Why did this bomb so bad?
Theories?
shareTaking almost a decade to come out (original was in 2005) surely didn't help.
America isnt ready for a gay mexican chicken sandwich - Poultrygeist
MovieChat Forums > Sin City: A Dame to Kill For (2014) Discussion > Why did this bomb so bad?
They missed a big opportunity on this movie. They had almost everybody back, the script had potential. There was barely any imagination. They just kill 4 characters off when they could have used them. Many things looked fake they could have come up with some new visual concepts although parts in it are entertaining. The johnny storyline they botched. Thought they had something going there instead he gets beat down and killed to make a point they could have done anything besides that. Christopher meloni just blows his head off. I thought it would have been perfect for him and Josh broken to have clashed and had Eva green doing something as well as the old town girls but no he dies and Eva dies .. some of it was so painful to watch the whole Jessica alba sequence was just not believable and Bruce willis showing up always saying 'nancy....' Marv was used as a pawn , he did kick ass . I would been happy with his character but he , and the movie as a whole I thought took a step backward visually when that was an element that made it so cool the visual concepts. Some parts were cool, but even some ofthe color schemes they chose to highlight seemed odd. I felt bad for Jessica alba..she did great with the dancing as well as the acting but again she had little to work with and had to carve her face up..her lines were painful as well were bruce willis' as well. They did nothing with the fat mobster freak looking guy would have been cool to see him do something. Powers Boothe was great as Rourke , him and Eva green stole the show but they let those character arcs down as well. Rourke gets shot after seeing hardigan in the mirror. Nancy's shot while Marv sits outside smoking a cigarette is he dead ? Rourke is just blathering away for 5 mins letting Nancy crawl ever closer to the gun and gets distracted after seeing hardigan in the mirror & Nancy shoots him finally he's dead. Then she says blah blah this town gets everybody dirty , or something terrible and cue out- credits- end.
The first sin city was, and still is amazing. I'd say it's superior to the second..they didn't even choose to use the best elements of the first like hello! I honestly think Robert Rodriguez really messed up here and his career really took a hit. I think he's chosen misguided ideas ..for awhile he could have been close to tarantino status but just went in a wired direction. Not sure where his head was at on this one , I was looking forward to it, saw it opening night and gave it a second look recently . Oh yeah one last thing, the opening sequence with marv was also just pretty weak. "Oh yeah , my old neighbours. Guys get shot from nowhere and marv throws up a power fist saying "don't you forget who I am" and we really don't learn who he is, he shows up in every storyline to basically kick ass which was ok but they did that even was like what? Dwight is just like ok here's my plan I get marv drunk and make him kill everybody for me!
So yeah I guess I found many things wrong or disappointing with it. And I really wanted to like it too . They did have some dames to kill for I'll give RR & co that St least. Maybe it was worth it to see doc brown stick himself with a huge needle . " Not even one word of gratitude" ..best character in the movie.
Even though IMO it was nowhere near as good as the first one, the reason it failed was absolutely how long it was between the first and second I think.
I remember people being hyped for the sequel, then wondering if it would ever come out, then assuming it just never would.
I honestly only saw this walking by it on a shelf in a video store! Forgot it even came out until I saw the box! Not what a big movie like this and a sequel to a cult classic and hit should be.
The recasts hurt it too, as they made the continuity issues worse in an already confusing timeline for non-comic readers, but I think that would have been given a pass had the movie just been released while there was still hype for it.
It didn't help that - for obvious reasons - I think they chose the strongest stories to tell in the first film, though.
My opinion, if Quentin Tarantino had worked on this one just as the first it might have been better, he's a good writer. People might've complained that a big star like Levitt had a "bigger role" his character wouldn't have seemed like a waste of time. Also, agree to disagree, one more thing I think many viewers might complain is that there was not enough development in the characters. Thoughts?
shareUgh, because it feels and looks like washed-up, sterile version of the original, filled with boring, trite dialogues. The movie is less violent than the first, but that IMO shouldn't be the main issue. And since Frank Miller wrote the script, (he wrote the comics), but the quality of his work suckered all the way since 2000 onwards. At best, it's visually stunning and you get to see Eva Green's wonderful breast and most of her naked body. And it may sound bizzarre, but I had the feeling I'm watching an episode from a mediocre crime TV serie.
Also, what bothered me is that some call this a "misogynistic" film, I disagree. You see woman shooting at police officer, Miho slaughtering dozen of security guards; as with the previous this one has strong female characters. Most of them are hookers, though, but that may be a bland attempt to make everyone equal. Miller did something similar in All Star Batman. If someone complains, can you imagine a guy going around, killing all women with the crossbow? I don't think so.
I've never been a huge fan of graphic novels so I wasn't expecting much of the first Sin City movie, but I must say I was blown away because I'd never seen anything like it. Sure there have been other film adaptations of the genre but nothing came close to this for the originality of its style. I thought the characters were so well written that they drove the plot at a heck of a pace. I thought the second movie paled in comparison and as others have said 9 years was far to long to wait for a sequel, it should have been made when all the original movies' ideas were still fresh in the mind. There was also the continuity issue in the fact that some of the story seemed to be a prequel and some a sequel, a bit shambolic and didn't make the film easy to follow.
One thing I didn't like in particular were the two sex scenes. Admittedly in the first movie there was lots of flesh on display but the sex scenes were little more than hinted at, but this just seemed a bit tacky and distasteful. I just found it unpleasant to watch.
This means something, this is important.
because its essentially a much poorer version than the first
worst storylines, less mystery, less artistic direction (the first actually had some things that felt ambiguous and mind twisting about how REAL they really were), less compelling characters (probably because they reused some but with weaker storylines), etc.
there WAS hype for another Sin City movie but when it feels contrived and like its just worse in every department than the original than what is the point in people going to see it?
she fell through a hole, and was never seen again
well..i'm watching it now and i would say the problem is it's terrible. rushed, the tone is off...the decision to make the blood white instead of white was a poor creative choice and at other times it's a bit overblown, an numerous poor (over)acting performances. i guess they were trying to compensate for the weak script. the overall result is a cheesy, naff film.