Cathardincu Surprisingly incoherent and boring

BroadcastChic Excellent, a Must See

Fairaher The film makes a home in your brain and the only cure is to see it again.

Tyreece Hulme One of the best movies of the year! Incredible from the beginning to the end.

djfrost-46786 This movie didn't let down. The 1st was good and this one was just as equal.

FilmBuff1994 Sin City: A Dame to Kill For is a mediocre movie with a plot that is poorly developed, despite a very talented cast. It certainly still looks beautiful, the unique and stunning effects are just as good as the original Sin City, which perfectly conveys the gritty undertone of this crime infested area. However, the stories simply do not deliver this time, all three stories of the original are better than the three featured here. Each one felt as if it was cut short, having anti-climatic endings, feeling like we did not get a full view of the story. As well as that, it never shocks or surprises, there are no big moments, nothing to put you at the edge of your seat, any twists throughout are formulaic and expected. Dull, bland and lacking thrills, die hard fans of the first movie will probably still check it out, but Sin City: A Dame to Kill For is better off avoided. A continuation of the lives of several different people in Sin City, the crime infested town that is becoming more corrupt by the night. Best Performance: Josh Brolin / Worst Performance: Bruce Willis

NathanMack I gave this film a 3/10 although I feel that is very generous and more of soft spot for the brilliant work done on the first film. This sequel lacks everything that made the first movie great.The Dwight character continues in this movie but this time portrayed by Josh Brolin rather than Clive Owen. Clive Owen was fantastic in the original but Brolin seems out of his depth in this one. Not the role for him. The Dwight character became awkward and almost seemed weak, seriously lacked the presence of Clive Owens "Dwight".Nancy and Marv return in a conjoined story line (Although Marv has his hands in all the story lines really). Marv was my favourite character in the original Sin City but in this sequel it is almost like he is used as comic relief. His one liners seem forced and contrived and his impact in this film is unmemorable (compared to the original)There is a new character in the sequel called Johnny (Played by Joseph Gordon-Levitts). His story line seems pointless and seems to be gap filler more than anything. A waste of talent for someone I was very excited to see in this film. The ending of his storyline was very stupid as well.One final downer was the cameo of Christopher Lloyd. Was so excited to see his name in the credits and was looking forward to his appearance all film. Unfortunately I blinked and nearly missed it. Another under-use of a brilliant actor. Was expecting much more from this as I believe I gave the original 9/10. We will always have the original I guess.

snafux7 Hollywood's dirty little fingerprints are all over this sad sequel. Everything that made the first movie interesting and unique and compelling was painfully recycled in the sequel. The first half hour was pretty good actually, it seemed to pick up where the first one left off, different story, different characters but with the same noire backdrop and narrative. If I had to guess, the people who started off with this flick wanted to make a great follow up to the original but got screwed over by the studio suits seeking to remake the same movie while 'amping it up' in the process. Virtually all the same characters from the original make at least a cameo in the 2nd one...Why? I still can't figure that out because they contribute absolutely nothing to the story in the slightest. I think the suits decided that the average idiot movie goer likes to see characters that they remember and that's all there was to it. The worst part? It seems that Jessica Alba's agent demanded that she get at least 5 'stripper' scenes in the film so she could show off her assets. That alone wouldn't be the worst thing ever but they also had to give her actual lines and lets face it, she's probably the worst actress in existence today so watching her try to act is excruciating. But even if she was just gyrating on stage it would still have tainted the story because it was just way too much and served zero purpose other than to showcase her. The one high point of the film was that Eva Green wears little to nothing most of her time on screen which is delightful. Sadly it's not enough to save a crap movie. I was so disappointed by this abortion of a film, I was just hoping for a decent sequel, nothing amazing...and it disappointed virtually every step of the way.