Nine years later we get this....
We follow three different stories in this movie, much like in the first movie. The story this film is titled after follows Dwight (Josh Brolin) he is a photographer, paid to get dirt on whoever his client is asking for. His world is flipped when an old flame, Ava (Eva Green) calls him, begging for help. The second story follows the luckiest gambler in town, Johnny (Joseph Gordon-Levitt) trying to take down the most powerful man in Sin City, Senator Roark (Powers Booth) by playing a game of cards. The third story follows the aftermath with Nancy Callahan (Jessica Alba) from the first movie. Dealing with the death of Hartigan (Bruce Willis) the only man she loved, and trying to take vengeance.
I didn't want to go too far into the storylines , just in case anyone actually wanted to see the movie that I have been waiting nine years for. Did it live up to the wait? Was it everything I hoped for and more? In a word, no. In fact nothing could live up to the masterpiece I built in my head, but it was good. Not as good as the first movie, but good enough. I guess my main problem with it does come down to story line (and yes I know I am going to catch hell for this from the two Frank Miller fan boys that are left in the world). Look, The story this movie was titled after had the best delivery, plot, and overall appeal to me. The other two stories just seem like filler. You can tell Frank Miller and Rodriguez were putting all their eggs in that story's basket, not only because of the title; but, because most of the movie is filled with it. For some reason this movie was very Marv centered, and the bad guy had to be Senator Roark for the other two storylines. Don't get me wrong, they are both pretty awesome characters, but I could have done with more substance. We know Marv is the badass to end all badasses, we found that out in the first movie when he didn't die immediately after the first flip of the electric chair. We know Senator Roark is an asshole, we found that out in the first movie when he messed up Hartigan's life. Why am I being beaten over the head with it in this?
The real thing to talk about here is the acting, because holy crap is the acting amazing in this. Josh Brolin is a good substitute for Clive Owen from the first movie (even if I feel that role fit Joseph Gordon-Levitt more). He brings a since of power the character didn't seem to have in the first movie. Dennis Haysbert may be a poor man's Michael Clarke Duncan, but given the circumstances he does the best he can to replace the once great actor (RIP). Bruce Willis is still the same guy he played in the first, Powers Booth is still as commanding as ever, Jessica Alba still can't act her way out of paper bag (don't worry their are plenty of stripping scenes to get you boys all hot under the collar), Mickey Rourke is still the most intimidating man on screen, and Rosario Dawson....showed up. I know it sounds like I may have mixed feelings on the acting from that little bit, but the people that really pushed this over the edge were Eva Green and Joseph. Joseph seems to be stretching as much of his acting muscles as he can lately, and the result is making me think he is cinema's next chameleon. Eva Green surprised me for the second time this year (and no it is not because she was naked for the better half of the film, you all should no better). She gives the performance of femme fetale flawlessly, and that seems to be where her real talent lies (if "300: Rise of an Empire" was anything to go by). Here is hoping that if she is typecast in the years to come she is always as amazing as this.
Now, I am going to go into the cinematography (which is what seemed to catch most people's eye in the first movie). It is still powerful shots in black and white, that is a given; but it didn't deteriorate the value of it just because I had seen it before. I still love some of the shots that came through in this film; but, it still didn't have the appeal of the first movie. It seemed lazier somehow, like they were trying to coast on the success of the first movie and nothing else. Some of the shots were great, others just seemed to be trying too hard, and still others were actually bad. It is a weird feeling to go through, like the Robert Rodriguez ten years ago and the one now were fighting for control of the film.
In the end, this movie was serviceable. Not the amazing movie I thought I was going to get, not as good as the first movie, but still good. If there is one thing I can rely on it is that Robert Rodriguez will always put out the movie he is going to put out, and it will at least be okay. Frank Miller can stop putting out movies now, I have gotten everything I want from him. If you want to see a great film watch "Sin City," if you want an excuse to see naked women and one great story line, watch this. It is pretty cut and dry.
Final Verdict: Rent it Definitely worth a buck, but you'll miss nothing if you wait for the home release. "Guardians of the Galaxy" is still in theaters so you can try that, or even re-watch the first movie. I guess my new most anticipated movie is going to have to be "The Hateful Eight." Fingers crossed.
Like this? Read my review of the original "Sin City" on Thursday. That's right it has been long enough for me to call the original a throwback.
No comments:
Post a Comment