The original "Sin City" movie is currently ranked as one of the best movies of all time on this website. While I saw it and didn't find it to be great, I had no problem with it. I actually enjoyed this one. I admit that its main problem is how confusing it is with the first movie. It actually has scenes that take place both before and after the original movie, so it's kind of like a "The Godfather Part II" thing. While that film obviously did it better, I really did like this. It helps that there are so many wonderful actors in this. I'm kind of a sucker for stuff with Joseph Gordon-Levitt and Christopher Lloyd. Wait, they were in "Angels In The Outfield"! What a strange movie reunion.The film just looks beautiful. While I still like the first one better, it's great to see all this cool action and interesting scenarios play out. It's not as much an anthology series as the original film as the characters do interact with each other. It is less confusing that way. Still, the original was better done. I still love the outgoing color effects in this film. Everything just sticks out so perfectly and the atmosphere is great. While a lot of people didn't like it, I myself would recommend it. ***

I enjoyed the first movie for exactly what it was and watched the sequel expecting pretty much more of the same which is what I got. Sin City a dame to kill for is the follow up to the 2005 movie, most of the cast returns reprising their original roles while the corrupt nature of the city is further explored. Like the original the movie is divided into different segments that are loosely connected in some cases and heavily in others. This structuring works similar to the original though not as well certain segments are split when they probably shouldn't of been which kind of hurts the momentum. Despite this the movie does have a hidden narrative the descent of Nancy as every story at least glimpses her showcasing her increasing aggression, elements of her arc even appear in other stories, more on Nancy when we reach her segment.The movie is divided into three stories and a prologue the prologue is so short you really can't count it, though it is a fun opening that reintroduces us to Marv in great fashion. The first story called The Long night an original story not part of the comic features Joseph Gordon Levitt who plays a charming young man with a talent for gambling and a case of good luck his skills and luck ultimately pit him against Senator Roark, in a rather intriguing struggle. While short this story works as a brief tale and unravels at a fast pace with a rather unexpected yet satisfying ending. Powers Booth delivers a strong performance as Roark in this section giving Sin City a villain presence it has sorely lacked.The second story is the titled dame to kill for and this story is definitely the highlight of the movie and in my opinion the strongest segment in both movies. Josh Brolin does a good job as Dwight filling in for Clive Owen, while Mickey Roark returns in a larger role as Marv and as awesome and lovable as ever. Unfortunately the great Micheal Clark Duncan passed but Dennis Haysbert does a good job filling in as Manute. The girls of old town return as well and as sexy and deadly as they ever were. However the star of this segment is Eva Green as Ava Lord she really knocks it out of the park with this role embodying everything a true femme fatale is and gives the franchise it's most memorable villain. The story is well paced and takes up about half the movie and it's worth it all, this segment alone makes the movie worth seeing truly some of the best material of either movies.The final story is Nancy's last dance. This story contains some of the most intriguing parts of the movie as we watch as Hartigans death causes Nancy to slowly spiral downwards, we see as she becomes more angry bitter and full of hatred intriguingly enough Nancy's descent is mostly shown through her dances at the club as each one gradually loses the beauty it had and becomes more sexual and aggressive to the point that Marv becomes disgusted at what she is becoming. These sections are very good seeing Nancy fall apart through her grief and her rage towards Roark and Hartigan raises the character stuff above most Sin City stories. Unfortunately it kind of falls apart once Nancy sets out on her revenge the action is good but it all comes off as very rushed and we aren't given the same level of closure as in the first especially regarding Nancy's character who definitively needed more of a resolution to her story. As such Nancy's last dance delivers many of the best parts of the movie with a pretty good performance by Jessica Alba but it doesn't reach it's full potential because the end point is rushed.So where does this put the movie exactly? The performances are about the same and story quality is similar the A Dame to kill for segment as I said is probably better than anything in the first movie, Nancy's last dance gives a great and dark arc to Nancy and the villains are far more memorable these areas not only match the first but actually exceed it however the segments aren't broken as well as they could be and don't have the same level of connection in particular the long night and Nancy's last dance should've been one story as bits of Nancy's story even are shown in the former just do a little more to connect them and it could work they are just too short separately and of course Nancy's last dance was rushed. So when you weight out these two sides I would say it the two movies are about equal, A Dame to kill For matches and even exceeds the first in many areas but it also falls short more often than the first did where that leaves it for me is about the same level as the original maybe a little lower. Either way Sin City a Dame to kill for was a solid follow up to the original that fans should check out.7.5/10

