Sin City: A Dame to Kill For (2014)

Sin City: A Dame to Kill For (2014)

GENRESAction,Crime,Thriller
LANGEnglish
ACTOR
Mickey RourkeJessica AlbaJosh BrolinJoseph Gordon-Levitt
DIRECTOR
Frank Miller,Robert Rodriguez

SYNOPSICS

Sin City: A Dame to Kill For (2014) is a English movie. Frank Miller,Robert Rodriguez has directed this movie. Mickey Rourke,Jessica Alba,Josh Brolin,Joseph Gordon-Levitt are the starring of this movie. It was released in 2014. Sin City: A Dame to Kill For (2014) is considered one of the best Action,Crime,Thriller movie in India and around the world.

Marv is unconscious on a highway surrounded by corpses. When he awakes, he has amnesia and tries to recall his last steps from the Kadie's saloon on the Saturday night. He recalls that he found four playboys burning a homeless man alive and defended the poor man. Marv hunts them down and kills the group. The cocky gambler Johnny hits jackpot in slot machines in the Kadie's saloon and invites the waitress Marcie to go with him to play poker game against the powerful Senator Roark. He wins the game and suffers the consequence of his arrogance. The private detective Dwight McCarthy is contacted by his former lover Ava Lord that asks to meet him at the Kadie's saloon. Ava asks him for forgiveness for leaving him to marry the wealthy Damian Lord. However her strong chauffeur Manute takes her home. Dwight snoops around Ava's house but is found and beaten by Manute and the bodyguards. When he returns home, Ava is waiting for him naked in the bed and seduces him again. Then she tells that ...

More

Sin City: A Dame to Kill For (2014) Reviews

  • Poor Sequel

    utgard142014-10-23

    Sin City was one of my favorite movies of the 2000s. A fun, creative film noir cartoon with unique visuals and a style all its own. The first problem you run into with this sequel is that it offers nothing new. It's a stylistic retread of the first movie, only less impressive. The visuals copy the first movie but somehow seem cheaper. The makeup effects aren't as good either, with Marv's jaw easily twice the size of the last movie. The action is weaker, with no memorable sequences and a final showdown that is derivative of the first movie. The other big problem is that the writing is very poor this time and the stories don't flow well together. The Dwight story is lame. The Johnny story is pointless. The Nancy story is impossible to take seriously, especially the ghost parts. Sadly, this movie is boring, listless, and disjointed. It's a movie that didn't need to be made. Still, it's always nice to see Eva Green naked. That's something that never gets old.

    More
  • I don't see why everyone hates it so much.

    jessemorrison992014-09-16

    *Minor spoilers involving structure of the film, no plot points* In short, it isn't nearly as bad as everyone is saying. Let me elaborate. In case people don't know, the first Sin City from 2005 was based on the 1st, 3rd and 4th books in the 7 part series by Frank Miller. These follow the story lines of Marv, Dwight and Hartigan respectively. In addition to those, there are also a few shorts thrown in, either from the books or not. So, needless to say, Sin City and its sequel are both anthology films. If you want one single story that takes 2 hours, this may not be your thing. Sin City 2 follows almost the exact same structure as the original, which I found nice. Sure they didn't do anything original with the structure, which was sort of playing it safe, but I liked it. It felt familiar and reminded me of the original which I loved very much. It begins with another short story, this time starring Marv. It rocks. It continues on with a new story not contained in any of the books. It stars Johnny, a gambler who "never loses". Mid way through, we cut to another story. This is the 2nd book, titled "A Dame to Kill For". If you've read this, you won't see anything new. Like with the first film, they essentially translated the story from page to screen, and it works for the most part. There was one detail I didn't like, but it doesn't last long. Then after that, we finish up the story with Johnny, and finally, we get to the revenge mission involving Nancy and her hunt for Senator Rourke. That's all I'll say about that. Everyone is complaining about how the movie looks like a cutscene from a video game. They are sort of right, but not entirely. Even after waiting 2 weeks, I was unable to find a theatre in my city showing the film in 2d. It seems like this is happening more and more now. If you want to see an action movie in theatres, it's 3d whether you like it or not. Now, having not seen a 2d version to make a comparison, I can say that the 3d is most likely what makes it look so video game-y. I'm sure in 2d it'll look slightly better at least. Update: I did see it in 1080p and in 2D, and it does look less like a video game cutscene. You can still tell that there's a lot of CGI, but it's done better than a lot of films. Also, greenscreen sets have been used for over a decade now, I don't see why people are complaining so much. Everything is a CGI-fest these days, and this story, with a fantastic setting and extraordinary physics pulls it off nicely. You can tell, but it's far from awful. Everyone is saying they loved the first one, but hated this one. I don't see how that's possible. They stuck very close to the original in most ways, such as cinematography, soundtrack, and directing, all of which were great (for a Sin City movie). Sure it isn't a masterpiece my any means, and it's not as good as the first, but it's super entertaining, very violent, and is sure to please anyone who enjoys the books or the first film. Forget all those jaded movie snobs saying it sucks. They're just focusing on all the negatives, and letting that cloud their vision of the awesome stuff.

