The original “Sin City” was a refreshing breath of fresh air for the film industry when it was released in 2005. Comic book adaptations were beginning to hit their stride in that decade, but audiences had not yet begun to gravitate toward comic adaptations like they do today. With disappointing adaptations like “Daredevil,” “The Punisher” and “Catwoman” regularly making their way into theaters, it’s not hard to see why people were still apprehensive about comic adaptations.
Granted, the early 2000s had quite a few hits that laid the groundwork for the hugely successful comic adaptations of the next few years, but the general consensus is that studios hadn’t fully grasped what made a comic book adaptation good.
Studios would often tone down the language and violence in order to nab a PG-13 rating, hoping to make a quick buck during the summer seasons at the cost of a film’s integrity and quality. The general blandness of most comic adaptations during the time was sharply contrasted by Robert Rodriguez and Frank Miller’s bombastic and stylish “Sin City.” Soaked in sex, lathered with violence and littered with profanity, “Sin City” was a 12-year-old’s dream film, and critics largely agreed.
The film was lauded for its neo-noir atmosphere and hyper-stylized violence, with some critics claiming that “Sin City” had pushed the comic book adaptation genre to its absolute limit. Sadly, the general audience consensus was that “Sin City” was just too strange and different for their tastes.
It seems that audiences haven’t yet changed their minds, seeing as how its sequel, “Sin City: A Dame to Kill For,” a film with a $70 million budget, has only made a measly $6 million at the box office.
Objectively, “A Dame to Kill For” is as solid as the original film. It still has the neo-noir feel, gratuitous sex and violence, a healthy dose of black humor, and the iconic styling of the first film. Joseph-Gordon Levitt adds a youthful touch to the film, and watching Mickey Rourke bulldoze through bad guys as Marv is as enjoyable as ever. The film looks sharp as hell, and it still is refreshing to see a comic adaptation in which the heroes aren’t actually heroes. So why did it bomb at the box office? Well, a couple things could be at fault.
Firstly, releasing a film at the tail end of the summer is just asking for it to bomb. School is starting up again, and moviegoers are worn out by the bombardment of blockbusters during the previous months. The only positive to releasing a film during this window is that it allows a studio to wait out their competition. Obviously, this strategy didn’t work out for “Sin City 2.” Perhaps it could have if it weren’t for the film’s atrocious marketing campaign. I rarely saw trailers or posters for the film while in theaters, and its presence online was virtually nonexistent.
Another possible reason for the film’s failing is that critics and audiences have matured (or like to think they’ve matured) over the course of nine years. Is the film crude? Yes. Is its violence and sex appeal gratuitously over the top? Absolutely. Is it still a little bit cool? Hell yeah. Don’t get me wrong, I completely understand someone outgrowing their adolescent tastes. However, I am a man-child, so for the same reasons I enjoy watching “Adventure Time” for its nostalgic properties, I enjoy watching films like “Sin City: A Dame to Kill For” to relish in my adolescent fantasies.
Sadly, as much as I want to praise this film, I know that it is not perfect, and evidently not suitable for a general audience. I’m certainly happy that I got to see the location of Basin City on the silver screen once more, but after a financial blunder this large, it’s going to take a miracle to keep this series alive.
Whether you chalk it up to the studio’s awful marketing team, a bad release window, or audiences’ distaste with a film as strange as “A Dame to Kill For,” it is almost certain that this is the last time we will see a film as hyper-stylized as this get a wide release.
