5 years ago

@faithful I wouldn't have a go at you, but I think I felt the same way as you on first watch and having watched it a second time, I think it isn't as good as the original, but it holds up damn well. Ultimately, the main characters are as likable as they were, and that means, like a lot of good movies like this (and like Harry mentions in the first movie), the villains really drive these movies. While the [spoiler]twist villain in Whiskey[/spoiler] wasn't overly interesting, Julianne Moore's quirky, almost wholesome Poppy is as great a gimmicky weirdo as Samuel L Jackson's lispy, hemophobic original villain.<br /> <br /> But for me, what makes this plot good under everything, is the [spoiler]ethical dilemma posed by holding specifically junkies hostage. Which, to any rational person, should be an unacceptable choice to allow a blanket loss of life in such a widespread demographic of people based on personal choice people disagree with... But even giving a little push to ask, if this happened in the real world, how many people would make the same stand as the movie's President. In this current political climate, how likely would _our own_ President be to at least consider the same exact stand... Not to mention the parallels it draws to the issues with bigotry going on in the country now (and the tensions that were building when the film was released). I like that it used a demographic less obvious, that might seem more 'reasonable' as a target, while still posing the same sort of ethical question, basically rolling two major issues (drug use and bigotry) into one plot.[/spoiler]<br /> <br /> That underlying theme, along with another stellar villain, really makes this movie stand up as, not as good as the first, but absolutely a worthy successor, and has it teetering between an 8 and a 9 for me.