Watch the first part, skip the second..
First part is thrilling, well paced, and excellent. Second part falls apart, never recovers.
The issue is not the film itself (it's well made) but an unfocused story. The framing device used (we know how it ends) gets sucked out the drama when it becomes an extended sequence in the second film. By then, almost 4 hours have gone by and the movie spends too much time on subplots that don't pay off the second.
It isn't necessary to get the whole story arc to enjoy the movie, everything about the character is told well in the first part.
Vincent Cassel (an actor I greatly admire) gives the performance of a lifetime as Jaqcues Mesrine, notorious French bank robber. He's charming and a total anti hero, in the tradition of bad guys who we root for. The movie doesn't give him a worthy adversary to test him, so the cops come across as incredibly inept even by movie standards. This is a flaw as any good character needs an antigonist to complete him. Vincent overlooks this and presents the character in all his glory, he is not a complex man but one driven by his ideals in what he does is right. Unlike Scarface, there isn't a subtext to his reason or at less the movie doesn't make it it's focus. He loves the media and uses it to cultivate his infamy, for reputation is what drives him. Nothing is off putting considering how dangerous and unlikeable the character is in conception. The scene were he puts the gun on his Wife's mouth is toeing the line, yet the movie reverts back to his charming self. When his daughter shows up later in the story and suddenly loves him (he walked out on her as a baby) I didn't believe it at all. The film isn't critical of him at all, I think that's the biggest problem. Morally gray characters have to have an arc that satisfies dramatically so their outcome is more powerful. Ok that's nitpicking.
A film of any anti hero must take a stand, neither morally but how the logic of that character's life ends up. The opening is the moral of the story somewhat, but as an audience member I didn't feel that way after the second part.
The second film shifts the tone and the flaws become greater upon inspection. Characters show up and there's no back story (who's the guy who helps him? we never see how they met) and too much time spent on shootouts after shootout instead of escalating the character's life or family or increasing vulnerability to satisfactory levels. It's a problem with the script, not the acting or directing.
We loved the story of the gangster, when the story gets away from the character and the subplot of the journalist kicks in it never recovers from the momentum it sets up. Bad move in great movie. I would have liked to know who killed him, just like there was enough room for other character development.
If I can tie up this story to anything, it's the story of George Jung or Bonnie and Clyde. There are shades of both as well as a nod to Le Cercle Rogue by Jean Pierre Melville. There was opportunity for a great bank robbery in the film, why didn't they use it! hahaha
It's a great story, but like I said I hated the second part sans the daring prison escape. There's dumb parts too but I'll leave those up to you.
A- for first film, C+ for second (B for the prison escape).
Saw it on the internet.