Originally posted by Lestov16
Seriously? You guys give up money to Michael Bay but won't see this actually good film in theaters? Perfect example of why Hollywood is being ruined.
Yeah, I tend to agree. But I skipped this just because of seeing some lackluster reviews. I feel ashamed now that I hear it's good. I will see it soon. But don't worry, I definitely don't support Michael Bay.
Potential spoilers ahead:
Um, in a lot of ways it was more of the same. I didn't hate it, but something did feel missing. I feel like something a little more epicly corrupt should have been going on with Rourke and all that, instead of just picking on poor little Joseph-Gordon Levitt. That turned out to be kind of lame. But I liked a lot of Josh Brolin's action and there seemed to be some sort of "eye removal" theme going through the movie. I guess I didn't really like Eva Green's character... I mean, I know we're not supposed to like her, but it just seems like we just saw her playing an evil b!tch in the 300 sequel, so it didn't feel fresh. But I kind of liked how Nancy was growing up a bit and wanted revenge. That was interesting, but it was also a little bit of a let down at the end because did she reap bloody revenge or not?? And if she did, then goddamnit why didn't we get to see the bloody aftermath??!!
That being said, I didn't like the first one a whole lot the first time I saw it, but it grew on me after another viewing or two. So this one might be the same. I certainly won't give up on it.
Nancy's final little dance would have been worth the price of admission, though....
Originally posted by Patient_Leech
Potential spoilers ahead:Um, in a lot of ways it was more of the same. I didn't hate it, but something did feel missing. I feel like something a little more epicly corrupt should have been going on with Rourke and all that, instead of just picking on poor little Joseph-Gordon Levitt. That turned out to be kind of lame. But I liked a lot of Josh Brolin's action and there seemed to be some sort of "eye removal" theme going through the movie. I guess I didn't really like Eva Green's character... I mean, I know we're not supposed to like her, but it just seems like we just saw her playing an evil b!tch in the 300 sequel, so it didn't feel fresh. But I kind of liked how Nancy was growing up a bit and wanted revenge. That was interesting, but it was also a little bit of a let down at the end because did she reap bloody revenge or not?? And if she did, then goddamnit why didn't we get to see the bloody aftermath??!!
That being said, I didn't like the first one a whole lot the first time I saw it, but it grew on me after another viewing or two. So this one might be the same. I certainly won't give up on it.
Nancy's final little dance would have been worth the price of admission, though....
In a movie & graphic novel series with so much grotesque imagery and leering sleaze, the most illogical thing to see is a stripper who doesn't take her top off - we can thank Jessica Alba's No Nudity clause in her contract for that. 🙄
The first film bored me somewhat as a fan of the original series, simply because it was so slavishly devoted to being a panel by panel adaption there was nothing new to chew on (Zack Snyder got a bit more room for interpretation for 300, by comparison.) I had no interest in the long-delayed second film, because Frank Miller has become a one trick pony who can't get his head out of Sin City and can't seem to do anything new. That the movie bombed critically and commercially seems like justice.
Lol, we didn't really need to see her t!ts. I didn't mind. We saw plenty of Eva Green's, haha...
Well, I can't really blame Frank Miller too much, because Sin City is such a great world. It has such potential. But I don't think that potential was quite reached with A Dame To Kill For. Shame it bombed, because I would like to see more personally, even if this one was somewhat underwhelming.
Originally posted by roughrider
I had no interest in the long-delayed second film, because Frank Miller has become a one trick pony who can't get his head out of Sin City and can't seem to do anything new. That the movie bombed critically and commercially seems like justice.
Jesus...no writer or graphic artist gets into the industry thinking that one day their work will go from paper to big screen.
If you saw Miller's earlier work it was condemned as un-commercial, his style, un-comical.
No where in Miller's career did he ever envision his Sin City series to become big screen features with respected actors attached to it, nor his take on Batman to become the bible & major influence to future comic book writers/artists much less the big screen as well.
One trick pony?
How about a lucky sonofabitch who's finally received credit for something he enjoys doing?
I wouldn't call, Miller a one trick, Pony but i do think his success has kept him from realizing new great works. With that said i can never reference Millers cinematic contributions in the same category as his comic achievements. I would like to see Miller as an advisor only when it comes to cinema. The Spirit was one of the worst movies i had to sit through. At any rate, i recently tried watching, A Dame to kill for and i fell asleep mid way through. So i will wait until, or if, i ever finish the movie. From what i saw, however, it seemed to undermine what the original established. Everyone seemed like they were just going by the numbers.
