Film The Redcafe Movie review thread

Trite to express an opinion that differs to that of the majority?

You think at this point they aren't mainstream opinions? People who believe them also tend to be more vocal as they think they are in the know by going against the grain when in reality they are the grain.

You can't even speak to someone about La La land anymore without someone shouting at you its overrated, its boring and killing the conversation.
 
Moana - I absolutely loved it, to be honest. Really catchy music, such a carefree and feelgood vibe to the whole movie. I just have to mention the music again, as some of the songs were absolutely magical!
 
You think at this point they aren't mainstream opinions? People who believe them also tend to be more vocal as they think they are in the know by going against the grain when in reality they are the grain.

You can't even speak to someone about La La land anymore without someone shouting at you its overrated, its boring and killing the conversation.
Agreed. The La La Land backlash is boring and tiresome, it's a glorious film.
 
Hidden Figures - Some cliches along the way should be overlooked in my opinion for what was essentially a surprisingly enjoyable watch. Based on the subjects and Hollywood's often bastardisation of various matters, I wasn't anticipating a good watch but was clearly pleased that it wasn't the case. Thought most actors played their roles well and although there was typecasting, it still worked.
 
City of God

Finally got around to watch it. It's good but not really one of the GOATs for me. 8/10
 
Agreed. The La La Land backlash is boring and tiresome, it's a glorious film.
Was just going to write about it as I just finished it and boy was it overrated. What's the story about really? There's zero conflict, the singing is average, the songs (that had lyrics) are boring and it has John Legend which I'm pretty sure he's a robot because no human can lack such charisma.

+: Production was good, cinematography was good. Emma Stone was fine.
-: Poor story, not dramatic/funny/exciting/heartwarming/sad. Just wasn't entertaining.
 
Agreed although I liked it quite a bit less. It was no Bugsy Malone that is for sure.
 
Was just going to write about it as I just finished it and boy was it overrated. What's the story about really? There's zero conflict, the singing is average, the songs (that had lyrics) are boring and it has John Legend which I'm pretty sure he's a robot because no human can lack such charisma.

+: Production was good, cinematography was good. Emma Stone was fine.
-: Poor story, not dramatic/funny/exciting/heartwarming/sad. Just wasn't entertaining.
The whole film was about conflict? Isn't that obvious...?

Rogue One
Now I'm not a star wars fan but i quite enjoyed the first three and thought episode 7 was ok. This however bored the hell out of me. Didn't like any of the characters except Donnie Yen, the battle scenes seemed very bland and overall i felt the film was an overly long and boring affair. Having said that, it was cool to see Darth Vader and i really enjoyed the scenes with Donnie Yen in them. Felicity Jones was also ok i suppose 4.5/10

The Bye Bye Man

Three students rent a house and uncover the bye bye man, a supernatural being that makes people do horrible acts. What a clichéd pile of shit. Nothing original in this film at all. Awful acting, laughable dialogue, horrendous narrative, bad pacing, uninspiring edit, stupid cinematography etc. The worst film i seen this year so far. Avoid at all costs 0/10
 
Was just going to write about it as I just finished it and boy was it overrated. What's the story about really? There's zero conflict, the singing is average, the songs (that had lyrics) are boring and it has John Legend which I'm pretty sure he's a robot because no human can lack such charisma.

+: Production was good, cinematography was good. Emma Stone was fine.
-: Poor story, not dramatic/funny/exciting/heartwarming/sad. Just wasn't entertaining.

There's a fair bit of conflict running through the film...

At the start both characters clash. They're also both trying to achieve their dreams...but aren't doing very well at it. Then Gosling starts to succeed, which is good for him but exposes holes in the relationship and highlights how it's unlikely to work. Then Stone gets her chance at success and takes it, meaning both of them are sort of where they want to be by the end, but sacrificed each other in the meantime. I don't know how that equates to a lack of conflict?
 
Power Rangers

Terrific modern take on something I loved as a kid, good to great performances by everyone but RJ Cyler (Billy, Blue Ranger) is outstanding. It paced beautifully although the final act just seems a little bit short for the build. Some subtle nods to the past and a few cameos from Rangers of old made this a great watch. I expected this to be a major let down but I think I smiled from ear to ear right the way through, If you enjoyed this as a kid you'll at least get a good kick of nostalgia from this.