I could tell there was something wrong with this film just by the way it started. There is this sense in the air. A muddled script, nonsensical plot, confusing timelines...Mickey Rourke looks so old in this film. I think one of the issues with making a sequel like this is that it took too long to be produced. Between the 8 years the former actor playing Minute died of a heart of attack in 2012, Clive Owen probably read the script for the character Dwight and presumably didn't want to reprise the role (which I don't blame him), and Bruce Willis shows up to play a ghost probably for a sweet paycheck. Jordan Gordon Levitt is also mistaking cast into this film who does a poor job trying to act. I'm not even sure I can talk about the story because it's very incoherent. Mostly because if you haven't seen (or read) any of the chapters in the previous film recently, you are constantly trying to piece together how it all fits in. The shock and awe that comes from the gory film noir and classic black and white canvas style shots are still here with a stunning return; but the violence is mindlessly carried out to excess without purpose. Some of the best kinds of tricks it can pull are pulled and run into the ground--into futility. Such as the touches of coloring. Look, coloring is a powerful tool in film--and Sin City is all about how tints, shadows, and light affect the picture. When they added touches of color it really sent a vibe to pay attention to that particular object. But in the very first 20 minutes an ongodly amount of light and color is shoved onto the portion of the screen that is the empty space and not the center of attention. It doesn't make sense thematically. Moreover, sometimes the color would annoyingly disappear and reappear in the same shot. Also, voice over is overused. There's no cadence to the words spoken anymore--it chokes up your ears and incessantly tells you what's happening rather than what the characters are feeling. Granted it sometimes does both now--but it's a crutch that doesn't need to be too gratuitous all the time, every time. I'm not making this review to just talk about color and voice-overs--I'm just trying to make a point. The film-makers responsible here wanted to shove something out there that obviously was not meant to be. And you feel with a project like this they decided to put any type of creative spin to make it work. The re-casting of the former's roles do not hold up. The story is not as poignant or interesting as they were in the last film. And I feel as if they had just tried harder to make this sequel sooner rather than later--perhaps it would be a different story. Then again sequels like this are mostly a cash grab but you get a sense that the filmmakers who let the former success go to their heads. Yeah, they want to make something good--but it's likely they wanted to make a sequel just because they like writing and directing movies like this. So when 'The Spirit' flopped and enough years passed, I'm guessing the studio green-lit this project which probably was in development as soon as Frank Miller saw more dollar signs in his future. Unfortunately our ride is probably finished with this franchise. I'm assuming it didn't make enough money back to justify any more of it. And with the forever aging, dying, and or negligent cast, along with poor critical and film audience acclaim, I'd bet I'm right. And you don't even need to blow on my coin for good luck.

Like the first "Sin City" film, this one is made up of sub-stories that, in some way or another, tie in to the main plot.There seems to be a difference of opinion on whether this is a good film or not. The reviews are mixed, tilting negative, with many praising that same great look but saying the sequel is "dull". I can understand that, but I love that these characters are given more time to tell their stories and I hope a part three will happen (though that seems unlikely).If the film has any shortcoming, it is that certain aspects are both a sequel and a prequel to the original film. That tends to make the chronology a bit more complicated. Now, if there was a way to mix this film with the first, and straighten out the plot in some ways (though not all), maybe that would balance it out. Of course, because of Manute, that won't happen.