Sin City: A Dame To Kill For (2014)

2/5

Sin City: A Dame To Kill For is the most recent in a seemingly endless spate of uninspired summer sequels that do little more than attempt to rehash a winning franchise/formula and only end up disappointing everybody. It brings back some actors but not others (I was really hoping for a Clive Owen cameo, but it never came) and jumbles up the timeline in the most unnecessarily labyrinthine way. A lot of it just didn't make sense if you spent more than a few seconds thinking about the plot. The one saving grace is the pure villainy of the film's title character; she is a femme fatale for the ages.

A Dame To Kill For looks exactly the same as the original without feeling as inventive or awe-inspiring. While the first one was fresh and gritty, this one is tired and gruesome. The special effects and the writing both go way overboard in an attempt to one-up itself and raise the bar on violent deaths even more extravagantly. It's all a little too much--honestly even a little sickening--and we've seen it before. I loved the first one and saw it three times the first week it came out in theaters, but I have no desire to watch this one ever again.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0458481/

The Golden Compass (2007)

3/5

I read these books a while back and really liked them. I never fell in love with them like a fanboy, but I appreciated the depth of characters and mature content usually absent in "children's books." Those are almost precisely the things this movie lacked. It was a children's movie without the adult themes and complex characters. And yet somehow it managed to stay too faithful to the book. There was no adaptation involved; instead it compacted every single important event in the book and shoved it into this movie, which made everything seem forced and outright ridiculous. Moreover, the world they imagined was so different from what I had imagined. It was futuristic with blue balls of energy powering everything. What is that? When I read the book I imagined it was just London in present day. Another qualm is the CGI. I hated it. Filmmakers depend on it too much; it seems as if they don't even shoot anything anymore. It's just not believable.

But to be fair, I did find myself enjoying it a lot. The bear fight scene was awesome, and there were some parts that were really exciting. There's nothing really terrible about the movie, just frustrating. It's irritating when you see good material treated sloppily. Don't go out and see it if you can avoid it. Save yourself a whole lot of ire and just read (or re-read) the books.

IMDb link: http://imdb.com/title/tt0385752/

Casino Royale (2006)

4/5

I was expecting this Bond movie to be particularly good, since they usually are when they cast a new actor to play Bond, but I was let down. Don't get me wrong; it's not bad, it's just not as good as it should have been. It seemed to follow the trend of humanizing superhero characters as in the two Spiderman movies and Batman Begins, which took away from the Bond we know and love and have grown up with. Why are there no gadgets in this movie? The music was a heavy-handed attempt at being emotive, which just made it ludicrously melodramatic in some places, and mediocre at best in others. It was much too long--its ending felt longer than the ending(s) for the Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King. Yes, all 13 of them.

The action in the beginning was amazing. Absolutely flawless. The women are unbelievably sexy and the cars are stunning. The pacing up until the finale is surprisingly well done, and Campbell is able to switch moods effortlessly. The acting is phenomenal, something you don't usually see in a Bond flick. It's a real treat to see Bond's transformation from the very beginning to the very end of the movie. It's definitely a good addition to the Bond lineage, I just don't know if I like the direction it's going.

IMDb link: http://imdb.com/title/tt0381061/