7/10
 
Last edited:
There's a fair bit of conflict running through the film...

At the start both characters clash. They're also both trying to achieve their dreams...but aren't doing very well at it. Then Gosling starts to succeed, which is good for him but exposes holes in the relationship and highlights how it's unlikely to work. Then Stone gets her chance at success and takes it, meaning both of them are sort of where they want to be by the end, but sacrificed each other in the meantime. I don't know how that equates to a lack of conflict?

I liked the ending of it. I thought that was nicely done, and the leads were charming, but I reckon a lot of the 'overrated' criticisms are based on the fact it's not a very good musical, heralded as some kind of glorious return to the halcyon age of musicals, when in actuality it's a) a fairly straight homage of those old films with lesser music and b) one of literally hundreds of more modern, better contemporary musicals that come out all the time, but somehow don't count because they don't pander nostalgically to this Hollywood naval gazing idea of a golden age musical.

It's a 'glorious' musical film for people who don't really watch a lot of classic musicals, in the same way The Artist was a silent film for people who didn't really watch a lot of silent films. Every aspect of it - from the singing to the choreography to the 'lavish' sets - is technically a lot weaker than the things it's paying homage to, but because it's made in 2017 and not 1950, that somehow raises its quality by virtue of ...something? Not having any competition I suppose?

It's not a bad film by any stretch, but put in the same bracket as the classic films it emulates, it's saying nothing new, in a slightly less impressive way, but people lost their shit over it simply by dent of it doing it at a time no one else was. It's a throwback in the same way the Expendables was, only the Expendables actually had better action sequences than the schlocky 80s movies it was a love letter to. This didn't. It had not singers and not dancers not singing and dancing very well. It was just kinda unusual and new for the 21st century, but still not actually new.

That's my take anyway. Give me Spike Lee's messy Hip Hop Lysistrata over a proficient Singing in the Rain homage any day.
 
Last edited:
The whole film was about conflict? Isn't that obvious...?

Rogue One
Now I'm not a star wars fan but i quite enjoyed the first three and thought episode 7 was ok. This however bored the hell out of me. Didn't like any of the characters except Donnie Yen, the battle scenes seemed very bland and overall i felt the film was an overly long and boring affair. Having said that, it was cool to see Darth Vader and i really enjoyed the scenes with Donnie Yen in them. Felicity Jones was also ok i suppose 4.5/10

The Bye Bye Man

Three students rent a house and uncover the bye bye man, a supernatural being that makes people do horrible acts. What a clichéd pile of shit. Nothing original in this film at all. Awful acting, laughable dialogue, horrendous narrative, bad pacing, uninspiring edit, stupid cinematography etc. The worst film i seen this year so far. Avoid at all costs 0/10

There's a fair bit of conflict running through the film...

At the start both characters clash. They're also both trying to achieve their dreams...but aren't doing very well at it. Then Gosling starts to succeed, which is good for him but exposes holes in the relationship and highlights how it's unlikely to work. Then Stone gets her chance at success and takes it, meaning both of them are sort of where they want to be by the end, but sacrificed each other in the meantime. I don't know how that equates to a lack of conflict?
What conflict?

Stone is one of thousands of actresses trying out for gigs. I'm not American but I know people in her exact position living the exact life. Where's the conflict, that she doesn't get gigs?

No conflict with Gosling. He's just doing his thing with jazz and doesn't really care. He only wants to open up a bar in a very specific place in the future where jazz is played. That's it.

Their relationship starts out as "lol we met because you honked at me in traffic. I'm going to dump my not serious boyfriend for you tomorrow". At minute 90 he takes up a gig as a musician that he got handed to him on a plate. He doesn't like the music but he likes the money. She gets pissed that no one showed up to her premier (what did she expect?) and quits only for that to be resolved in the very next scene. I was so nervous on her behalf for those 2 minutes of uncertainity. They get all lovey dovey again, she decides to go to France with the prescense that whatever happens will happen. Cut to 5 years later and she's got a kid and is world famous and he's got the bar which she randomly walks into only to realize which bar it is because it only has a sign on the inside?

My girlfriend was really disappointed that she didn't like it because she's such a big fan of musicals. Neither of us can remember a song from the movie and it's less than 24 hours since we saw it.

This movie equals the number of nominations and everyone praises it. Chicago, a superior musical, wins the Academy award 14 years ago and it's a huge controversy (I know it was up against two quality movies).

