Watch Smokin' Aces 2: Assassins' Ball
Watch Smokin' Aces 2: Assassins' Ball movie
- IMDB rating: 5.10
- IMDB votes: 2761
- Release Date: 2010
StumbleUpon
Del.icio.us
FavoritesMore information :
- In the cliff-hanging season final, Kara goes after the fugitive Edward Teague to find out how to control 'the Traveler'. However, 'Kara' is actually Milton Fine (the Brainac) whom has escaped yet again from Krypton and Kara is trapped in the Phantom Zone. Brainiac/Kara meets with Lex to show him the way to the North Pole to Clark's Fortress of Solitued where Lex finally discovers the origins about Clark. Meanwhile, Lana finally awakens from her induced coma, Lois offers Clark a job to work at the Daily Planet, and Chloe ends up getting arrested by government agents after she's caught yet again hacking into government data links in her secret efforts to help Clark.
- tags: Smokin' Aces 2: Assassins' Ball, Smokin', Aces, Assassins', Ball, cliff-hanging, season, final, Kara, goes, after, fugitive, Edward, Teague, find, control, 'the, Traveler', However, 'Kara', actually, Milton, Fine, Brainac, whom, escaped, again, from, Krypton, trapped, Phantom, Zone, Brainiac/Kara, meets, with, show, North, Pole, Clark's, Fortress, Solitued, where, finally, discovers, origins, about, Clark, Meanwhile, Lana, awakens, induced, coma, Lois, offers, work, Daily, Planet, Chloe, ends, getting, arrested, government, agents, she's, caught, hacking, into, data, links, secret, efforts, help
Added: 10 January 2010
Vote: 5
A bit lacking
The two good words I can say about this movie are Vinnie Jones. He'salways great. This story had potential, but it was not well thought outin its execution. As with the first movie, this is a story about a $3million bounty. The target is a government official. The assassins werenot well established as individuals. We see a small glimpse of how eachone assassinates, but not as much as the characters in the first movie.We see a safe area set up for the target and watch all of the assassinsarrive at the spot, all with $3 million on their minds. This movie didnot have the guts or the glory of the first movie. If there had notbeen Smokin' Aces, I would not have watched this. If you don't have topay too much to watch it, this movie is worth watching, but I would notbuy it.
User: john jorgAdded: 10 January 2010
Vote: 10
Horrible movie
I never write reviews, but i signed up at IMDb just so i can write onefor this movie. This movie is probably the worst that i have ever seenin my entire life. And I have seen a LOT of movies. I was hoping themovie would be like the first one in terms of direction and production,but i was mistaken. The director, producer, script writers and actorsall performed second rate, and you can tell. The acting was horrible,the lines all sounded too rehearsed The script was confusing, thewriters tried to pull it off as a sophisticated movie with twists andwhat not--but they failed. In all honesty the only reason i finishedthe movie was to see if it really was the worst movie i have ever seen.And it was. So don't waste your time with it.
User: blindboykeAdded: 12 January 2010
Vote: 7
Great movie... if you are blind!
Where shall I start? The first movie was full of nice dialogues, a goodplot, nice characters,... All of those things are lost in this movie.
Smokin' Aces 2 is just such a crappy direct-to-DVD-release. 'What doyou say Sir? A plot?' Indeed, it's like they never even heard of it.
I am serious, the acting is horrible, CGI ain't looking good, no plot?I saw it after I was watching Sin City. So you come fromgreat-near-perfect to hmm-what-is-this!
The only 2 points I am giving is for the awesome rack that comes intoscreen. This is by far the worst movie seen in 2010. Feel free tocorrect me if I'm wrong but I wished this was a baby never born...Missed chance! 2/10
Added: 26 January 2010
Vote: 3
This Movie Should've Been Released Straight to the GARBAGE!
The fact that we have so many problems on this Earth already; likerecycling, global warming & such. These numb-skulls bring out a moviethat's a complete waste of time & plastic used to make DVDs. A personwith the I.Q of 1, would demand 91 minutes of their life back. It seemsto me the "Tremors" had way way way too much dialogue. The "LadyAssassin" was thankfully taken out quickly (should've died in theopening credits). All the script writers must have created this movieafter a bad taco night, where all they could think about is CRAPola. Inas much time it takes a person to take a dump, these idiots use thattime to make movie, that's somehow worth millions.
Basically this movie friggin sucks!!!
Added: 12 January 2010
Vote: 11
Don't waste your time...
Here is a very brief review of the first movie (or at least what ithought of it) - Brilliant. Plenty of action, developed characters,good story line, nicely paced and well directed and acted.
Here is a very brief review of this movie - terrible.
Why you ask? Mainly because it has nothing that the original movie had.Admittedly this film doesn't have the budget that the original had, butthe way that it falls down could have been solved without furtherexpense. The characters aren't developed in any way. I can't reallyexplain this without adding spoilers, so i won't, but believe me, thereis no recognition of ANY of the "new" assassins background or any storybehind their assassination "style". Lazlo Soot (a returning character)isn't in any way as likable as in the original. His whole "human facemask" approach was very refreshing in the first film, but tired andused in this attempt. He adds very little in all. As for the Tremors?They just aren't the Tremors. Simple.
The action is average at best. Nothing special to report unfortunately.A lot of it just feels very rushed- cops get killed, one or twoassassins get killed, more cops get killed. Unfortunately it allhappens within 5 minutes, so there isn't even a chance for some of theassassins to even attempt getting to their target.
