Why did this bomb so bad? - Sin City: A Dame to Kill For (2014) Discussion

[–] RockytheBear 10 years ago

Nobody went to see it because people have lost interest over time. People who DID see it didn't enjoy it, and here are reasons I believe they didn't:

Action sequels are supposed to be bigger, louder, and push the envelope further. This movie actually regressed and feels more tame than the first.

The sequel's story was just more of the same, and offered nothing new.

The cast wasn't as impressive as the original.

Bruce Willis was COMPLETELY wasted in this role. Big disappointment.

The story never progressed forward in any way.

After nine years in the making, the movie still felt incomplete, and overall, the movie was anti-climatic.

reply

[–] TheBeardedWonder 10 years ago

This movie actually regressed and feels more tame than the first.

Pretty much. There were many reasons, but that seems like the biggest. Those who weren't into the first weren't going to see it anyway. Those who did enjoy the first were let down by a sequel with less balls than the original. The style and storytelling was almost identical, so that wasn't the problem I don't think.

It was just like someone remade the 1st with inferior actors/writing and a smaller budget...

'Get yourself a real dog. Any dog under 50 lbs is a cat and cats are pointless' - Ron Swanson

reply

[–] Channel_1393 10 years ago

It sucked

http://tinypic.com/view.php?pic=14spme0&s=8#.U_XRd2K9KK0

reply

[–] ian_sylvie 10 years ago

i think the 9 year gap, and the timing of when it was released. It easily got lost in the shuffle of the summer blockbusters. if it was released somewhere between Feb to April it probably would have had a better chance

reply

[–] Renoun 10 years ago

The pace of the film felt hurried and the scenes seemed to be slopped together.

A lie becomes the truth then it becomes a lie again.

reply

[–] miserycounty 10 years ago

It may sound simple but I think it looks cheap. The first one didn't because it was revolutionary and the cheap CGI looked pretty good because it wasn't in crystal clear HD.

reply

[–] aburn-1 10 years ago

you gotta strike while the iron is hot. took too long for this sequel to come out. sure, demand was extreme for a sequel for the first few years. then people started to forget about it. also, when Sin City came out, there hadn't been anything like it before. since then, we've had a plethora of similar style movies: 300 and its sequel, The Immortals, etc. Sin City was unique. now, this type of movie is no longer fresh. and people had stopped caring by the time they finally made it.

reply

[–] 10 years ago

[deleted]

[–] VideoGamesareReel 10 years ago

They waited too long to make a sequel (everyone wanted this in 2008 and they pushed it back until no one cared), and they killed off the most interesting characters in the first film.

I think it's more the former than the latter though

Reader discretion is advised

reply

[–] trantor2nd 10 years ago

I was looking forward to this movie for years, up until the day it premiered. It was filmed in 3d but not released in 3d at any theater in my country. Waited for the DVD instead. Am kinda sorry I did as part 3 probably won't ever get made.

reply