Please sir, can I have some more?

Rating: 9/10 (23 August 2004)

Okay, so lets get the criticisms out of the way first; the acting's a little wooden and the director does an annoyingly successful job of trying to shake the camera around as much as possible when there's anything remotely acion based.
There, that's it, I'm done!
I came out of the cinema and my friend turned around to me and asked what I thought and, having just recovered from the slight nausea of the aforementioned shaky-cam, I laid out those two criticism. His reaction? "Man, if they were the worst you could say about this film then you must have really liked it."
Then it dawned on me and slowly the smile spread across my face and as I hit the bottom step of the exit to the cinema I turned to my fiancée and beamed "I REALLY like that film!!"
The first film impressed me because for every scene there was a twist in my opinion, every scene ended differently to how you thought it might. Okay sure, the overall plot was a little predictable (not meant harshly) but every individual scene impressed until the sum of the scenes became more than the sum of the film - does that make any sense to anyone else?
I think it's the same with the sequel, each scene is well crafted and impresses over and over again. We are thrown into the action from the start and the plot is thrown in as and when it's required. They have decided to reinvent the wheel with this one, they stuck to a winning formula and I for one cannot wait for part 3 which must inevitably happen.
I just hope that the director doesn't attempt to film the action scenes by encouraging a troop of gibbons to throw a camera around as much as possible. It just made me think that the choreography isn't up to much and he was trying to hide it BUT I really don't think that that was the case. I would just part with: let us SEE what's going on next time!
Overall, not bad at all!