Discussion of movies and ReelThoughts topics

It is currently Sun Nov 23, 2014 9:08 am




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 56 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3
SIN CITY: A DAME TO KILL FOR 
Author Message
Cinematographer
User avatar

Joined: Wed Oct 10, 2012 4:40 pm
Posts: 552
Post Re: SIN CITY: A DAME TO KILL FOR
My take on why this sequel is taking it up the ass at the box office is simple: it took WAY TOO FUCKING LONG for this film to follow up to the first one, period. 9 fucking years for a sequel? That's an eternity when it comes to the short attention span of the average moviegoing shlub in the North American market.

_________________
"Attack ships on fire off the shoulder of Orion. I watched C-beams glitter in the dark near the Tannhauser Gate. All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in the rain."


Thu Aug 28, 2014 10:56 pm
Profile
Auteur
User avatar

Joined: Sun Oct 07, 2012 12:02 pm
Posts: 3837
Location: Zion, IL
Post Re: SIN CITY: A DAME TO KILL FOR
Ragnarok73 wrote:
My take on why this sequel is taking it up the ass at the box office is simple: it took WAY TOO FUCKING LONG for this film to follow up to the first one, period. 9 fucking years for a sequel? That's an eternity when it comes to the short attention span of the average moviegoing shlub in the North American market.

Agreed, Basic Instinct 2 also failed for that reason(that and it was a bad idea to begin with).


Thu Aug 28, 2014 11:02 pm
Profile
Second Unit Director

Joined: Sat Apr 14, 2012 3:02 pm
Posts: 227
Location: Toronto, ON, Canada
Post Re: SIN CITY: A DAME TO KILL FOR
Ragnarok73 wrote:
My take on why this sequel is taking it up the ass at the box office is simple: it took WAY TOO FUCKING LONG for this film to follow up to the first one, period. 9 fucking years for a sequel? That's an eternity when it comes to the short attention span of the average moviegoing shlub in the North American market.


The thing is, I would argue that there is no average movie-going shlub in North America anymore, for the reasons I outlined earlier about the fragmentation of the film-going market, coupled with the loss of dominance of films (as shown in theatres) as the primary entertainment vehicle for North Americans, with films competing with video games, cable/Netflix TV, social media (e.g. Facebook, Twitter, Youtube, Reddit, 4chan, etc.).

I would also argue that this fragmentation in the film market means that the most successful films are one of 3 types:

(1) "Niche" films (particularly low-budget independent films) that can find its specific audience

(2) Massive "superevent" films (e.g. Godzilla)

or

(3) Films that are based on an established "brand name", e.g. films based on successful book series, TV series, comic books, etc.

(Please note that (2) and (3) often overlap)

The films that have the most difficulty are those films that don't easily fit into these 3 categories. Sin City: A Dame to Kill For could fit into (3) but Sin City isn't really a "brand name" film in the way that say, Star Wars or The Hunger Games are.


Fri Aug 29, 2014 8:52 am
Profile
Cinematographer
User avatar

Joined: Wed Oct 10, 2012 4:40 pm
Posts: 552
Post Re: SIN CITY: A DAME TO KILL FOR
StatGuy2000 wrote:
Ragnarok73 wrote:
My take on why this sequel is taking it up the ass at the box office is simple: it took WAY TOO FUCKING LONG for this film to follow up to the first one, period. 9 fucking years for a sequel? That's an eternity when it comes to the short attention span of the average moviegoing shlub in the North American market.


The thing is, I would argue that there is no average movie-going shlub in North America anymore, for the reasons I outlined earlier about the fragmentation of the film-going market, coupled with the loss of dominance of films (as shown in theatres) as the primary entertainment vehicle for North Americans, with films competing with video games, cable/Netflix TV, social media (e.g. Facebook, Twitter, Youtube, Reddit, 4chan, etc.).

I would also argue that this fragmentation in the film market means that the most successful films are one of 3 types:

(1) "Niche" films (particularly low-budget independent films) that can find its specific audience

(2) Massive "superevent" films (e.g. Godzilla)

or

(3) Films that are based on an established "brand name", e.g. films based on successful book series, TV series, comic books, etc.

