Why did this bomb so bad?

I liked this film, but it definitely lost the charm of the original. When the first one came out, it hadn't really been done before. Now we have a sequel, 9 years later, several prominent characters have been written out or re-cast, near the end of the summer, after people have spent a ton of money going to see all the movies they were anticipating, by the time this one rolled around people couldn't be bothered.





End Of Line.

One big reason: Jessica Alpo. She stank up the first Sin City playing a stripper who somehow doesn't seem to know that a stripper's job is to take off her clothes. Fortunately for the first SC, the story was compelling enough to rise above her lousy performance. Unfortunately for the sequel, she continued to stink up her role as the world's most incompetent "stripper", but the story line this time was not up to par, so she was able to , almost single-handedly, ruin the entire film.

I loved the first one (9/10) but the sequel I rated at 5/10.

I think there are two main reasons why the movie is rated so low:

1. People that loved the first movie like me have been waiting for a sequel for many, many years. I've only watched the first one once but I loved it. I was looking forward to the sequel but when I finally got to watch it, I was confused. I didn't quite remember all the stories from the first one and now I read people are discussing continuity problems which of course makes everything even worse. In short, I'd have to say they waited too long - most people will have only watched the first one once and doing a sequel so much later that is so tied to the Sin City universe won't work, people won't remember.

2. The script isn't very good. If we neglect the fact that it's impossible to remember what happened in the first one, the very confusing script doesn't help. I watched Sin City 2 not so long ago but the only thing I can remember now is Eva Green being the bad guy or something. The stories aren't that interesting, aren't that well-thought or executed.

The really f-ed up by not doing the sequel earlier. It would not have bombed as bad if they made it 2-3 years after and not 10.

It's all about the marketing. People will wait in line to buy raw sewage if its advertising really hits people and strikes that perfect chord. I remember being really excited to see this when I saw the preview in the theater, and then I didn't hear anything from anyone about this film again until I saw it listed as a rental on a Redbox machine. I definitely would have paid to see it in the theater. It must have come and gone in a hurry.

As for the claims that a pirated version was immediately available on PirateBay, that could affect the film in positive and negative ways. Obviously, if a downloader sees it free, USA Films isn't getting any profit on their investment. On the other hand, if it's a great film, the folks who had seen it would be talking about it with their buddies, and that buzz could grow well beyond the pirating crowd, ultimately boosting box office grosses. In Sin City 2's case, the movie buzz wasn't there, and USA Films didn't get revenue from pirates who might have paid to see the film in theaters if the pirated version hadn't been readily available. Talk about a lethal combination. To a film company exec with big bucks invested in Sin City 2, it must have felt like an atomic bomb had gone off between his legs.

I seriously looked forward to this movie, and I enjoyed the first movie so much I would have paid to see it despite thinking Frank Miller (the person) is a complete and utter prick, but it seemed to get an extremely limited release in Australia -- that often happens with films that are released in North America first but perform badly. Finally saw it, and I'm glad I didn't pay to see it. If I had seen it I would have warned everyone I know not to bother. This movie was much more like Frank Miller's The Spirit than it was Rodgriquez's first Sin City. It is still a couple hours of my life I'll never get back.

I have no clue.

Its certainly not as good as the original. The original had all the really good stories already. And no more Brittany Murphy ! Still I loved the sequel.

The original was a clear 11/10. This isnt as good, but its still a clear 10/10.

---
You shall have no other Kates before Kate Winslet.

After the happiness hormones about Sin City having a successor movie wear off, indeed I had to come to terms with the fact that while its not awful, its not very good either. 

---
You shall have no other Kates before Kate Winslet.

"Why did this bomb so bad"?

Because it sucked. Bruce Willis and Clive Owen carried the 1st movie. This movie should have been carried to the trash.