Personally I felt no reward watching it, I wasn't entertained by it, it wasn't funny or sad or anything in between and it was 213 minutes of that which was unneccasary.
 
Boss baby

The storyline was pretty confusing as I couldn't understand whether this was the older kids imagination or happening in reality.

But if you take it as it is, a kids film, it's pretty funny.

6/10
 
What conflict?

Stone is one of thousands of actresses trying out for gigs. I'm not American but I know people in her exact position living the exact life. Where's the conflict, that she doesn't get gigs?

No conflict with Gosling. He's just doing his thing with jazz and doesn't really care. He only wants to open up a bar in a very specific place in the future where jazz is played. That's it.

Their relationship starts out as "lol we met because you honked at me in traffic. I'm going to dump my not serious boyfriend for you tomorrow". At minute 90 he takes up a gig as a musician that he got handed to him on a plate. He doesn't like the music but he likes the money. She gets pissed that no one showed up to her premier (what did she expect?) and quits only for that to be resolved in the very next scene. I was so nervous on her behalf for those 2 minutes of uncertainity. They get all lovey dovey again, she decides to go to France with the prescense that whatever happens will happen. Cut to 5 years later and she's got a kid and is world famous and he's got the bar which she randomly walks into only to realize which bar it is because it only has a sign on the inside?

My girlfriend was really disappointed that she didn't like it because she's such a big fan of musicals. Neither of us can remember a song from the movie and it's less than 24 hours since we saw it.

This movie equals the number of nominations and everyone praises it. Chicago, a superior musical, wins the Academy award 14 years ago and it's a huge controversy (I know it was up against two quality movies).

Personally I felt no reward watching it, I wasn't entertained by it, it wasn't funny or sad or anything in between and it was 213 minutes of that which was unneccasary.

A lot of ther stuff you're stating in the spoiler there though does involve actual conflict. It might be fairly low-key at times in that there's no discernible villain or bad guy, but it's definitely still conflict, whether internal or between the two characters. They're both struggling to achieve what they want (which is basic conflict), and it's quite clear that to achieve what they want, they'll have to sacrifice certain things. That's again conflict at its most simple.

Whether it's a good conflict, and whether it's resolved too easily or not, is another matter of course, and there were certain elements of the film I kind of took issue with. It's not perfect by no means and I can see why someone would actively dislike it, but I really don't understand the criticism that there wasn't conflict. There was.
 
A lot of ther stuff you're stating in the spoiler there though does involve actual conflict. It might be fairly low-key at times in that there's no discernible villain or bad guy, but it's definitely still conflict, whether internal or between the two characters. They're both struggling to achieve what they want (which is basic conflict), and it's quite clear that to achieve what they want, they'll have to sacrifice certain things. That's again conflict at its most simple.

Whether it's a good conflict, and whether it's resolved too easily or not, is another matter of course, and there were certain elements of the film I kind of took issue with. It's not perfect by no means and I can see why someone would actively dislike it, but I really don't understand the criticism that there wasn't conflict. There was.
A problem arriving that is fixed in the next scene is not a conflict. The struggle was very minimal if any.
If getting an excellent job that you don't like because you're a musical snob and having to play it for a couple of years is a sacrifice then I don't know what kind of world you live in.
If moving to Paris for a few months for a job is breaking up your relationship then there's not much there to save. Maybe that wasn't the reason but if it wasn't the movie didn't care to share it.
 
A problem arriving that is fixed in the next scene is not a conflict. The struggle was very minimal if any.
If getting an excellent job that you don't like because you're a musical snob and having to play it for a couple of years is a sacrifice then I don't know what kind of world you live in.
If moving to Paris for a few months for a job is breaking up your relationship then there's not much there to save. Maybe that wasn't the reason but if it wasn't the movie didn't care to share it.

The main conflict of the second half was that with Gosling's success, he becomes more disillusioned and drifts apart from Stone. It's done quite well over the space of a few scenes.

First off, he's in his new band but quite clearly doesn't like it (conflict) and it's also quite clear that touring is driving him away from his partner. Then the conflict is heightened in the dinner scene as the relationship starts to crumble. The problems are then heightened again when he doesn't turn up to her show.

