If you haven't watched the great first movie, I would suggest stopping to read right now as I'll refer to it later on, so spoiler warnings, but only for the original movie. Let's start by saying it has a similar structure to the first Sin City: a few short stories linking up sometimes by locations or characters. There's Marv dealing with frat boys torching vagrants for fun in the intro; Dwight coping with the return of a lost love that betrayed him in the past; Nancy Callaghan wanting revenge on the father of the yellow bastard for what happened to her and Hartigan; and a new guy called Johnny, a great gambler, trying to win big at poker but there for personal stakes.
I was confused throughout by seeing Marv popping up everywhere still alive when he was supposed to be quite dead. It could not be explained by it being a prequel because one of the stories (Nancy Callaghan's) was an obvious sequel. I was also confused more than once by the timelines of certain characters that I thought shouldn't be there or shouldn't die (more on that later). Turns out I was wrong and everything fit chronologically. Here's a simple explanation: every story takes place, including Nancy Callaghan's (Jessica Alba) before Marv's story in Sin City 1. Dwight's story is a prequel to his story in Sin City 1. The only "sequel" is for Nancy Callaghan and Hartigan's main story that follows directly their story from Sin City 1.
This is the best Sin City movie prequel/sequel/whenever that could have been done considering several factors. First factor is that it was released 9 years later. Despite that, they did manage to get most of the same actors. The main problem is that Clive Owen's character, Dwight, was replaced by Josh Brolin because Owen had other engagements. It is really a shame that they couldn't get him, because it would have been really neat to see him after a certain event, not to mention surprising for those who didn't remember the same character was in the first film. Plus, Brolin's pseudo-Owen makeup and wig were lacking and hurt the suspension of disbelief. The other actor changes for Miho, Manute and Bob - because of pregnancy, death and unknown reason - didn't matter that much.
Very important factor to consider: it was mostly made by the same creative team including Robert Rodriguez and Frank Miller. It felt and looked like the first movie despite not having the novelty factor anymore. Another factor to take into account is that the stories are based on the Miller's stories, there's a limited number of them (they even used 2 unpublished here), and that arguably the best ones were taken for the first movie. Consequently, I didn't think the stories were as gripping or amazing as the ones in the original movie, yet they were very good and in the same violent noir/graphic novel spirit. They also had surprising moments, but a few were kind of ruined by the fact I thought a few secondary characters couldn't die if they were in the original movie since we were in a prequel part for them in Sin City 2, or so I thought. I was mistaken, confused, and it lessened my enjoyment a little. The stylized action was as well made as the first although it didn't strike me as being as memorable. The dialogues and narration, an highlight of the first movie for me, weren't as inspired, even lame sometimes.
Acting wise, Eva Green once again impressed me, this time with a smart, complex femme fatale role. I was sometimes gleefully smiling when she was using her devious wiles on the poor men. Perhaps because she's of French origin, nudity didn't seem to bother her and there was a lot of it here, mostly artistic. On the other hand, despite trying hard, I didn't particularly like Jessica Alba as Nancy Callaghan. She had a big character arc yet didn't quite convince me, nor move me emotionally. Also, you never see her nude, nor any of her colleagues, making this bar the lamest "strip" bar ever ;-) I particularly enjoyed the charismatic, cocky performance by Gordon-Levitt as Johnny. Marv didn't seem as great as in the first film, but you see more of him as he has a major role in more than one story. Weirdly, I liked his make-up and hair less. Josh Brolin was OK I guess, but lacked the presence and intensity of Owen. Powers Boothe doing Senator Roarke did a great villain. Everyone else did respectable jobs, although Willis had very little to do. If you liked the first film, I have trouble seeing how you could not be satisfied with this one too although it wasn't as good. It's also worth seeing in theatres and in 3D.
Rating: 7.5 out of 10 (very good)
I was confused throughout by seeing Marv popping up everywhere still alive when he was supposed to be quite dead. It could not be explained by it being a prequel because one of the stories (Nancy Callaghan's) was an obvious sequel. I was also confused more than once by the timelines of certain characters that I thought shouldn't be there or shouldn't die (more on that later). Turns out I was wrong and everything fit chronologically. Here's a simple explanation: every story takes place, including Nancy Callaghan's (Jessica Alba) before Marv's story in Sin City 1. Dwight's story is a prequel to his story in Sin City 1. The only "sequel" is for Nancy Callaghan and Hartigan's main story that follows directly their story from Sin City 1.
This is the best Sin City movie prequel/sequel/whenever that could have been done considering several factors. First factor is that it was released 9 years later. Despite that, they did manage to get most of the same actors. The main problem is that Clive Owen's character, Dwight, was replaced by Josh Brolin because Owen had other engagements. It is really a shame that they couldn't get him, because it would have been really neat to see him after a certain event, not to mention surprising for those who didn't remember the same character was in the first film. Plus, Brolin's pseudo-Owen makeup and wig were lacking and hurt the suspension of disbelief. The other actor changes for Miho, Manute and Bob - because of pregnancy, death and unknown reason - didn't matter that much.
Very important factor to consider: it was mostly made by the same creative team including Robert Rodriguez and Frank Miller. It felt and looked like the first movie despite not having the novelty factor anymore. Another factor to take into account is that the stories are based on the Miller's stories, there's a limited number of them (they even used 2 unpublished here), and that arguably the best ones were taken for the first movie. Consequently, I didn't think the stories were as gripping or amazing as the ones in the original movie, yet they were very good and in the same violent noir/graphic novel spirit. They also had surprising moments, but a few were kind of ruined by the fact I thought a few secondary characters couldn't die if they were in the original movie since we were in a prequel part for them in Sin City 2, or so I thought. I was mistaken, confused, and it lessened my enjoyment a little. The stylized action was as well made as the first although it didn't strike me as being as memorable. The dialogues and narration, an highlight of the first movie for me, weren't as inspired, even lame sometimes.
Acting wise, Eva Green once again impressed me, this time with a smart, complex femme fatale role. I was sometimes gleefully smiling when she was using her devious wiles on the poor men. Perhaps because she's of French origin, nudity didn't seem to bother her and there was a lot of it here, mostly artistic. On the other hand, despite trying hard, I didn't particularly like Jessica Alba as Nancy Callaghan. She had a big character arc yet didn't quite convince me, nor move me emotionally. Also, you never see her nude, nor any of her colleagues, making this bar the lamest "strip" bar ever ;-) I particularly enjoyed the charismatic, cocky performance by Gordon-Levitt as Johnny. Marv didn't seem as great as in the first film, but you see more of him as he has a major role in more than one story. Weirdly, I liked his make-up and hair less. Josh Brolin was OK I guess, but lacked the presence and intensity of Owen. Powers Boothe doing Senator Roarke did a great villain. Everyone else did respectable jobs, although Willis had very little to do. If you liked the first film, I have trouble seeing how you could not be satisfied with this one too although it wasn't as good. It's also worth seeing in theatres and in 3D.
Rating: 7.5 out of 10 (very good)