Skip to main content

This has turned into a long, bad night.

Frank Miller’s Sin City: A Dame to Kill For
(2014)

(SPOILERS) The surprising thing about this sequel is that the reactions to it pretty much mirror my response to Rodriguez and Miller’s generally applauded 2005 original. I was nonplussed by Sin City but, while I wouldn’t get carried away with praise, I found Sin City: A Dame to Kill For (sorry, I mean Frank Miller’s Sin City: A Dame to Kill For) a superior and, for the most part, better scripted anthology piece.


Perhaps some of that is down to William Monahan’s involvement, even if he doesn’t get a final credit. Unlike the first, the individual plots, excepting the direct sequel to the Hartigan tale, feel like they have paid attention to the punchiness required of the short story or embraced an actual noirish flair.


Central to this is Eva Green portraying the first bona fide femme fatale in the series. Her titular character, Ava Lord, measures up the film noir leading ladies of old, but with added mammaries. Wall-to-wall breastage is in Green’s contract, of course (at her behest, evidently), as, it seems are sequel/prequels to Miller projects (300: Rise of an Empire liberally flaunts both these features). Green is a deadly delight. If Ava’s machinations fail to represent the height of labyrinthine scheming, they at least lead to a modicum of “What happens next?” intrigue. There’s also a subtext of the user being used (Dwight’s the type willing to manipulate Marv to get what he wants, so maybe he has Ava coming).


Ostensibly, the A Dame to Kill For section is a Dwight story; the Dwight from the original played by Clive Owen, before he became Clive (through plastic surgery). There’s little character resemblance between Owen and Josh Brolin, and as actors they have a very different energy. I think I preferred Owen, simply because Brolin is too close to a Mickey Rourke rough-and-tumble type, but with less of Marv’s prosthetics (bar a gruesome eyeball at one point, and a ridiculous appliance to make him look not at all like Owen but a little bit like Ciaran Hinds in the final few scenes).


Mainly, though, it’s a Marv story. I took to Rourke’s performance in the original, but Marv’s characterisation is much more personable here. I’m not sure the make-up is as good (it’s less crude, which makes it less defined), but Marv is engaged, funny, wise-cracking and good company since he's buddied up throughout; the line, “Roarks don’t die easy”, delivered by Mickey about Powers Boothe’s character, is the kind of meta gag that could have helped the strangely humourless original.


There's a fair amount of recasting. Rosario Dawson’s back, looking as if nary a day has passed in a decade, but Dennis Haybert has none of the presence of the departed Michael Clarke Duncan as Manute (perhaps Haybert just doesn’t make a good villain). There are several other replacements throughout, although the also deceased Brittany Murphy’s character was left out.


Joseph Gordon-Levitt’s Johnny is granted a tidy little tale with a sharp punchline, as the bastard card sharp son of Booth’s perfidious Roark, who keeps coming back for more punishment after he whips the Senator and then gets whipped for his troubles. JGL has quickly reached a level where anything he turns up in is worth a look (yes, even if that entails sharing the screen with boorish oaf Seth Rogen). It’s nice to see Christopher Lloyd in this too, as the junkie doctor who licks the lollipops sticks he uses as splints on Johnny’s messed up mitt. Lloyd joins the ranks of Cage, Cusack and Willis in doing a lot of work that no one ends up bothering to see. Do they all share an accountant?


As for Bruce, he’s back from beyond the grave, possibly in reference to The Sixth Sense. This one’s a turkey. Alba returns as the most unlikely stripper ever, with sugar daddy Bruce whispering in her ear.  Her Nancy uses Marv just as Dwight did, but there’s no judgement to be construed from this (I guess she does get shot a few times). It’s all a bit tedious, Marv aside, and recalls the self-involved obsessing of the first movie. There’s the odd amusing touch, such as Roark keeping a picture of his son as the hideous yellow bastard rather than in genuine Nick Stahl form, but mostly it’s a fizzle.