It's not exactly them struggling to find food or anything, but then it doesn't have to be; plenty of conflicts surround fairly well-off people and the minor events that happen within their lives. The ending has a ton of conflict. They've both succeeded but had to sacrifice each other in the process - again, not life or death, but fairly bittersweet.

And for what it's worth I do think there were some problems - Stone's character suddenly finding success out of nowhere seemed like they were jumping the gun a bit, and we're never really given much which shows she's all that good an actress or playwright. But still, it doesn't mean there's not a conflict.
 
I liked the ending of it. I thought that was nicely done, and the leads were charming, but I reckon a lot of the 'overrated' criticisms are based on the fact it's not a very good musical, heralded as some kind of glorious return to the halcyon age of musicals, when in actuality it's a) a fairly straight homage of those old films with lesser music and b) one of literally hundreds of more modern, better contemporary musicals that come out all the time, but somehow don't count because they don't pander nostalgically to this Hollywood naval gazing idea of a golden age musical.

It's a 'glorious' musical film for people who don't really watch a lot of classic musicals, in the same way The Artist was a silent film for people who didn't really watch a lot of silent films. Every aspect of it - from the singing to the choreography to the 'lavish' sets - is technically a lot weaker than the things it's paying homage to, but because it's made in 2017 and not 1950, that somehow raises its quality by virtue of ...something? Not having any competition I suppose?

It's not a bad film by any stretch, but put in the same bracket as the classic films it emulates, it's saying nothing new, in a slightly less impressive way, but people lost their shit over it simply by dent of it doing it at a time no one else was. It's a throwback in the same way the Expendables was, only the Expendables actually had better action sequences than the schlocky 80s movies it was a love letter to. This didn't. It had not singers and not dancers not singing and dancing very well. It was just kinda unusual and new for the 21st century, but still not actually new.

That's my take anyway. Give me Spike Lee's messy Hip Hop Lysistrata over a proficient Singing in the Rain homage any day.

Oh yeah, I'm not disputing that it borrows a lot from previous films or that the conflict itself is fairly unoriginal and has been done 1000 times over, but I was more disagreeing with the idea there wasn't really any conflict at all when it was clear there was a fair bit running throughout the film.
 
Wait how was there an either or? Moving away for a few months is giving up on love?
When together, be had to make ends meet so took the gig with John legend, but apart, he could concentrate on his dream, which wouldn't happen if he went Paris with her... Who's to say she wouldn't get plenty of work and have to stay longer term... The point is he tells her to go off and give it 100% which she can't if they're together.
 
The main conflict of the second half was that with Gosling's success, he becomes more disillusioned and drifts apart from Stone. It's done quite well over the space of a few scenes.

First off, he's in his new band but quite clearly doesn't like it (conflict) and it's also quite clear that touring is driving him away from his partner. Then the conflict is heightened in the dinner scene as the relationship starts to crumble. The problems are then heightened again when he doesn't turn up to her show.

It's not exactly them struggling to find food or anything, but then it doesn't have to be; plenty of conflicts surround fairly well-off people and the minor events that happen within their lives. The ending has a ton of conflict. They've both succeeded but had to sacrifice each other in the process - again, not life or death, but fairly bittersweet.

And for what it's worth I do think there were some problems - Stone's character suddenly finding success out of nowhere seemed like they were jumping the gun a bit, and we're never really given much which shows she's all that good an actress or playwright. But still, it doesn't mean there's not a conflict.
Being in a band that he doesn't like is him being a musical snob. That's his whole character. Jazz is everything and everything else is boring. The fact that he ends up succesful (can't imagine that real estate was cheap) after starting out the movie as not caring is poorly excetuted. We see him get an amazing gig thrown into his lap out of nowhere and he regretfully accepts it, earning loads of money doing so. Yea, I totally felt his misery come through the screen there.

His dream was to get open up a place. That's not free. Obviously he's going to need money and he manages to save up, buy the place, renovate it and open it up to success in less than 5 years. Your explanation of the conflict on the way was that he didn't like to play that music. That's not conflict.

Their relationship ended with no explanation. You're saying that they gave each other up. I didn't see that on screen. The last time they were on screen together before fast forwarding everything was fine.
 
When together, be had to make ends meet so took the gig with John legend, but apart, he could concentrate on his dream, which wouldn't happen if he went Paris with her... Who's to say she wouldn't get plenty of work and have to stay longer term... The point is he tells her to go off and give it 100% which she can't if they're together.
Well, she can. It's a few months work, that's what actors do. I don't buy that the relationship ended because of that. We won't know because it isn't explained. It probably ended because you can only take so much about a guy going on an on about jazz and not caring about anything else.
 
