MovieChat Forums > The Second Best Exotic Marigold Hotel (2015) Discussion > Just left the theaters

Just left the theaters

posted 9 years ago by matheusbeltrao96
26 replies | jump to latest

I was worried that they'd ruin the first movie with this sequel, and I can honestly say, I was beyond delighted with what I saw! This follow is so amazingly beautiful, touching, funny and just as enjoyable as the first. Maggie Smith is absolutely FANTASTIC! Loved the movie and sincerely? Hope they make a third and last one to wrap up the story lines and end the series... I'm not always looking forward to sequels, but I'd really to see a third and last entry on this. It's beautiful, insightful, and even though I'm young, we can get a lot of lessons from this movies! Absolutely great!

[–] mikeyflatley 9 years ago

It wuz otay but why did they end on such a solemn note? Da juxtaposition of smith leavin and da celebration wuz too jarrin and did not make 4 a good endin

[–] TheAlexMay 9 years ago

RIP English

[–] psdhart 9 years ago

RIP English



[–] seekingallthetime 9 years ago

R.I.P.,
yes but you are too late, it's 238th anniversary just passed.

[–] Aunt_Margie 8 years ago

👍

[–] vincentlynch-moonoi 9 years ago

Endings aren't always happy. You have to remember that the film is about a place where old people go to live out their remaining years in a different environment. In the first movie, the gay character died. In this movie someone really had to die to make it realistic. And, when you stop to think about it, it's the perfect ending -- showing that while one person is on the way out, a newlywed couple is just beginning and learned from her.

[–] mikeyflatley 9 years ago

Iow, life's a biatch, then u die.

[–] disneyed 9 years ago

Happy to hear. Really looking forward to this!

"You find a glimmer of happiness in this world, there's always someone who wants to destroy it." JD

[–] littlekaren 9 years ago

Well, I must be the only one on imdb who didn't especially care for it. But as a movie lover who just got done seeing all the Oscar worthy flicks, came down to earth really quickly with this. No more sequels, please!

[–] dacoopman 9 years ago

Didn't have the right balance of the different stories like the first one did, which made it drag in parts. The ideas are there but it's a good edit short of being comparable

[–] WhenGreyjoysCry 9 years ago

I watched it without having seen the first. Chose it because I thought the girl I was with would like it. Entertaining movie. Im going to watch the first one now.

"Gold buys a mans silence for a time. A bolt to the heart buys it forever"

[–] VidaBoheme 9 years ago

You're not the only one. I didn't love it either. Didn't hate it per se, but the writing was pretty bad.

[–] monstermayhem32 9 years ago

The sequel was decent but thr first was better story.

[–] dbill112 9 years ago

along with acting, script,etc.It's a shame to see such talent wasted on this.

[–] psdhart 9 years ago

I thought it could have been better

[–] louiseculmer 9 years ago

I didn't like it much. The plot is rather silly, mostly consisting of a lot of very silly misunderstandings. snd Sonny's fawning on the man who is supposed to be the hotel inspector is juts annoying. and nothing is explained about Muriel, what is wrong with her etc. nor is it ever explained how Sonny manages to acquire another hotel. Nor for that matter why he needs it, the first one doesn't seem to be very full. i think the titke is accurate, it is second best.

[–] Jelly-4 9 years ago

Agree with you Louise.

Obviously anyone seeing this movie doesn't expect CGI and special effects.

Whereas the first film portrays complex, interesting characters, strong narrative and genuine conflict the second one had none of this. The movie was dreadful.

[–] louiseculmer 9 years ago

I think that was the problem, there are no real conflicts. Everything was resolved at the end of the first film, and so in the second one all they could do was manufacture absurd misunderstandings, they had nothing new tomsay about any of the characters.

[–] Ithilfaen 9 years ago

Whereas the first film portrays complex, interesting characters, strong narrative and genuine conflict the second one had none of this. The movie was dreadful.

Exactly. This movie felt like a poor parody of the first one.
Where the first movie succeeded with its heartfelt storylines, philosophy, complex characters and development, the second fails with clichés, banalities and Bollywood stereotypes.

For every lie I unlearn I learn something new - Ani Difranco

[–] megevans-sjm 9 years ago

I'd really love a third too!

[–] agentpeach 9 years ago

Well, I really liked it. To hell with plot and storylines, character development. There were a lot of universal truths expressed. I think sometimes modern audiences, especially Americans, have problems with films that don't have a lot of action, CGI, and Hollywood faces. I found both films charming. It's nice to see a young person like matheusbeltrao96, who started this thread, being enthusiastic about a film that juxtaposed the young with the old because both groups have much to learn from each other.

[–] 9 years ago

[deleted]

[–] louiseculmer 9 years ago

Well, I'm neither modern nor american, but I found it a bore. It had none of the charm and humour of the first film, and there was really nothing interesting for the characters to do or say. No strong story arc like youngot in the first film with Tom Wilkinson's character looking for his long lost love.

[–] kenmal-1 9 years ago

I agree with you totally agentpeach

[–] Papayaman 9 years ago

me too agentpeach

[–] Ithilfaen 9 years ago

Well, I really liked it. To hell with plot and storylines, character development. There were a lot of universal truths expressed.

yeah because a movie doesn't need characters or storylines, just a bunch of fortune cookie wisdom and that's what makes a masterpiece 

I think sometimes modern audiences, especially Americans, have problems with films that don't have a lot of action, CGI, and Hollywood faces

I think a lot of old people just like movies with old people and if they can't see how the first movie's charm was utterly destroyed for the sake of money making in the second one, they are no better than the young'ns who like CGI. Also, Richard Gere, I suppose, was a Shakespearean actor, was he?

For every lie I unlearn I learn something new - Ani Difranco