Sin City : J'ai tué pour elle

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%. (2021-12-27)

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. (2015-08-27)

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. (2014-10-09)

More than a film proper, it is an add-on to the first one, or perhaps a "data disk", if you will. The original Sin City was incredibly stylish, innovative and pioneering in its time. The era when movies were improving on green screens and 3D effects became a trend is long gone, after all, 9 years is a long time, now all that is taken for granted. And so, the second installment looks cool at best, and that's it. The three confusingly edited stories are impersonal and you won't root for the heroes as you did before. Maybe you will admire Eva Green's and Rosario Dawson's boobs, maybe you will also like the laconic but action-oriented Mickey Rourke, but it definitely won't pin you to your seat. It is too sterile and boilerplate for that. (2014-09-11)

Pointless recycling of what we've seen before, but without any of the dramaturgical lightness and plot momentum of the unrivalled first film. The scenes are connected by rather flimsy bridges and the film as a whole doesn't escalate, surprise or even shock with a single bit of entertaining brutality, the kind the first one was packed to bursting with. The only thing that they managed to retain is the irresistible atmosphere of "sin and moral depravity" and the hilarity of Rourke's character, who’s amazing and could have carried the whole thing on his shoulders alone much, much better. This is just a dud, it can’t be denied... 50% (2015-10-10)