That Green’s character is so strong slightly dampens the rampant misogyny of the first instalment; its notable that the more extreme and repellent aspects of both the original 300 and Sin City have been tempered in the eventual follow-ups. Some might call that a cop out, but in both instances, by coincidence or design, I found this led to better movies; there’s less mistaking the wood for the trees in terms of ground-breaking filmmaking techniques being the whole point of the exercise. 


On that score, there’s nothing to get too fussed over here. There’s an occasional visual flourish (a giant Marv superimposed as cars streak by; very graphic novel), or silliness (Leaping in front of moon to fire an arrow), but it’s of a piece with the picture a decade hence and so fairly old hat. There’s even a silly looking heap of prosthetics played by Stacey Keach, emphasising, if emphasis were needed, that this is a heightened world. 


So A Dame to Kill For indulges marginally less for-the-sake-of-it grotesquery and puerility than its predecessor. Because it is less gleefully objectionable in its depravity, measuring its indulgences against a desire for storytelling, it ends up taking a more traditional tack that goes some way towards being a half-decent neo-noir. I wouldn’t say its failure is a shame – it’s not that good a picture – but I’m dubious about blaming this on the gap between movies. If the public is interested in a sequel, they’ll show up, lag on no lag (Anchorman 2, 300). No one said TRON Legacy had waited too long. I suspect the problem is that this particular gimmick had a limited shelf life, a shiny bauble that could only distract the once. Ironically, Miller and Rodriguez went some way to making up for the imbalance with a couple of decent plots, but it was too late.



Comments

Popular posts from this blog

No matter how innocent you are, or how hard you try, they’ll find you guilty.

The Wrong Man (1956) (SPOILERS) I hate to say it, but old Truffaut called it right on this one. More often than not showing obeisance to the might of Hitchcock during his career-spanning interview, the French critic turned director was surprisingly blunt when it came to The Wrong Man . He told Hitch “ your style, which has found its perfection in the fiction area, happens to be in total conflict with the aesthetics of the documentary and that contradiction is apparent throughout the picture ”. There’s also another, connected issue with this, one Hitch acknowledged: too much fidelity to the true story upon which the film is based.

How would Horatio Alger have handled this situation?

Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas (1998) (SPOILERS) Gilliam’s last great movie – The Zero Theorem (2013) is definitely underrated, but I don’t think it’s that underrated – Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas could easily have been too much. At times it is, but in such instances, intentionally so. The combination of a visual stylist and Hunter S Thompson’s embellished, propulsive turn of phrase turns out, for the most part, to be a cosmically aligned affair, embracing the anarchic abandon of Raoul Duke and Doctor Gonzo’s Las Vegas debauch while contriving to pull back at crucial junctures in order to engender a perspective on all this hedonism. Would Alex Cox, who exited stage left, making way for the Python, have produced something interesting? I suspect, ironically, he would have diluted Thompson in favour of whatever commentary preoccupied him at the time (indeed, Johnny Depp said as much: “ Cox had this great material to work with and he took it and he added his own stuff to it ”). Plus

He’s so persistent! He always gets his man.

Speed (1994) (SPOILERS) It must have been a couple of decades since I last viewed Speed all the way through, so it’s pleasing to confirm that it holds up. Sure, Jan de Bont’s debut as a director can’t compete with the work of John McTiernan, for whom he acted as cinematographer and who recommended de Bont when he passed on the picture, but he nevertheless does a more than competent work. Which makes his later turkeys all the more tragic. And Keanu and Sandra Bullock display the kind of effortless chemistry you can’t put a price tag on. And then there’s Dennis Hopper, having a great old sober-but-still-looning time.

But everything is wonderful. We are in Paris.

Cold War (2018) (SPOILERS) Pawel Pawlikowski’s elliptical tale – you can’t discuss Cold War without saying “elliptical” at least once – of frustrated love charts a course that almost seems to be a caricature of a certain brand of self-congratulatorily tragic European cinema. It was, it seems “ loosely inspired ” by his parents (I suspect I see where the looseness comes in), but there’s a sense of calculation to the progression of this love story against an inescapable political backdrop that rather diminishes it.

To survive a war, you gotta become war.

