What made 2021 "One Shot" stand out was its concept. To my knowledge very few movies actually done this. Sometimes you get long amazing sequences but not a whole movie. So i think that concept kinda carried the first movie.
So obviously this movie follow the same pattern and pick up very close to where the first one ended. But altough you can clearly apreciate the effort and the filmaking behind everything just as the first, its not as new anymore.
That said once again the team behind the cameras really made it work. The cuts are well hidden. Maybe a filmaker would notice them but me, an average movie fan, watching this with a few beers, i couldn't. So on that side the movie does work great.
But behind the concept itself, you have a very average plot. Pretty much "Die Hard in ...add location" as so many movies have done before. One lone soldier picking terrorists one by one to achieve a goal. That said its perfectly servicable.
Now where i am thorn is in the concept of the movie versus the action itself. The action looks great on a point of view of thinking it was done surely with minimal takes and having to coordinate all of this. We all seen Jackie Chan bloopers and how many takes he usually needed to nail his crazy stunts. So when i compare what they done here and HOW they done it, i think its pretty good. BUT... If you compare the fight scenes to other Scott Adkins movies, its nowhere on the same level.
When it comes to gun fights, again its very decent but maybe its due to the fact most guns had silencers attached to them, the sound effects felt a bit off to me. Obviously comparing them to John Wick or Extraction would be unfair, due to the nature of the movie, but i feel some scenes worked great while others felt a bit flat.
I was pretty exited to see Michael Jai White in this movie. I had no idea who he was gonna play as i didn't watch any trailer. Sadly his screen time is VERY minimal and compare to their previous work together (Scott and Michael), its their less exiting collaboration for me when it comes to them interacting.
Now the big 2 questions. Did i had fun and do i want "Another Shot" (my homemade title for a triquel). Answer is yes and "yeah but...".
I would rather have Scott do another Accident Man or especially another Boyka way before another sequel to this franchise. And quite honestly i feel by a third movie the novelty concept will have fade off even more. Sadly its kinda the whole point of this franchise so if they don't do it the same way, then why do it at all?
Bottom line, if they make a third one, i will surely watch it, but i won't be insanely exited for it. As a Scott Adkins fan i try to watch pretty much everything he star in anyway. Im gonna give the movie a 7 out of 10 on IMDB (3.5 Stars on Letterboxd) because it did entertain me and i can surely apreciate the effort put behind it.
So obviously this movie follow the same pattern and pick up very close to where the first one ended. But altough you can clearly apreciate the effort and the filmaking behind everything just as the first, its not as new anymore.
That said once again the team behind the cameras really made it work. The cuts are well hidden. Maybe a filmaker would notice them but me, an average movie fan, watching this with a few beers, i couldn't. So on that side the movie does work great.
But behind the concept itself, you have a very average plot. Pretty much "Die Hard in ...add location" as so many movies have done before. One lone soldier picking terrorists one by one to achieve a goal. That said its perfectly servicable.
Now where i am thorn is in the concept of the movie versus the action itself. The action looks great on a point of view of thinking it was done surely with minimal takes and having to coordinate all of this. We all seen Jackie Chan bloopers and how many takes he usually needed to nail his crazy stunts. So when i compare what they done here and HOW they done it, i think its pretty good. BUT... If you compare the fight scenes to other Scott Adkins movies, its nowhere on the same level.
When it comes to gun fights, again its very decent but maybe its due to the fact most guns had silencers attached to them, the sound effects felt a bit off to me. Obviously comparing them to John Wick or Extraction would be unfair, due to the nature of the movie, but i feel some scenes worked great while others felt a bit flat.
I was pretty exited to see Michael Jai White in this movie. I had no idea who he was gonna play as i didn't watch any trailer. Sadly his screen time is VERY minimal and compare to their previous work together (Scott and Michael), its their less exiting collaboration for me when it comes to them interacting.
Now the big 2 questions. Did i had fun and do i want "Another Shot" (my homemade title for a triquel). Answer is yes and "yeah but...".
I would rather have Scott do another Accident Man or especially another Boyka way before another sequel to this franchise. And quite honestly i feel by a third movie the novelty concept will have fade off even more. Sadly its kinda the whole point of this franchise so if they don't do it the same way, then why do it at all?
Bottom line, if they make a third one, i will surely watch it, but i won't be insanely exited for it. As a Scott Adkins fan i try to watch pretty much everything he star in anyway. Im gonna give the movie a 7 out of 10 on IMDB (3.5 Stars on Letterboxd) because it did entertain me and i can surely apreciate the effort put behind it.