New at BOP: Review: Matrix Resurrections Movie Review: Moonfall Movie Reviews: Scream The #1 Movie in America November Forecast The Many Saints of Newark October Forecast New Trivia Question All site updates Share & Save   Tweet Print this column

Bruce Hall: I do think that waiting so long between sequels was a bad idea - in this case. Sin City was a novelty concept that while financially very successful, was quite not the runaway international hit a lot of people assume it was. It might have been best to strike while the iron was hot.

I've always felt Sin City was overrated. This is not a franchise blessed with the sort of passionate universal appeal the marketing materials seemed to believe. Stunning visuals aside, a needlessly convoluted story and ear-shredding dialogue give the original film a pretty low level of re-watchability, in my opinion.

The marketing had a distinct air of assumption, as though someone believed Robert Rodriguez fanboys to be the largest demographic in entertainment. Meanwhile, I believe casual moviegoers saw a lot of sameness. Vast, grainy black and white vistas punctuated by pretty girls with shimmering, colorized eyes. Gruff looking people laying down the thousand-yard stare, hunched over a steering wheel on a dark, rainy night. Jessica Alba dressed like a renegade Dallas Cowboys Cheerleader...

To many people, this must have looked like the exact same movie. And to someone like me, who is usually considerably more invested in this kind of material, the thought might have been "If I wanted to see the same movie again, I could just go downstairs and see the same movie again." No, that's not fair. But the purpose of a marketing campaign is to give people a reason to see your movie instead of someone else's - and that simply didn't happen.

I'm not surprised to see Sin City 2 not doing well, but I can't say I expected Freddy Got Fingered numbers. This is as resounding a rejection as audiences can possibly give you.

David Mumpower: People have mentioned their issues with the ads. My answer is simpler. What ads? The Weinstein Co. seemed to recognize early that they had a disastrous film on their hands. Their options were to push hard anyway and try to make something out of nothing, the strategy perfectly employed with Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles, or cut ties completely. They clearly did the latter, which was probably the right call even if it cost the distributor a few million in terms of overall box office.

The problem with a bomb is that it becomes self-fulfilling prophecy in the social media era. Films die quicker and more dramatically as the gravity of the downward spiral takes hold. Whether that lost revenue is more or less than what the additional advertising would have cost is up for conjecture. I am inclined to believe that abandoning Sin City: A Dame to Kill For was the correct determination. It's a shame that the sequel to one of highest rated movies on IMDb is historically terrible. I really liked Sin City, and I hate that the mere existence of the sequel reduces it now.

Kim Hollis: I think that yes, the time between films meant that audiences had enough distance from Sin City to be cynical about it today. Not only is the stylized look past its prime, but it also doesn't feel unique or interesting. Another problem it faces is that most comic book films have at least some degree of interest for kids, but this is just far too adult and humorless.

Probably the worst issue is that the whole campaign around Sin City 2's release felt lifeless and lost. There was absolutely no energy around its debut in theaters. Audiences can sense that kind of lethargy, I think. I'd agree with Reagen that Frank Miller is probably persona non grata in Hollywood circles.

Continued:       1       2       3