Rambo: First Blood Part II (1985) (SPOILERS?) I’d like to say it’s mystifying that a film so bereft of merit as Rambo: First Blood Part II could have finished up the second biggest hit of 1985. It wouldn’t be as bad if it was, at minimum, a solid action movie, rather than an interminable bore. But the movie struck a chord somewhere, somehow. As much as the most successful picture of that year, Back to the Future , could be seen to suggest moviegoers do actually have really good taste, Rambo rather sends a message about how extensively regressive themes were embedding themselves in Reaganite, conservative ‘80s cinema (to be fair, this is something one can also read into Back to the Future ), be those ones of ill-conceived nostalgia or simple-minded jingoism, notional superiority and might. The difference between Stallone and Arnie movies starts right here; self-awareness. Audiences may have watched R ambo in the same way they would a Schwarzenegger picture, but I’m

One final thing I have to do, and then I’ll be free of the past.

Vertigo (1958) (SPOILERS) I’ll readily admit my Hitchcock tastes broadly tend to reflect the “consensus”, but Vertigo is one where I break ranks. To a degree. Not that I think it’s in any way a bad film, but I respect it rather than truly rate it. Certainly, I can’t get on board with Sight & Sound enthroning it as the best film ever made (in its 2012’s critics poll). That said, from a technical point of view, it is probably Hitch’s peak moment. And in that regard, certainly counts as one of his few colour pictures that can be placed alongside his black and white ones. It’s also clearly a personal undertaking, a medley of his voyeuristic obsessions (based on D’entre les morts by Pierre Boileau and Thomas Narcejac).

What do they do, sing madrigals?

The Singing Detective (2003) Icon’s remake of the 1986 BBC serial, from a screenplay by Dennis Potter himself. The Singing Detective fares less well than Icon’s later adaptation of Edge of Darkness , even though it’s probably more faithful to Potter’s original. Perhaps the fault lies in the compression of six episodes into a feature running a quarter of that time, but the noir fantasy and childhood flashbacks fail to engage, and if the hospital reality scans better, it too suffers eventually.

The game is rigged, and it does not reward people who play by the rules.

Hustlers (2019) (SPOILERS) Sold as a female Goodfellas – to the extent that the producers had Scorsese in mind – this strippers-and-crime tale is actually a big, glossy puff piece, closer to Todd Phillips as fashioned by Lorene Scarfia. There are some attractive performances in Hustlers, notably from Constance Wu, but for all its “progressive” women work male objectification to their advantage posturing, it’s incredibly traditional and conservative deep down.

You were a few blocks away? What’d you see it with, a telescope?

The Eyes of Laura Mars (1978) (SPOILERS) John Carpenter’s first serial-killer screenplay to get made, The Eyes of Laura Mars came out nearly three months before Halloween. You know, the movie that made the director’s name. And then some. He wasn’t best pleased with the results of The Eyes of Laura Mars, which ended up co-credited to David Zelag Goodman ( Straw Dogs , Logan’s Run ) as part of an attempt by producer Jon Peters to manufacture a star vehicle for then-belle Barbra Streisand: “ The original script was very good, I thought. But it got shat upon ”. Which isn’t sour grapes on Carpenter’s part. The finished movie bears ready evidence of such tampering, not least in the reveal of the killer (different in Carpenter’s conception). Its best features are the so-uncleanly-you-can-taste-it 70s New York milieu and the guest cast, but even as an early example of the sub-genre, it’s burdened by all the failings inherit with this kind of fare.

He is a brigand and a lout. Pay him no serious mention.

The Wind and the Lion (1975) (SPOILERS) John Milius called his second feature a boy’s-own adventure, on the basis of the not-so-terrified responses of one of those kidnapped by Sean Connery’s Arab Raisuli. Really, he could have been referring to himself, in all his cigar-chomping, gun-toting reactionary glory, dreaming of the days of real heroes. The Wind and the Lion rather had its thunder stolen by Jaws on release, and it’s easy to see why. As polished as the picture is, and simultaneously broad-stroke and self-aware in its politics, it’s very definitely a throwback to the pictures of yesteryear. Only without the finger-on-the-pulse contemporaneity of execution that would make Spielberg and Lucas’ genre dives so memorable in a few short years’ time.