(Please note that (2) and (3) often overlap)

The films that have the most difficulty are those films that don't easily fit into these 3 categories. Sin City: A Dame to Kill For could fit into (3) but Sin City isn't really a "brand name" film in the way that say, Star Wars or The Hunger Games are.

Going by your categories, I'd say that Sin City: A Dame To Kill For would fall into both (1) and (3). That adds strength to my reasoning as to the failure of this sequel in the box office: it is a brand name that was allowed to sit too long out of the public's view. This to me is another example of how development hell can completely fuck over a budding franchise.

_________________
"Attack ships on fire off the shoulder of Orion. I watched C-beams glitter in the dark near the Tannhauser Gate. All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in the rain."


Fri Aug 29, 2014 5:12 pm
Profile
Second Unit Director

Joined: Wed Aug 03, 2011 10:11 pm
Posts: 455
Post Re: SIN CITY: A DAME TO KILL FOR
Quote:
Going by your categories, I'd say that Sin City: A Dame To Kill For would fall into both (1) and (3). That adds strength to my reasoning as to the failure of this sequel in the box office: it is a brand name that was allowed to sit too long out of the public's view. This to me is another example of how development hell can completely fuck over a budding franchise.


Developmental hell may a bit misleading as there was no constant creative turnover in writers,directors or studios. There were no massive script rewrites or reshooting. The problem seems to be the Weinsteins not trusting Robert Rodriquez(for good reason it seems)and tying up the film legally but once that was cleared up the project went ahead fairly smoothly from a script made in 2007.

Quote:
so why did the sequel take so long? Rumours circulated that backer Harvey Weinstein baulked after the failure of Rodriguez and Quentin Tarantino’s similarly pulpy Grindhouse double-feature. “There’s all kinds of legal stuff that I won’t try to get into,” interrupts Miller, “because I’m really stupid about legal stuff.” The truth may never be known.



Could have a bad sequel ridden the coattails of a better movie if it had come out sooner? Most likely but maybe so many greenscreen aesthetics movies like Watchmen,300,Avatar,Suckerpunch and Great Gatsby have come out that the audience finds it old hat now.


Sat Aug 30, 2014 11:12 pm
Profile
Auteur
User avatar

Joined: Sun Oct 07, 2012 12:02 pm
Posts: 3837
Location: Zion, IL
Post Re: SIN CITY: A DAME TO KILL FOR
oakenshield32 wrote:
Quote:
Going by your categories, I'd say that Sin City: A Dame To Kill For would fall into both (1) and (3). That adds strength to my reasoning as to the failure of this sequel in the box office: it is a brand name that was allowed to sit too long out of the public's view. This to me is another example of how development hell can completely fuck over a budding franchise.


Developmental hell may a bit misleading as there was no constant creative turnover in writers,directors or studios. There were no massive script rewrites or reshooting. The problem seems to be the Weinsteins not trusting Robert Rodriquez(for good reason it seems)and tying up the film legally but once that was cleared up the project went ahead fairly smoothly from a script made in 2007.

Quote:
so why did the sequel take so long? Rumours circulated that backer Harvey Weinstein baulked after the failure of Rodriguez and Quentin Tarantino’s similarly pulpy Grindhouse double-feature. “There’s all kinds of legal stuff that I won’t try to get into,” interrupts Miller, “because I’m really stupid about legal stuff.” The truth may never be known.



Could have a bad sequel ridden the coattails of a better movie if it had come out sooner? Most likely but maybe so many greenscreen aesthetics movies like Watchmen,300,Avatar,Suckerpunch and Great Gatsby have come out that the audience finds it old hat now.


The Weinstein's have been known for making not-so-smart decisions(like buying the rights to All the Boys Love Mandy Lane, only to go into panic mode and sell them off after Grindhouse underperformed), they really should've had more confidence in their projects instead of second-guessing themselves, I blame them for this films failure much moreso then Rodriguez.

It's also their fault Grindhouse underperformed in the first place as they made the mistake of releasing it in March near Easter(a time which is normally reserved for family films) when they really should've released it in October instead, then it likely would've done better business(they also didn't do a very good job marketing the film).