Was meant to go see La La Land this evening, but the show we were meant to go see with my mate was already sold out by the time we got there, even though the film is over 2 months old now. Bloody bastard who still haven't seen it... like me.

Anyway, in a twist of events that @R.N7 will love, we ended up going to see a Finnish film called Toivon tuolla puolen, or The Other Side of Hope in English, by Aki Kaurismäki who is fairly mainstream as far as Finnish directors go, I believe. Anyway, it was pretty good, it tells the story of a Syrian refugee who arrives in Finland and tries to find his place in this alien society, all the while worrying about his sister he lost during their exile. The first half is pretty slow and sets up the story nicely if a bit too slowly, and the second half is a bit funnier and faster. The humour is completely absurd but is delivered really well, even though the story is pretty grim ultimately and feels very real if that makes sense. Enjoyable film to watch, though not that memorable overall I think.
 
Finally checked out Rogue One... suffice to say I found it utterly boring and completely pointless. I wonder how long Disney can keep churning out this crap before interest wanes. Perhaps they should've focused on a different era in the SW timeline/ Universe, - a SW without lightsabers isn't... well...Star Wars. It's possible I'm getting too old, though.
 
Last edited:
Everybody Wants Some. I want something bright and pleasant that has funny, endearing characters and with just a smattering of suburban angst. That would be the latest film by Richard "3.0 grade average" Linklater aka the Genius of Genial. You know the film already.

I do wonder how self-referential the Willoughby/Wooderson characters are intended to be. Linklater's Stop At Willoughby is quite clearly that long since lost period of early adulthood he continues to pine for through his films. And he does make it seem an appealing destination.

Good is rarely challenging but Good is often Good enough.
 
The Langoliers | http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0112040/?ref_=nv_sr_1

I love these admittedly not very well done tv-movie and miniseries based on Stephen King's work, and Langoliers might be my favourite. They just manage to create a certain mood with these. Some good acting with a few noteable exceptions like the girl with the biker cap who was terrible, but a young Alfred from Gotham and the rest certainly makes up for it. Never read the book but I do love the concept and also it was a bit of a mystery. Big bonus that you can pretty much tell throughout that it is a typical Stephen King series, he really does have a unique style and imo the success\failure of the miniseries and movies depends on how they manage to convey that.

Effects were terrible and had aged badly, but when it comes to these Stephen King miniseries and straight to TV movies I frankly don't care, it all adds to the charm.

From memory of the three I would class this as better than "Storm Of The Century" and about level with "The Stand". Admittedly I will be more critical of "The Stand" since it is one of my favourite books of all time, and none of the personifications of the characters matched my imagination of them. Will re-watch "The Stand" and "Tommyknockers" sometime this week.

7,5/10
 
Secret Window | http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0363988/?ref_=nv_sr_1

Not a bad movie. Yet again I've not read the book so I can't comment on how it matches up to it. Johnny Depp as expected does a great job in the lead role as the author and the rest of the cast is acceptable as well.

Explanation of the whole mystery is a bit heavy handed though, with you pretty much figuring it out after 20 minutes. Yet the story is entertaining enough to hold your attention and I really did like the ending. Pacing throughout the movie is very good both in buildup and conclusion.

7,5/10
 
Was meant to go see La La Land this evening, but the show we were meant to go see with my mate was already sold out by the time we got there, even though the film is over 2 months old now. Bloody bastard who still haven't seen it... like me.

Anyway, in a twist of events that @R.N7 will love, we ended up going to see a Finnish film called Toivon tuolla puolen, or The Other Side of Hope in English, by Aki Kaurismäki who is fairly mainstream as far as Finnish directors go, I believe. Anyway, it was pretty good, it tells the story of a Syrian refugee who arrives in Finland and tries to find his place in this alien society, all the while worrying about his sister he lost during their exile. The first half is pretty slow and sets up the story nicely if a bit too slowly, and the second half is a bit funnier and faster. The humour is completely absurd but is delivered really well, even though the story is pretty grim ultimately and feels very real if that makes sense. Enjoyable film to watch, though not that memorable overall I think.
That does sound like a typical Kaurismäki film, an unrelentingly bleak and brief encounter with a lot heart and excellent comedic timing.
 
