MovieChat Forums > Johnny English Reborn (2011) Discussion > Why Reborn is not as good as the first m...

Why Reborn is not as good as the first movie.


1) The main reason i loved the first film was because it has fantastic witty dialogue(eg, waiter scene) combined with many naturally memorable situations(wrong building, funeral scene). The sequel placed more emphasis on physical comedy which seemed more forced and to me a little boring...

2)Part one had a fantastic soundtrack. Not just the theme music but also the Robbie Williams song, A Man For All Seasons and the Salsa version of the theme music.

3)Natalie Imbruglia was a lot more interesting character than Rosamund Pike. Imbruglia is more comedic, has more spunk and seemed to have more chemistry with Atkinson compared to Pike who's role is rather detached and, as a hypnotist seemed to be pushing it a little but... especially with the lame hypnotism thing going on...

That being said, i still hope there will be another sequel.

reply

I totally agree. The first one reminded me why I love British humour (because of the witty dialogue, like you said), while the second one relied far too much on slapstick.

reply

I'm glad to see some people share similar views. I thought this movie was very very average, and that the first one was much better. I am surprised to see the rating on here as high as it is. I see a ton of comments referring to people being glad to see a 'wholesome comedy', but that does not need to equate to boring which it kind of does in this case.

reply

I know what you mean with British humour an I quite agree. Still the movie was nothing less then awesome! You do not need to compare the two to enjoy both.

"I may be love's bitch, but at least I'm man enough to admit it." - Spike

reply

Agreed

reply

Agreed too. The first movie had more laugh out loud moments imo. Also wasnt a big fan of Johnny's new assistant, nothing against the actor I just found the character uninteresting - could have easily brought back Ben Miller as his old assistant.

reply

more reason why critics are retarded. The first film was clearly better.

reply

I also agree completely; the first film was brilliant and this follow-up was only average. I do find that I'm liking it better after a couple of watches on DVD, but the first one was love at first sight. I found the character of Johnny rather inconsistent in the second film; sometimes he was quite brilliant (the chase scene on the rooftop, for example) and other times quite the moron. I was unsure what to expect from him from scene to scene. Tucker didn't support/play off Johnny as well as Bough did, either. Johnny needed Bough for balance, but he would have done just fine without Tucker.

reply

[deleted]

Because its better.

---------------------------------------------
Applied Science? All science is applied. Eventually.

reply

I agree the first one was slightly funnier, although I like both movies.

reply

"Reborn" is simply worse than the original in every aspect:

- writing
- acting/cast
- directing

Even the special effects (which the first movie used sparingly anyway) are worse. It just felt like a lazy cash-in.


"Oh, what have I drunk?" - Socrates

reply

You totally left 3 other great reasons:
- Bough!!!!! His straight (as in straight face) sidekick routine played beautifully against Atkinson's walking disaster. Why the HECK was he not brought back? That alone sunk the film.
- Malkovich. His bad guy routine was priceless (the accent, the faces, you name it). He also played off Atkinson to a t.
- Pegasus (whatever the actor's name is). He was also great even if he had few scenes. Gillian Anderson is a CRAP actress who's only good for the X files (where she didn't really need much acting range beyond her skirt and cleaverage) and pinups. She looked/sounded/acted strange, out of place, annoyed and dull.

reply