Sat Aug 30, 2014 11:23 pm
Profile
Gaffer

Joined: Sun Sep 20, 2009 8:48 pm
Posts: 36
Post A good but uneven sequel. 3 stars.
I went to the theater to see this movie, because I liked the first Sin City and because I'm a fan of Eva Green (who's also terrific in Penny Dreadful). It amused me that the poster at the lobby featured the scarred face of Jessica Alba as the central image, and that told me everything I needed to know about why the movie failed at the box office. Besides horror movies, what movie is successful when the lead is disfigured. Even though Alba is actually not disfigured for most of the movie and not the lead, it just shows how clueless the publicity department was. While the first movie was a film noir/action/thriller, the sequel is a drama/erotic thriller. Fans of the original wanted a sequel, but not if it seemed like a money grab, by including 3D and using characters whose story was already "complete", like Bruce Willis and Jessica Alba.

Ratings by segment. A Dame To Kill For (3 1/2 stars) - The main story is the best. I love the way Eva Green delivers her dialogue. The story was written by Frank Miller during it's original run, so it sounds and looks much better than the new stories. The gambler story is 3 stars. The ending doesn't really work, but the performances were excellent. The Nancy story is 2 stars. Her disfigured face makes no sense to me. Story wise, her transformation could have been done in a better way.


Sat Oct 04, 2014 11:28 pm
Profile
Gaffer

Joined: Sat Jan 19, 2013 2:06 pm
Posts: 10
Post Re: SIN CITY: A DAME TO KILL FOR
Pretty disappointing given that I loved the first Sin City. I wouldn't say the problem is that the film's look is dated. Noir is barely in the mainstream and very few movies have the look of Sin City. I'm not sure how that would add up to people getting tired of it. Instead, I'd say the stories just aren't as interesting and conclude poorly. The end of Joseph Gordon Levitt's gambler story was particularly unsatisfying and made little sense.
[Reveal] Spoiler:
How did Johnny consider beating Rourke in a couple hands of 5 card draw satisfying revenge (and revenge that he died for) for breaking his fingers, stealing his winnings, and beheading Marcy? That and the poker portrayed was pretty horrible. Winning pots with a royal flush and quad aces is just luck and hardly indicative of outplaying Rourke.


Sun Oct 05, 2014 8:52 pm
Profile
Auteur
User avatar

Joined: Sun Oct 07, 2012 12:02 pm
Posts: 3837
Location: Zion, IL
Post Re: SIN CITY: A DAME TO KILL FOR
prahsk87 wrote:
Pretty disappointing given that I loved the first Sin City. I wouldn't say the problem is that the film's look is dated. Noir is barely in the mainstream and very few movies have the look of Sin City. I'm not sure how that would add up to people getting tired of it. Instead, I'd say the stories just aren't as interesting and conclude poorly. The end of Joseph Gordon Levitt's gambler story was particularly unsatisfying and made little sense.
[Reveal] Spoiler:
How did Johnny consider beating Rourke in a couple hands of 5 card draw satisfying revenge (and revenge that he died for) for breaking his fingers, stealing his winnings, and beheading Marcy? That and the poker portrayed was pretty horrible. Winning pots with a royal flush and quad aces is just luck and hardly indicative of outplaying Rourke.

Yeah I felt like that was the weakest story overall, few too many plot contrivances for my taste.


Sun Oct 05, 2014 10:09 pm
Profile
Gaffer

Joined: Sat Feb 23, 2013 1:57 am
Posts: 2
Post Re: SIN CITY: A DAME TO KILL FOR
Gordon-Levitt was a good character who needed a better story. Eva Green was an awesome femme fatale and Powers Boothe was a good hissable scenery-chewing villain.

But Nancy's story felt like tacked-on fanfiction, and Johnny's was a pointless tangent to nowhere. Even Marv didn't have as much panache.

This movie's failure can't be blamed solely on the passage of time. It's not as good. It apes its style but lacks its pizzazz.


Thu Oct 23, 2014 4:50 pm
Profile
Director
User avatar

Joined: Mon Apr 06, 2009 5:07 pm
Posts: 1602
Post Re: SIN CITY: A DAME TO KILL FOR
Jester85 wrote:
This movie's failure can't be blamed solely on the passage of time. It's not as good. It apes its style but lacks its pizzazz.


