derLars77

To be honest, I can't understand all the positive comments. A movie whose social criticism is limited to the burning of money and a couple of slogans.

Yet he wants to be so much more. But instead of real criticism, the movie indulges in violence. The main character has no motivation for his actions. The movie wavers between pseudo-realistic dialog and non-narrated revenge orgy. The camera wobbles along and tries to tell an action story where there is only senseless violence. To be honest, the movie tells no story at all, but is a series of meaningless dialogs, explosions and a guy who shoots at everything that moves. 90 minutes long. Boring.

Yes, it's a B-movie and yes, these kinds of films, especially action movies, are often very cheaply cranked down flicks with cheap effects and even cheaper dialog. Gifted. However, this film series scores with good pictures and passable actors, but suffers greatly from its cliché-laden screenplays, which are so outrageous that they give the impression of having been written by some action movie screenplay machine. Doesn't anyone read these books? For me, it remains the greatest acting achievement to be able to play this nonsense without cramps and with the necessary seriousness. Chapeau.

Despite all the criticism, it has to be said that this movie (like its predecessor) has its moments. There is a strong villain here, whose nasty nature is very appealing. The open ends of plots from the first part are also picked up and continued here.

All in all, however, the feeling remains that a lot of B-movie action has been soldered together in a completely abstruse script without really dealing with the characters and their motivations. And that's a shame, because basically everything else works well. The music, effects, picture and editing are okay and suggest a higher budget than there probably was. So why save on the story?