That summarizes it pretty well. Do you like his films?

Yeah, he's definitely in my top 10 of directors.

He doesn't have a lot of standout films (Ariel and Shadows in Paradise are my favourites) but even his less memorable ones all possess his signature succinct style and humour which makes them fairly worthwhile. He's a true master of deadpan comedy.
 
Finally checked out Rogue One... suffice to say I found it utterly boring and completely pointless. I wonder however long Disney can keep churning out this crap before interest wanes. Perhaps they should've focused on a different era SW in the timeline/ Universe, - a SW without lightsabers isn't... well...Star Wars. It's possible I'm getting too old.


Yes, exactly. There's literally a whole galaxy from where to make up stories.
 
Yes, exactly. There's literally a whole galaxy from where to make up stories.


Yep. But sadly they're concentrating on Han Solo and Boba Fett movies whilst concluding the latest trilogy. And I hope they've done away with the awful CGI characters - Tarkin and Leia looked as if they jump out of a Star Wars game into a life like SW universe. Odd just odd.
 
Yes, exactly. There's literally a whole galaxy from where to make up stories.

I'm by no means a Star Wars fan, but isn't that kinda like saying "there's a whole outside world to focus the Jurassic Park movies on... why do they keep making them about the same dinosaur islands?"
 
Biggest downfall of the modern Star Wars movies is that the decades of innocence, joy, wonder and mystery are long gone. They used to make movies with charm and a certain mood to them, that is not the case anymore.

Today we've seen everything and have no illusions anymore, which makes scifi very hard to pull off. Firefly and Serenity managed it, but they were also the last ones to pull it off.

Do not watch anything made after mid 90's and you'll be devoid of disappointment.
 
I'm by no means a Star Wars fan, but isn't that kinda like saying "there's a whole outside world to focus the Jurassic Park movies on... why do they keep making them about the same dinosaurs islands?"

Well, I've not even seen Jurassic Park, so I can't say exactly, but...there are a ton of novels of very varying quality about Star Wars. Almost all concern the force, and have lightsabers, but many of them go far away from the saga of one family (Anakin, Luke, Leia, and now her son). And there are characters who are powerful but not force users.
The Thrawn novels and the KoToR game were excellent. Thrawn was very much in the movie era, set around the current sequels, so Leia/Luke/Han are the main heroes, but the adversary wasn't mysterious old force-user but a general whose tactics would have foxed even 2017 Conte. KoToR I/II was set literally a thousand years before that, and there isn't a Skywalker in sight, and there's a lot of grey between the "dark" and "light" sides of the force.

They need to get away from making all the characters someone's relative, even if they keep the force/lightsabers for familiarity. There is a great framework for stories already there, they should do something new with it.
 
Biggest downfall of the modern Star Wars movies is that the decades of innocence, joy, wonder and mystery are long gone. They used to make movies with charm and a certain mood to them, that is not the case anymore.

Today we've seen everything and have no illusions anymore, which makes scifi very hard to pull off. Firefly and Serenity managed it, but they were also the last ones to pull it off.

Do not watch anything made after mid 90's and you'll be devoid of disappointment.

I quite liked Rogue One and thought TFA was good fun too but there's definitely a bit of a manufactured feel to them, especially the latter of them. Nothing necessarily wrong with that, of course, if it's entertaining and enjoyable...but there is a really blatant element of playing it safe and just trying to make money, from the similar plot structures/arcs to the callbacks etc.
 
Here, 2 guys predicted TFA almost perfectly based on the trailers and the assumption that it would be like the sequels and they wouldn't do anything new. It's disappointing that it's predictable to this extent. It was indeed a fun movie though, especially watching it at the theater I loved the excitement but it's disappointing in terms of ambition.

 
Here, 2 guys predicted TFA almost perfectly based on the trailers and the assumption that it would be like the sequels and they wouldn't do anything new. It's disappointing that it's predictable to this extent. It was indeed a fun movie though, especially watching it at the theater I loved the excitement but it's disappointing in terms of ambition.



I'd say that nails it. At the time it was a fantastically fun nostalgic thrill ride, but on watching it back again the similarities to the previous films become more and more jarring. But then I guess a franchise sequel to something that never really needed sequel was always going to be fairly limited in ambition.