    More
  • Bland.

    nagybalu2014-11-15

    I'd like to begin by saying the original 2005 Sin City is one of my favorite movies. The way it was put together, the cinematography, the characters, the dialogue...everything. It was truly a breakthrough film. This sequel however is a letdown. It's not the type of letdown where the product can't match the hype, it's just everything I enjoyed about the first movie turned over. Yes, A Dame to Kill For is still broken into chapters and shot in B/W with occasions flashes of color, and I loved the allusions to the previous film and comic books- however, in contrast to the rich character depth and storyline, the storyline(s) is flat, bland, and lacks the energy the dialogue contained in the previous film. Also, the storyline isn't remotely as interwoven as it was in the previous, the directors struggled to keep the chapters intertwined-the *only* connection being Kadie's Bar, which all of the characters visited at least once. I appreciated that Robert Rodriguez and Frank Miller attempted to bring humor into the mix, but Marv's second, "I hope you don't mind me saying this...." scene really doesn't belong in the movie. This was my first review I hope you like it, I know it's not perfect, but these are my thoughts in a nutshell.

    More
  • Not as good as the first one but still very solid and entertaining

    troymerig2014-08-21

    Let me begin by saying that the first Sin City is one of my favorite movies of all time. I thought it was an absolute blast to watch, and the filming style blew me away. A Dame to Kill For is the same type of movie as the first, but it is not executed quite as well. It may just be be cause the style lost some of its original appeal, but I thought it didn't live up to its predecessor. With that said, I still thought A Dame to Kill For was a great time at the movies. Everything about it was solid. It continued the action from the first and did not fail to keep me at the edge of my seat. And, Marv was his normal, b.a. self. A Dame to Kill for consists of two story lines that are prequels to those of the first Sin City and one that is a sequel. I felt that it delivered very well in its attempt to support what happened in the first movie. I would recommend re-watching the first one so that you're fresh for this. Sometimes you can forget the names if you haven't seen it in a while. Overall, this movie was great. If I had not seen the first Sin City, I would have been blown away. I give it a 8/10. A definite must-see.

    More
  • Good and entertaining... but lacks the novelty of the first.

    Frogfisher2014-08-20

    A Dame to Kill for is by no means a boring or bad film. It succeeds as a satisfying sequel to the far more novel and perhaps stronger Sin City... it is bloody, violent, beautifully made, with cool deep voices, nudity and clearly fitting into the film noir genre. Where it falls short is in the charactersationssliding a bit, the strength of two original stories, the change in actors and the gap between the first and second film. There is also a desperate need for more iconic moments which the Sin City comics and the film has plenty of, but they never really come in A Dame to Kill for. The characters seems less edgy, less strong charactered and some despite being far more stereotypical carries less of a punch. Especially Marv and Dwight who are the central characters fall a bit short. With Dwight almost feeling detached from the story he is the centre character of. I never thought I would find myself ever thinking that Owen over Brolin. Rourke however seems to have lost some of his edge again, but still causes plenty of mayhem. The new original story lines is probably as good as the rest, but it feels like we never get a very satisfying end out the first one of it especially because it plays as probably the most straightforward story with less of the iconic art work or stunning scenes put in it, it relies on Gordon-Hevitt's abilities more than anything else. The second original story however fairs better mostly due to Alba's dancing and Rourke's brute. If one has not recently seen Sin City and goes to see this it can be a bit hard putting things into place in it's sequel... most people benefit from having seen Sin City recently in order to truly enjoy the film's anachronistic narrative. It is an awesome film, I will not argue against that, and it does give people more of what they want from Sin City. And there is maybe couple of camels to swallow. But I think in time when seen in union with it's predecessor and sequel(s) it will come out stronger than it might appear now. I saw the 3D version and surprisingly it actually works well for the film, although I am sure the film would be just as good in 2D alone. It is worth seeing in the cinema, it has the scale/action/importance and beauty to justify that. It will not be remembered for it's visuals as much as Sin City, but it will be recognised for how it fits into the Sin City style.

    More

Hot Search

Related Search