16 September 2014 | jessemorrison99
I don't see why everyone hates it so much.
*Minor spoilers involving structure of the film, no plot points*
In short, it isn't nearly as bad as everyone is saying. Let me elaborate.
In case people don't know, the first Sin City from 2005 was based on the 1st, 3rd and 4th books in the 7 part series by Frank Miller. These follow the story lines of Marv, Dwight and Hartigan respectively. In addition to those, there are also a few shorts thrown in, either from the books or not. So, needless to say, Sin City and its sequel are both anthology films. If you want one single story that takes 2 hours, this may not be your thing.
Sin City 2 follows almost the exact same structure as the original, which I found nice. Sure they didn't do anything original with the structure, which was sort of playing it safe, but I liked it. It felt familiar and reminded me of the original which I loved very much. It begins with another short story, this time starring Marv. It rocks. It continues on with a new story not contained in any of the books. It stars Johnny, a gambler who "never loses". Mid way through, we cut to another story. This is the 2nd book, titled "A Dame to Kill For". If you've read this, you won't see anything new. Like with the first film, they essentially translated the story from page to screen, and it works for the most part. There was one detail I didn't like, but it doesn't last long. Then after that, we finish up the story with Johnny, and finally, we get to the revenge mission involving Nancy and her hunt for Senator Rourke. That's all I'll say about that.
Everyone is complaining about how the movie looks like a cutscene from a video game. They are sort of right, but not entirely. Even after waiting 2 weeks, I was unable to find a theatre in my city showing the film in 2d. It seems like this is happening more and more now. If you want to see an action movie in theatres, it's 3d whether you like it or not. Now, having not seen a 2d version to make a comparison, I can say that the 3d is most likely what makes it look so video game-y. I'm sure in 2d it'll look slightly better at least.
Update: I did see it in 1080p and in 2D, and it does look less like a video game cutscene. You can still tell that there's a lot of CGI, but it's done better than a lot of films.
Also, greenscreen sets have been used for over a decade now, I don't see why people are complaining so much. Everything is a CGI-fest these days, and this story, with a fantastic setting and extraordinary physics pulls it off nicely. You can tell, but it's far from awful.
Everyone is saying they loved the first one, but hated this one. I don't see how that's possible. They stuck very close to the original in most ways, such as cinematography, soundtrack, and directing, all of which were great (for a Sin City movie). Sure it isn't a masterpiece my any means, and it's not as good as the first, but it's super entertaining, very violent, and is sure to please anyone who enjoys the books or the first film. Forget all those jaded movie snobs saying it sucks. They're just focusing on all the negatives, and letting that cloud their vision of the awesome stuff.