The first part Extraction was a very solid, high-quality action film, albeit emasculated, never original and certainly not revolutionary, however, devoid of the obvious shortcomings of modern action cinema in the form of a story shoved in the viewer's face, shitty editing (although, in fairness, now with this case is better than 10 years ago) and the general toothlessness of acts of violence. That is why they usually watch such films. So, despite the mediocre plot, cardboard characters with a primitive dramatic backstory, designed to justify the next portion of the distribution of cuffs and lead, the first "Tyler Rake" it pleased precisely because it represented the quintessence of an action movie, so that the average fan of the genre rejoiced at it, as a thirsty person would rejoice after taking a sip of water from the tap. Even though it's not Coca-Cola.
I was personally looking forward to the second part. Not the way children wait for the New Year, but still it was curious whether the authors would increase the positive qualities of the original, add something new, surprise, etc. And, looking ahead, I say right away - hell yes! As a lover of action films, I was never disappointed and, which rarely happens, I got even more than I wanted. But in order.
The shortcomings remain: a dull plot, a banal drama and primitive dramaturgy... I generally understand why this strained “drama” was shoved in the first part and here. The viewer must empathize with the hero, even if he is hired meat. To do this, you need to endow him with human qualities, positive aspirations, a dramatic backstory and all that. Thank Ahura Mazda, there's not much of that here, so you don't have to worry about breaking your jaw from yawning between action scenes. However, I have heard the opinion that some people even found the “drama” of the first part to be too much for them – I won’t argue here, everything is individual.
And, if the dramaturgy in the second film is even more primitive than in the first “Extraction”, then as expected, they didn’t make a mistake with the action. As if following the principle of “pour in the same cabbage soup,” the authors created a real attraction. If in the first part the action part was varied: hand-to-hand combat, melee weapons, gunplay, explosions, car chases, then in the second they took all this, greatly added scale, turned up the drive and coolness to the maximum, plus added a feature that, however, may not appeal to everyone. This feature is the addition of a certain “Fast and Furious style” madness with its fantastic stunts, complete disregard for realism, and in places slipping into action diarrhea.
Or even another example - a Korean film "Carter", which I very often remembered due to the presence of long takes in the action film, some similar scenes (a la train) and extreme unreality but, fortunately, in favor of "Rail"As "Carter" was very so-so. And yes, the comparison is also not in favor of the moronic family saga about street slayers with Vin Benzinovich. Second "Rake" Although it reduced the realism compared to the first very “mundane” part, it did not cross the line of clinical idiocy, which is probably why the whole “WOW effect” of the action is not spoiled. Well, like in classic action films: yes, it doesn’t happen, but you don’t even think about it: “damn, what kind of stupidity am I watching” - only after the fact. But who in their right mind would blame some "Commando" with Schwartz in that this is not a textbook on special forces combat tactics?
As for the action itself. All is cool. The lags are minimal, which, despite the film’s decent running time, makes you watch it, as they say, “in one breath,” with minimal tedium. The production is high-quality, including everything: shootouts and fights. Even the painted explosions don't jar. In general, I got the impression that the action here is like a salad cut from someone else’s ideas. Reminds me of both at the same time "Raid", series “Fast and Furious”, Korean "Carter", well, a little "John Wick", although it is mainly due to the stupid desire of opponents to close the distance with the hero instead of shooting at him from afar.
If I go into detail about which scene from Rake reminded me of something, the review wouldn’t fit on a roll of toilet paper, even if written in small calligraphic handwriting. It's like a patchwork quilt made from other films, but... It's not infuriating! The film has an edge over every action film I've compared it to. Not as boring as "Carter", not as stupid, pretentious and crazy as “Fast and Furious” (starting from the fifth part); Unlike "Raid", where GG resembled a kid, Tyler is an example of brutality and a hefty fellow, so the fight in his performance looks harsher and not as pretentious as silat Iko Uwaisa. And finally, unlike the super-killer Wick, who, being a lone hero, was saved by a MIRACLE or with the help of “God ex machina” dozens of times (seriously, I thought), Rake is covered by a team that he trusts, that is, he initially counts on the help of his comrades, and does not resemble the lucky cretin that is the dog lover and Belarusian gypsy Johnny.
Separately about fights. Their number seems to have increased compared to the first part. What was VERY pleasing was the presence of a certain suspense, that is, it regularly seems that the hero is being beaten up, especially considering that here he is mixed not with Bangladeshi kids, but with hefty Caucasian goons, who, on top of everything, repeatedly attack the whole crowd at the same time. All this was filmed in long takes, very juicy and tough. AND Chris Hemsworth still young, but a hefty bull, looks noticeably more convincing in fights than a fairly aged and not the most athletic Keanu Reeves with his sluggish judo (with all due respect) or little Yuwais with his elaborate silat techniques (also with all due respect and my love for films "Raid"). At the same time, Rake, I repeat, has a hard time in every battle. And he uses the objects at hand and the environment to defeat the enemy, plus his comrades help, which has a positive effect on the perception - this is not Superman, not Hancock or Homelander, but a living person who is having a hard time.
His fighting girlfriend, played by an Iranian dissident, also fights Golshifte Farahani, and with all my skepticism towards ladies who give ass to men, even this was shown well here - that is, an opponent weighing 30-40 kg. a heavier heroine can throw her against the wall like a rubber doll and then she can barely get up. In short, no matter where you look, everyone is happy. Considering how critical I am of modern cinema in general, and of action films in particular, it’s even surprising how I overpraised this movie. But I really liked it.
Excellent fights, hurricane fire... The only thing that confused me was how Georgia and the Georgians were shown. Some Russian citizens were outraged by this fact... Russians, damn it... I don’t get into political matters in my reviews, but here is a particularly funny case. I don’t remember Georgians, as well as Kazakhs, Ukrainians, Armenians, etc. shown positively in American films. For the conventional West, we are all Papuans. Maybe it's time to draw conclusions?
Oleg MapintasBangis Chernenko
Especially for fight-films.info
Home » Reviews »
Tags: extraction 2, Golshifte Farahani, Chris Hemsworth, Sam Hargrave
Tags: extraction 2, Golshifte Farahani, Chris Hemsworth, Sam Hargrave
Complete crap, not a movie. The previous two are much better.
Damn, that looks pretty good. I'll have to take note. Thanks.
I don't know why they do this... Even in their younger years, films like this were perceived...
Shannon Lanier. The answer to Nevsky was thoughtfully added at the end of the text.)