![]() In contrast, Zwick, who directed the sequel, has an Oscar-sprinkled director resume, but is known for drama epics. ![]() Despite his short director resume, he has been consistent in action films. McQuarrie, who directed the first, is known more for his writing resume and has limited directing time, yet seems to understand the concept of satisfying action film fans while maintaining the continuity of a good overall film. ![]() I think this film suffers very specifically from two problems - its comparison to the first film and its director. This sequel falls flat in all those other aspects. However, the first film more than satisfies all that too, but then outshines the sequel in every other way, making it a complete film in my opinion. I gave this one a 6 because it satisfies fundamental aspects of an action film, and those who rated the sequel higher than 6 or liked it, consistently to gravitated to that point. Yet it's the collective of many small differences and attention to detail that makes one film great and the other a dud. There is little difference between the first and second films in terms of production level, casting, story line, etc. The disappointment I felt then is still palpable today, especially after recently re-watching the first film. ![]() I'm reviewing this long after seeing it in the theater and I haven't seen it since despite its availability on Netflix, Hulu, Prime. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
Details
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |