Why did this bomb so bad?

It's also been a long time since part 1

Because it stunk

What are you talking about? The first one grossed 75 million in the US alone.

----------------------
http://viverdecinema.blogspot.com.br/

There were more people around the web demanding a sequel to Sin City than I've ever seen for a movie before. I suppose it just goes to show that you can't give the people what they beg for haha, at least not if you're expecting them to buy a ticket. I thought the first Sin City was revolutionary. Second one was decent but nearly as epic as the first. Apparently the only rated R films that can turn a profit are mainly crappy films that appeal to adults on a date :P

[deleted]

The original had all of those things, but was a great movie, while this one was a Turkey. But the original also had an outstanding script, whilst the sequel was mundane to say the least. No originality, no impact, no intrigue

"Oh good, my dog found the chainsaw..."

The oscars are overrated. So I guess this movie must be pretty good.

Theories I can do. Facts, not so much. So here's what I think:

First of all, it's not everybodys cut of tea. In terms of content, it's a typical dudes film. It's got strippers, nudity, action, one-liners, etc.

It's also special in being, like its predecessor, mostly black and white. It's got the POV characters in each arc narrating their own stories.

So it's special. Not everyone likes that.

I liked it. It's good entertainment. It's not one for the Oscars, and I wouldn't give it top ratings either. What it is, is a great way to get rid of one and a half hours if you've got nothing important to do.

Pretty much everything this guy said.


The first movie had more heart. This movie felt forced and has an almost made for TV feel to it. Most of the stories and characters never draw you in--I feel Marv was present for the sole purpose of trying to tie the first movie into the second, which it does half-assed. The bum story in the beginning was lack luster and time filling and thats all it achieved. The tacked on Nancy plot also felt very forced and contrived for the sake of safety as not to venture very far from the original movie.

For anyone who has read the comics, you know there was more than enough story and characters left to carry another movie or two into something a little fresh and interesting but someone somewhere felt it was better to rehash BS left over from the first movie as a fiscal and creative hedge against what this movie actually achieved: cardboard characters, a cookie cutter plot, and all the taste of an over cooked roast--hard, chewy, and tough to get through.

The reason this movie didnt do well is because it waited too long for a sequel, it was obviously nothing more than a cash in on an established franchise, and it felt like the actors and directors (with the exception of Joseph Gordon-Levitt's story arc) put in the bare minimum amount of work for their paychecks. It seems like everyone involved didnt have as much fun making this movie as the first.

Your first comment about it being on piratebay is such nonsense.
No matter where you would watch this film it would remain to be bad and disappointing.

For the rest I don't know what you are on about. The whole appeal of Sin City is the fact that it looks like a live action comic book. Using black and white makes sense since it is a film noir first and foremost. It's not for everyone? What do you base this opinion on? It was extremely well received by a wide audience.

The actors can't be blamed for poor direction and writing. They did as much as they could with very little what they were given.

You obviously don't know what a film noir entails. Almost every film noir title has a femme fatale. It is one of the draws in the genre. Because it always remains interesting to see how men could fall for a bad woman. In fact Eva Green and her storyline is one of the standout moments in the whole movie. A film noir should be in black and white. Noir means black in case you did not know. That aspect of the visuals had nothing to do with being fresh but more of it resembling to the style of that genre.



The CB Association

http://chrichtonsworld.blogspot.com/

I only knew this film was made thanks to a pirating site.

I would have paid to go see it, but no theaters were showing it near me.

This leads me to think it bombed because it had very poor marketing and distribution. That and a 9 year gap between movies.


It wasn't as good as the first, but it was ok.

It lost a few points by annoying me. Characters that died in the first movie are alive in the second, even if they are the best character, that shouldn't happen (if this takes place before he dies, that means someone is alive in the first movie that should be dead). The visuals were not quite as good/striking (Marv/Mickey Rourke looked like he had doubled in size in the face alone). The stories also were not as interesting (The JG-L arc seemed to be pointless filler to get the JG-L fans to watch, started good but ended on a whimper).

i disagree with this theory it was how the movie was made. A good movie is a good movie , but this was not.


The main actors werent nearly as good , or the story lines. The way the movie is shot , the actors that play the parts are almost bigger then the part itself.



Nacys story was stupid , they already made a Girl With Dragon Tattoo movie.


Dwights character is a lesser vers from the first movie , and the actor from the first movie was way better then Josh brolin.


Marv was an actual character in the first movie. In this one he's only there as a tool to kill people, He coulda been replaced with a trained Grizzly bear.


first movie 8/10 , this one 5/10.