bjhex1

The first film was interesting. It had a solid premise, yet still was silly. Sometimes blurring the lines of whether the audience is meant to take it seriously or as parody. But ultimately there was no doubt it was parody. And it's silly way, the original movie was reasonably enjoyable.

But this sequel is just a squalid mess of destruction porn (an issue they were always going to have to combat in both movies). But the problem in 2 is that they just TOO sincerely want the audience to take the heartfelt family bit seriously, thereby largely undermining the absurdism of the parody. Consequently, the stupid booby traps and explosions have to do all the heavy lifting, the film lacking any wit or genuine irony.

However, the movie's greatest sin is the atrocious writing. My god, was it awful, wooden and unimaginative (and did the one character say guests would get a "free refund"?). Even when they've teed up some of the characters for what seem to be signature one-liners (RZA, Stone, and Neilsen each have one), they are flat and uninteresting. Some of the less-than-stellar acting can be attributed to having to spew such boring dreck. It was only a 90 minute movie, and yet I checked my watch at least four times.

They say up front, it's not a poem, not to be taken figuratively (and presumably then easily dismissed, as artistic fancy). It's facts and figures from history. It's an exposure of white Christian supremacy on the North American continent. Students of Indigenous history know much of what is presented in this film, but it's powerful to have so much of it showcased in one place. That Custer, regardless of romantic perceptions as a warrior, was a cowardly fighter, preying on women and children (ultimately, Lakota recognition of that strategy becoming his undoing). And more broadly, from the duplicitous treaty practices of the US government, to the bureaucratic work-arounds to displace Natives from the land, the film highlights the government's true intent, genocide. It's no coincidence that the definition of the word was, in no small part, based on American treatment of the Indigenous peoples.

Highly recommend this to anyone who wants a true history of the United States. Though white fragility will surely prevent some from looking too closely at the truth. *To wit, the reviewer who left a 2/10 rating, there is no 'balance' when there is clear good and evil. This is a case that is crystal clear.

It's a thin premise at best, that a pathologically careful man, fearful that his inability to feel pain will result in severe or mortal injury, throws all caution to the wind, to retrieve the love of his life, after one night together. At which point the movie kind of loses its own plot, turning that condition into virtual indestructibility. But, as the saying goes, if you buy the premise, you buy the bit.

The problem is there's not enough of anything for the audience to grab onto, outside of the gruesome visual effects. It's not nearly as cleverly written as it thinks, playing as parody, but the humor only landing tepidly at best. The leads are amiable enough, but there's not much chemistry there (the writing doesn't help in that department, either). And the villain hovers somewhere between psycho killer and cartoonish buffoon, but never manages to sell either one.

The movie's intent is clearly comedic, demonstrated by precisely crafted set pieces to showcase outlandish bodily destruction, and ludicrous police interactions which facilitate the story. But it's as if the movie never really believes in itself as parody, with a discordant sentimentality, which seems to make it take itself way too seriously. The viewer can probably imagine how that juxtaposition might work, it just doesn't here, though.