Sad but true. When I saw the original Sin City opening weekend in 2005, it stayed with me until I acquired it on DVD and was able to go back to it.

2 months after watching this one, it's faded from my memory.

_________________
This ain't a city council meeting you know-Joe Cabot

Cinema is a matter of what's in the frame and what's out-Martin Scorsese.

http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1347771599


Sat Oct 25, 2014 12:14 pm
Profile
Producer

Joined: Tue Apr 14, 2009 11:04 am
Posts: 2279
Post Re: SIN CITY: A DAME TO KILL FOR
Joseph Gordon Levitt gave the best performance in the movie. His story was by far the most interesting even if it had a rather abrupt ending.

Powers Booth was great too. He really does a great job in making you hate his character. You want to see him get his comeuppance so badly.

The Jessica Alba story is the most disappointing. It's not Alba's fault. I thought she gave a perfectly fine performance. But this was the story line I was looking forward to most and it's a letdown.

Josh Brolin is good but not nearly as good as Clive Owen was playing the same character in the first film. His whole story line was alright. It's a bit silly and kind of misogynist really when you think about it. But Eva Green gives an entertainingly over the top performance.

Mickey Rourke is okay but Marv isn't nearly as interesting this time around and he's definitely not nearly as sympathetic.

Over all, I enjoyed myself. It's not as good as the first film but it looks great and is enjoyable enough.


Sun Oct 26, 2014 1:03 am
Profile
Auteur
User avatar

Joined: Sun Oct 07, 2012 12:02 pm
Posts: 3837
Location: Zion, IL
Post Re: SIN CITY: A DAME TO KILL FOR
ilovemovies wrote:
Joseph Gordon Levitt gave the best performance in the movie. His story was by far the most interesting even if it had a rather abrupt ending.

Powers Booth was great too. He really does a great job in making you hate his character. You want to see him get his comeuppance so badly.

The Jessica Alba story is the most disappointing. It's not Alba's fault. I thought she gave a perfectly fine performance. But this was the story line I was looking forward to most and it's a letdown.

Josh Brolin is good but not nearly as good as Clive Owen was playing the same character in the first film. His whole story line was alright. It's a bit silly and kind of misogynist really when you think about it. But Eva Green gives an entertainingly over the top performance.

Mickey Rourke is okay but Marv isn't nearly as interesting this time around and he's definitely not nearly as sympathetic.

Over all, I enjoyed myself. It's not as good as the first film but it looks great and is enjoyable enough.

I fail to see how that storyline was "misogynist".

I felt the Levitt story was the weakest as it seemed to meander too much.


Sun Oct 26, 2014 1:05 am
Profile
Second Unit Director
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2012 9:42 am
Posts: 293
Location: NJ
Post Re: SIN CITY: A DAME TO KILL FOR
This is what happens when comic novel stories are written by amateurs. Sad cause the first movie was great.


Fri Nov 14, 2014 11:21 pm
Profile
Gaffer

Joined: Sun Nov 09, 2014 4:26 pm
Posts: 1
Post Re: SIN CITY: A DAME TO KILL FOR
I liked the Mickey Rourke story. Rourke seemed to be enjoying himself and his scenes were good. Even JGL handled himself well. Unfortunately, the Alba story didn't click. Eva Green was the star but even her story was okay at best.

6.5/10. Pretty forgettable but not detestable. Didn't deserve to bomb this badly.


Sat Nov 15, 2014 5:17 am
Profile
Assistant Second Unit Director

Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2012 1:52 am
Posts: 77
Post Re: SIN CITY: A DAME TO KILL FOR
I liked the whole movie, honestly. I'm not saying it's great. It certainly won't make my top ten of the year, but I liked it. And I think it's getting kind of a bad rap here. No, it's not as good as the first movie, but it's not all that bad either. The structure is probably the most problematic aspect. The adaptation could have been better, tighter, more intertwined, certainly.

My enjoyment was probably helped by that, after this and 300: Rise of an Empire, I'm kinda in love with Eva Green. :D


Tue Nov 18, 2014 11:55 pm
Profile
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 56 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group.
Designed by Vjacheslav Trushkin for Free Forum/DivisionCore.
Translated by Xaphos © 2007, 2008, 2009 phpBB.fr