ONE OF THE MOST DISSAPOINTING MOVIES EVER
Nearly unwatchable *beep* crap.share
Coming to a board full of FC 2 fans and saying that may not have been the smartest idea.
"Your men are already dead..."
Are you nuts??? How was it disapointing?
"I watched a Rohmer film once. It was kinda like watching paint dry." -Night Moves
I dont think he has to be crazy.
I myself Got the two of them on sale it turned out a good buy... Because of the first one. The first one is so full of energy, the docu-like camerawork is great and the acting is aboslutely amazing.
But the second one is really lacking in many ways. One of my main problems is that what seems to be supposed to be a character-study of Popeye, well, somehow it just does'nt work for me. In this movie he is acting like a complete [email protected]##, and alot of the time like a total idiot. Too me he always came across as a brutal guy and a bigot, but still really intelligent.
Also, I dont think the plot itself is plausable, and that Gene Hackmans performance is not up to his usual standard.
movies i recommend: http://www.imdb.com/list/M0pPpt9OPhg/
insulting the ladies in the bar is not funny, or realistic
or anything else
Either you are a troll, or just nuts. This is one the greatest sequels of all time. If you don't realize this then you should stick to Superhero movies..
"IMdB; where 14 year olds can act like jaded 40 year old critics...'
I'd say the truth is somewhere in between.
As an opening salvo, I think it's pretty clear that it doesn't have the greatness of The French Connection. But then, I think that movie is indisputably one of the best crime thrillers ever made.
But its sequel isn't horrible; it's actually quite good.
The problem may be one of tone. In the first film, Popeye epitomized the unlikable antihero. But he worked up to his elbows in the cesspool of New York crime circa 1971. He needed his edge, and he got results, you stupid chief, so who are we to criticize?
In Marseilles, Popeye isn't constantly reacting to ornery colleagues or criminals, and his brazen hostility and social entitlement come across as either overly clownish or completely off-putting. Yeah, I get that it's a "fish out of water" story (nicely reinforced at the outset by the presence of actual fish) but if we're going to have any respect for Doyle as a cop, he might show a bit more self awareness. But then, would we even have a movie here?
Or maybe it's a matter of structure? One of the reasons the first film is so effective is because it's a procedural in the best sense. It makes the minutiae of police work fascinating, and it does this by forcing the viewer to pay close attention to details in order to get the full impact of the story. It's very kinetic in this regard, pushing from one thing to the next breathlessly.
The biggest reason the sequel didn't work for me the first time lies here; it's so damned laid back. It's Popeye's tour of the city; it's Popeye stepping in shît with the local cops, rinse, repeat; it's Popeye kicking heroin, etc. The structure and pacing are so completely at odds with the first film that it feels almost surreal at times.
Now that I've seen it four or five times, I'm in a much better place to appreciate it for the film it is, rather than fixating on the ways in which it makes such a weird companion piece to the original.
Of course, there's that ending. It's just terrific.
There's the drawing room play that Hackman makes out of the "kick" scenes -- powerful stuff, even if first time viewers may find it seems to sap the story of momentum.
There's also Bernard Fresson as "Bar-dle-mee", giving exactly the kind of support Hackman's performance needs -- restrained, yet not to be trifled with. They have great chemistry together.
Have I mentioned the ending? Good. I'll mention it again.