I just want to watch the second one. will i be confused?
shareNot really. The primary tie is with his girlfriend (wife?) who carries over from the first film. That, and the dojo they belonged to. He was affiliated with a dojo in Japan (around which the events of the first movie center) and that carries over a bit as well.
But even if you didn't know any of the above, you'd still be able to follow the movie.
You should see the first one. Not only because it is friggin' awesome, but because it shows you the origins of the character, and what he has been through. Also explains why he is an american running a damn ninja dojo to begin with.
shareAs I said in another post, you absolutely do NOT need to see the first one before seeing this much better film. Ninja: Shadow of a Tear stands on its own and is an intense, no-nonsense old school martial arts revenge film. The first film was a silly, extremely badly acted and badly executed lame live-action cartoon and should be avoided (unless that's your cup of tea). Scott Adkins and director Isaac Florentine both admitted they were disapointed with the first film, and made a conscious effort not to make the same mistakes this time around, and they succeeded.
shareI disagree. Maybe its been a while since you've taken a look at it, but the first movie was badass! Watched it right after this one and its held up well.
Great action, great characters, great villain, and more genuine "Ninja" scenes. Unlike this one where fights were often vigilante-style without the outfit. The villain was especially better.
Also without seeing the first, you'll know NOTHING about the main character also. Especially the relationship with the wife. The 2nd just kinda assumes you saw the first movie and continues onward. Like when the guy in the Dojo mentions the certain sparring match Adkins character had in the past. Completely LOST on those who didn't see the first.
Its little things like that. The first is like 'build-up' to this one and its awesomeness.
Well, I maintain that you absolutely DO NOT need to have seen the first film to know what's going on in the second. You won't be lost for even one second if you haven't seen it because everything you need to know about the main character and his wife is in the second film. They're married and they run a dojo in Japan. She's killed and he sets out to avenge her death. That's more than enough information. The throw-away moment when the guy in the dojo mentions a sparring match has no impact on anything and won't confuse anyone even for a second (it's a meaningless tidbit).
Anyway, the first film is a fantasy/sci-fi live-action cartoon. This is simply a fact, which Adkins and Florentine admitted numerous times when voicing their own disappointment with how the first film turned out and it's why they went the opposite direction with "Ninja: Shadow of a Tear" making sure that everything was more realistic more intense and more serious this time around. If fantasy/sci-fi live-action cartoons and comic book superhero films are your cup of tea, then you might like the first film despite its many other shortcomings like bad acting, bad set design, and silly Russian cults, etc…
As far as more genuine "Ninja" scenes go, we must have a different view on what that is. I cringed at all the scenes where they were dressed in those silly god-awful Batman/GI Joe inspired ninja suits in the first film. The villain's suit had wings no less (!) and was also equipped with all kinds of modern electronic surveillance night-vision sci-fi crap, which you see in cartoons, superhero comic books, and video games. And he even had a high tech ninja "batcave". The suit that Scott wears in the first film is just as lame and modern-looking which is made even worse since it's supposedly an antique suit from Japan's feudal era. And don't even get me started on the magic potion inside the sword which brings Mika Hijii's character back from the dead! The ninja mythology/flashback involving said "magic sword" was also pretty lame.
The "Ninja" stuff in the second film may have had less screen time but it was much cooler. The mythology back story was based more in realism, incorporating a WWII ninja group trained by Seiko Fujita, a Japanese martial artist who some consider to have been the "Last Koga Ninja" and who during WWII taught Nanban Satto-ryu Kenpo at the Rikugun Nakano Gakko (Army Academy of Nakano). The ninja suits are much more traditional looking, once again in keeping with the more raw and real tone of the film (unlike the fantasy of the first film). And the ninja raid in the second film (and everything from that point on in the film) blows away everything ninja related in the first film, from the fight choreography to the weapons use, etc...
But perhaps the main reason why the first film is so bad is that the acting is beyond terrible (I've seen better acting in student films). The fight choreography is also uninspired which makes the action scenes boring. The only good thing about the first film is Mika Hijii. She's the only one whose acting isn't completely amateurish and awful (Scott's acting is fortunately much better in the second film), and her subway fight scene is the only good/inventive fight in the entire film. Unfortunately, the writing and story is so stupid that they turn her from a highly-skilled ninja (and the daughter of the ninja teacher no less) to inexplicably a damsel in distress at the end of the film, just so that her white knight can come to her rescue and like in the fantasy fairy tale Snow White bring her back to life with magic. LAME!
Enough said.
[deleted]
Chanbara- I think its sad that you want so desperately to back up your argument, that your willing to take a crap all over the first movie to do it. Talking about it like it was god awful and this is not so.
The 2nd movie is obviously superior, but the first was still pretty cool as well, with good action scenes, Adkins was great and it had a GREAT bad guy too. Masazuka was badass! The first movie easily had the better villain.
The acting was decent also. The cult leader guy was the only part of the cast that was weak in this area. Dude was silly lol.
Lastly, whats so wrong about modernized Ninja outfits with tech? Its only natural for assassins to incorporate the best tools of the era. Clearly you have a bias against that sort of thing but thats on you.
Cyborg1989- You seem to take my assessment of the first film personally. Sorry you took it that way. I was simply stating specifically why (as the original poster asked) someone doesn't need to see the first film before seeing the second one from an understanding stand-point, and why tonally and stylistically the second film is so different (and in my opinion so much better) than the first (pointing out that it was done on purpose and stated as such numerous times by Isaac and Scott, because of how they themselves felt about the first film). I don't see that as me taking a crap all over the first film, nor do I feel desperate. You obviously liked the first film which is fine; I did not (except for the elements I stated earlier) and I simply explained why that was. To each his own. :)
Anyway, I stand by my earlier comments and I’m not alone in my disappointment with the first film, so my earlier post was also to others who might unfortunately pass on the second one because they think it’s similar to the first. I wanted to let them know the facts and the differences/improvements so that they don’t miss out on this one (I've personally had to convince a few people who hated the first one to give the second one a chance - and they loved it).
This movie had better story line, but first one had better characters and is more of a ninja movie. Why wouldn't anyone watch the first one first?
shareYou really don't have to,but it is an awesome movie
I use to own this town
Now its been turned upside down
Do You Think Its Just a phase I'm going through