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.



Popular posts from this blog

Your Mickey Mouse is one big stupid dope!

Enemy Mine (1985) (SPOILERS) The essential dynamic of Enemy Mine – sworn enemies overcome their differences to become firm friends – was a well-ploughed one when it was made, such that it led to TV Tropes assuming, since edited, that it took its title from an existing phrase (Barry Longyear, author of the 1979 novella, made it up, inspired by the 1961 David Niven film The Best of Enemies ). The Film Yearbook Volume 5 opined that that Wolfgang Petersen’s picture “ lacks the gritty sauciness of Hell in the Pacific”; John Boorman’s WWII film stranded Lee Marvin and Toshiro Mifune on a desert island and had them first duking it out before becoming reluctant bedfellows. Perhaps germanely, both movies were box office flops.

If I do nothing else, I will convince them that Herbert Stempel knows what won the goddam Academy Award for Best goddam Picture of 1955. That’s what I’m going to accomplish.

Quiz Show (1994) (SPOILERS) Quiz Show perfectly encapsulates a certain brand of Best Picture nominee: the staid, respectable, diligent historical episode, a morality tale in response to which the Academy can nod their heads approvingly and discerningly, feeding as it does their own vainglorious self-image about how times and attitudes have changed, in part thanks to their own virtuousness. Robert Redford’s film about the 1950s Twenty-One quiz show scandals is immaculately made, boasts a notable cast and is guided by a strong screenplay from Paul Attanasio (who, on television, had just created the seminal Homicide: Life on the Streets ), but it lacks that something extra that pushes it into truly memorable territory.

Other monks will meet their deaths here. And they too will have blackened fingers. And blackened tongues.

The Name of the Rose (1986) (SPOILERS) Umberto Eco wasn’t awfully impressed by Jean Jacques-Annaud’s adaptation of his novel – or “ palimpsest of Umberto Eco’s novel ” as the opening titles announce – to the extent that he nixed further movie versions of his work. Later, he amended that view, calling it “ a nice movie ”. He also, for balance, labelled The Name of the Rose his worst novel – “ I hate this book and I hope you hate it too ”. Essentially, he was begrudging its renown at the expense of his later “ superior ” novels. I didn’t hate the novel, although I do prefer the movie, probably because I saw it first and it was everything I wanted from a medieval Sherlock Holmes movie set in a monastery and devoted to forbidden books, knowledge and opinions.

You ever heard the saying, “Don’t rob the bank across from the diner that has the best donuts in three counties”?

2 Guns (2013) (SPOILERS) Denzel Washington is such a reliable performer, that it can get a bit boring. You end up knowing every gesture or inflection in advance, whether he’s playing a good guy or a bad guy. And his films are generally at least half decent, so you end up seeing them. Even in Flight (or perhaps especially in Flight ; just watch him chugging down that vodka) where he’s giving it his Oscar-nominatable best, he seems too familiar. I think it may be because he’s an actor who is more effective the less he does. In 2 Guns he’s not doing less, but sometimes it seems like it. That’s because the last person I’d ever expect blows him off the screen; Mark Wahlberg.

Piece by piece, the camel enters the couscous.

The Forgiven (2021) (SPOILERS) By this point, the differences between filmmaker John Michael McDonagh and his younger brother, filmmaker and playwright Martin McDonagh, are fairly clearly established. Both wear badges of irreverence and provocation in their writing, and a willingness to tackle – or take pot-shots – at bigger issues, ones that may find them dangling their toes in hot water. But Martin receives the lion’s share of the critical attention, while John is generally recognised as the slightly lesser light. Sure, some might mistake Seven Psychopaths for a John movie, and Calvary for a Martin one, but there’s a more flagrant sense of attention seeking in John’s work, and concomitantly less substance. The Forgiven is clearly aiming more in the expressly substantial vein of John’s earlier Calvary, but it ultimately bears the same kind of issues in delivery.

Say hello to the Scream Extractor.

Monsters, Inc. (2001) (SPOILERS) I was never the greatest fan of Monsters, Inc. , even before charges began to be levelled regarding its “true” subtext. I didn’t much care for the characters, and I particularly didn’t like the way Pixar’s directors injected their own parenting/ childhood nostalgia into their plots. Something that just seems to go on with their fare ad infinitum. Which means the Pixars I preferred tended to be the Brad Bird ones. You know, the alleged objectivist. Now, though, we learn Pixar has always been about the adrenochrome, so there’s no going back…

Haven’t you ever heard of the healing power of laughter?

Batman (1989) (SPOILERS) There’s Jaws , there’s Star Wars , and then there’s Batman in terms of defining the modern blockbuster. Jaws ’ success was so profound, it changed the way movies were made and marketed. Batman’s marketing was so profound, it changed the way tentpoles would be perceived: as cash cows. Disney tried to reproduce the effect the following year with Dick Tracy , to markedly less enthusiastic response. None of this places Batman in the company of Jaws as a classic movie sold well, far from it. It just so happened to hit the spot. As Tim Burton put it, it was “ more of a cultural phenomenon than a great movie ”. It’s difficult to disagree with his verdict that the finished product (for that is what it is) is “ mainly boring ”. Now, of course, the Burton bat has been usurped by the Nolan incarnation (and soon the Snyder). They have some things in common. Both take the character seriously and favour a sombre tone, which was much more of shock to the

In a few moments, you will have an experience that will seem completely real. It will be the result of your subconscious fears transformed into your conscious awareness.

Brainstorm (1983) (SPOILERS) Might Brainstorm have been the next big thing – a ground-breaking, game-changing cinematic spectacle that had as far reaching consequences as Star Wars (special effects) or Avatar (3D) – if only Douglas Trumbull had been allowed to persevere with his patented “Showscan” process (70mm film photographed and projected at 60 frames per second)? I suspect not; one only has to look at the not-so-far-removed experiment of Ang Lee with Billy Lynn’s Long Halftime Walk , and how that went down like a bag of cold sick, to doubt that any innovation will necessarily catch on (although Trumbull at least had a narrative hinge on which to turn his “more real than real” imagery, whereas Lee’s pretty much boiled down to “because it was there”). Brainstorm ’s story is, though, like its title, possibly too cerebral, too much concerned with the consciousness and touting too little of the cloyingly affirmative that Bruce Rubin inevitably brings to his screenplays. T

No one can be told what the Matrix is. You have to see it for yourself.

The Matrix  (1999) (SPOILERS) Twenty years on, and the articles are on the defining nature of The Matrix are piling up, most of them touching on how its world has become a reality, or maybe always was one. At the time, its premise was engaging enough, but it was the sum total of the package that cast a spell – the bullet time, the fashions, the soundtrack, the comic book-as-live-action framing and styling – not to mention it being probably the first movie to embrace and reflect the burgeoning Internet ( Hackers doesn’t really count), and subsequently to really ride the crest of the DVD boom wave. And now? Now it’s still really, really good.

Twenty dwarves took turns doing handstands on the carpet.

Bugsy (1991) (SPOILERS) Bugsy is very much a Warren Beatty vanity project (aren’t they all, even the ones that don’t seem that way on the surface?), to the extent of his playing a title character a decade and a half younger than him. As such, it makes sense that producer Warren’s choice of director wouldn’t be inclined to overshadow star Warren, but the effect is to end up with a movie that, for all its considerable merits (including a script from James Toback chock full of incident), never really feels quite focussed, that it’s destined to lead anywhere, even if we know where it’s going.