in his other works such as the 300 graphic novels all up in your face in that lovable mid-2000's underrated comic-book film-style offset by some great acting on the part of Mickey Rourke, Bruce Willis, Owen Wilson, Rosario Dawson, Benicio Del Toro and even a little skit of intimidating brilliance from the now deceased Michael Clarke Duncan who despite lukewarm peformances in overly-hated films like Daredevil (2003, and no...that does not mean that I think Daredevil is a good film, it is in fact heavily flawed and quite shit), you really can't fault Sin City for both trying and succeeding. Take into account all this despite a disjointed plot (which I guess was the main intention of the film and comic anyway), mysoginistic representation of women (which was bizarrley fitting considering the nature of the environs in which the characters find themselves in) and you have a respectable study of noire literature and films that doubles up as an action film.
Its kind of heartbreaking then that not only does Sin City: A Dame to Kill for fail to live up to the somewhat overrated but admitedly somewhat well-deserved appraisal of the original film but on top of this, A Dame to Kill for simply doesn't work (albeit not completley) as a singular film. Not only does the film fail to live up to the multiple-storylines shctick of the first film by only having two somewhat similar and lukewarm storylines (the first of which is far less interesting and way too long) and not feature enought of Mickey Rourke's ever imposing and memorable Marv or Del Toro's downright evilness from the first film but bits and bobs of info from the film contradict small details in the first film while new characters that we are only introduced 20 mins into the movie take up much of the film's runtime. Take into account as well the tepid acting from Josh Brolin and Jessica Alba, the slow-moving first storyline, the way-too-short second one, jerky movement in the signature black and white shillouete action segments that made the first film so iconic and awesome and top that off with one of the most disappointing and suddenly anti-climatic finales in history and you have a film that is fundamentally disappointing from about 15 mins in to the end. I make that last point because the first 15 mins include the vast majority of Mickey Rourke's underrated stint as good old Marv, without a doubt my favourite character and actor in this film.
Speaking of which, doesn't it strike anyone as odd that Marv is alive in both the first storyline which occurrs before the first film and the second one which ocurrs after? I know this was a theme in the movie that some parts occurred before and after the first film but this idea is conveyed so poorley and executed so poorley as well that it just outright seems like plot points from the first film don't matter anymore. Need I mention Manute's golden eye, Bruce Willis' character coming back as a ghost after dying to give some pointless exposition which has FUCKING NO IMPACT ON THE STORY WHATSOEVER or the odd issue of Clive Owen's character appearing noweher in the new film? I know this seems a little like nitpicking from someone who despite calling the first film overrated did really like it allot, but to be honest, there are so many points in the first film that I liked that this film pisses on (albeit in not as gratuitous a way as that) that I am compelled to just flat out dislike and hate the plot of A Dame to Kill for. Do note for fucks sake though that I am making a personal point here, for those of you who are caring more about the simple quality of this film, the last paragraph will mean squat to your viewing experience, I just wanted to vent a bit.
As mentioned cryptically before, the cast this time round is less impacting than in the last film. Before we had likeable peformances from the likes of Rourke and Willis and intimidating turns from Owen and Duncan as well as Toro's aforementioned despicable peformance as 'Jackey boy' but now a cast of lacklusture peformances even from actors from the first film like Jessica Alba make much of the more sombre moments of the film fall flat. Addmittedly there is one new peformance in the shape of the sublime and absolutley stunning Eva Green who as in the other film sequel to one of the adaptations of Frank Miller's works 300: Rise of an Empire (2014), eats up the screen and any scenes she inhabits like I do when I'm hungry to a piping hot lasange with great facial expression, composure and sizzling sex appeal. On top of Green's peformance, we now also have the far more expanded peformance this time round of Powers Boothe as Senator Roark who more than makes up for the lack of Del Toro brilliance this time round with a truly despicable and evil character peformance which he just flat out wasn't able to give enought time to in the first film. In a similar fashion to Del Toro, Boothe rips apart other characters emotionally and physically with brutal abandon and is a delight to watch.
A pity then that HE'S LIMITED TO THE SHORTEST PART OF THE FUCKIN MOVIE! I know that he features in the middle a bit with Joseph-Gordon Levitt but that particular storyline comes and goes and his final showdown with Alba's Nancy at the end of the film is nothing short of anti-climactic. Needless to say from that outburst, the ending of the film is what really kills it for me. Despite a great action sequence leading up to it featuring Alba wielding a pump-action crossbow and Rourke beating the shit out of countless guards, the end of the film ends with a moment that feels like a cliffhanger but thematically is supposed to signal the end of Nancy's storyark.
Folks...I could go on and on pointing out this film's issues. There are less interesting characters, the action isn't as good as in the first film, the first storyline with Josh Brolin and Eva Green drags on too long, Levitt isn't given enough time to truly shine and any of the truly great peformances like Boothe's, Rourke's and Christopher 'doc' Lloyd's severley understay their welcomes. Would I recommend this film though? If you're simply looking for a good night out with your other half I would recommend it certainly. If you're looking for a good folloup to a pretty good film? Just watch the first film or hell even watch something like Touch of Evil (1958)...you'll get allot more out of it.
Characters/acting: 4/10
Plot/writing: 5/10
Directing: 7/10
Action: 6/10
Camerawork/SFX: 5/10
Total: 27/50
No comments:
Post a Comment