Sin City: A Dame to Kill For

Did you like “Sin City?” Love it? Hate it? Think it was ok? Whatever your assessment, it’s my guess you’d make a similar one of its sequel, “Sin City: A Dame to Kill For.” Don’t get me wrong; it’s inferior to its predecessor. I know many LGMer’s loathe the other Frank Miller vehicle “300,” but if you enjoyed the movie at all and for any reason, you probably thought “Rise of an Empire” was inferior: its look and feel–which felt fresh and interesting the first time you saw it (again, assuming you didn’t hate “300”)–felt more gimmicky and tired the second time around. Similarly, “Dame’s” gritty black and white–at times 2-D-feeling– backdrop and spots of color, along with its copious gushing white blood mostly elicited yawns from me this time. I didn’t care: I just wanted a good story. I got a decent story.

If you remember, “Sin City” divided its running time equally amongst three somewhat-intertwining chapters. “Dame” does the same, but is much more freewheeling about the time division. The clear focus of the movie is its middle chapter, a–let’s face it– reboot of “Double Indemnity” starring Josh Brolin, Ray Liotta, Dennis Haysbert, Christopher Meloni, and Eva Green’s boobs. It’s a good thing it’s the focus: unlike “Sin City’s” middle chapter, which was far and away its weakest, the middle chunk of “Dame” is actually pretty entertaining. I mean, you may know where it’s all going, but it’s still a fairly fun, noir-ish, over-the-top, sexy ride.

MAJOR SPOILER ALERT: I was less impressed with the chapter starring Joseph Gordon-Levitt. He seems wasted as powerful mucky-muck, Roarke’s bastard son, who shows up to beat his father at poker and ends up with a bullet to the skull for his trouble. What was the purpose of this chapter? To show how incredibly despicable Roarke was? Because I kinda already knew that.

I also thought Nancy Callahan’s (she was the 19-year-old stripper in love with an old detective in “Sin” because of course she was) chapter got short shrift. Honestly, her part often felt like an afterthought to me, as if the makers of the film had just grown weary of their own story before they got to her chapter. I didn’t dislike it, I just felt as if–pardon this expression–the movie had shot its wad before they shifted focus to her.

I don’t have to devote a lot of time to my sizable problems with Frank Miller’s writing. I think the man has a pretty big misogyny problem. He simply cannot bring himself to write “Sin” women as anything other than strippers, hookers and victims. Even Eva Green’s character, who should have been a nominal improvement on most of the women who populate “Sin City” was a huge disappointment. She used her body, sex to get men to do her bidding. Sure, she shot one guy, but mostly she was lying around naked in various bodies of water and having the men brawl and murder. Yes, that is a type of a passivity; she was passive. She was a passively evil sex object. Par for Miller’s course, though, right?