However, the story line does end out with a fairly OK twist, even if itis slightly far fetched. It gives reasoning behind the actions of theassassins and their "contracts". Not anything special though. So it'snot all too bad i guess.
In a nutshell, I would recommend that you just go watch the first oneagain. There's a reason as to why this release is straight-to-video.This is only my opinion though, so by all means, give it a try. Youmight end up liking it more than i did :)
Added: 16 January 2010
Vote: 11
Oh boy...
I don't want to be rude by actually providing this film with a ratingand seeing that I haven't a choice I give it no more than a 1.
Smokin' Aces was in interesting film. It has a good premise that, eventhough it isn't remarkable or original made sense for the universe thatcontained it. A mob snitch is going under witness protection and alarge group of assassins are hired to exterminate him. He name is Buddy"Aces" Israel, hence the title "Smokin' Aces".
This film on the other hand ignores the fact that the first film evenexists at all and therefore, immediately the title "Smokin' Aces 2"doesn't make sense. That's the first reason behind this film's epicfailure. The next step in failing is that this was produced as atelefilm and was shot entirely with a digital camera. Not a very goodeither because with a digital format and not a enough lighting thefinal product is out of focus most of the time that the camera actuallymoves. That's just a technical aspect and during the last half an hourof the film it was out of focus during many parts and seemed to be shotwith 30 frames per second (fps); the proper way to shoot any movie thatcontains an actual budget is with 24fps.
The story here is that an FBI veteran is under witness protection forreasons made unclear until the end of the film and seeing that thefirst film contained a plot twist that was kind of predictable, thisfilm had to have one, also. The teleplay's awful so I predicted theending's twist within the first 10 minutes. Once again, a group ofassassins must kill a man and this time he's locked tightly undergroundand is very secured.
The first film provided audiences with a barrage of strange butintriguing characters for its assassins, but every one of them had aspecific reason for wanting to collect the reward money. This film doesnot go that far. It's just assassins vs. the FBI and it's mostlyboring.
The action is violent and hectic, when there is any and while thespecial effects are decent (lots of a bullet hits and blood packs) theCGI is atrociously awful. All explosions are transparent and physicsdoesn't exist in this film in any way, shape, or form.
To sum it up, even for a made for TV movie this movie sucks. It'spacing is, probably deliberately slow and its assassins are patheticcaricatures. The twist at the end can be seen a mile away and makeslittle to no sense and the performances are pretty bad. Again, even fora telefilm.
Skip this movie if you liked the first one and even if you didn't, orhadn't seen it skip it anyway. It's not even worth a free rental atyour local Blockbuster Video.
D.
Added: 19 January 2010
Vote: 11
Great movie, great action better than the first one.
I see there are a lot of negative reviews about this movie. why? Idon't know. this one had better action and the tempo of the movie wasbetter. they did not have any of the non-sense stuff the first one did.you get into the movie right away, all the way until the end. (at leastthat is my opinion.) it was a lot more easier to fallow. the pace wasbetter. I felt the first one's pace was up and down too much while thisone has a more consistent, understandable plot. I am no movie expertjust a regular movie watcher who doesn't do fancy reviews about movies.All I got it say is that this was a great movie. I liked the action andstory really well. Other people I know who watched them both thoughtthis was a better movie. I guess when Hollywood experts give a movie agood or bad review that seems to be the rating that fallows. This is agreat movie. watch it.
User: suissenavyAdded: 9 January 2010
Vote: 10
Get ready for action....
Just saw this and must say it won't let you down. The plot involves amid-level CIA analyst who is besiege by assassins more ruthless andhilarious than the first film. Get on this film and enjoy the ride.Goes beyond the original, if you can imagine a Crank II level toSmokin' Aces, your there. All the characters are sinister, but VinnieJones and his northern English humour do well to steal most the show.The other players who are foaming over the 3 million dollar price onthis poor man's head, who by the way is completely unaware of whatreasons these people want him done away with. The plot is solid and wecan see the disasters that will occur within the first twenty minutes.As the first film there is plenty of over the top violence and heavyautomatic weapons and even a good splash of torture for you Saw fans.The is a familiarity with the cast and they all look and feel like theyshould. I love the busty blonde and her red-neck cohorts, always goodfor a stone cold laugh and spontaneous brutality. Overall a strong 8out of 10, oh and remember this is an action film, meant to entertain,not to be take literally, and you'll walk out of the cinema with agreat big smile on your face.
User: inteleartsAdded: 28 January 2010
Vote: 4
I normally like the genre but this, this stinks....
Wow what a dog of a movie - I guess they bought the rights to the titlebut this as far from a sequel as it's possible to get.
The only good thing here are the actor who runs the jazz club andVinnie Jones who really deserves better (Sorry but having breasts and apush-up bra doesn't not make either of the two female leads any betteror anymore watchable).
I like cheesy assassin films - the Tournament, Wanted, Shoot'Em Up,because they are ironic and self-mocking: this, this has none of that -honestly whatever camel's behind it came shooting out of it shouldreturn again ashamed.
This really is a by the numbers no imagination just recycle what youthink will sell marketing ploy. Both the director and the writersshould have prices put on their heads for selling this granola to thepublic......
Added: 18 February 2010
Vote: 3
Vinnie Jones and Martha Higareda make a sexy team!
PJ PESCE did an excellent job directing the sequel to Smokin AcesAssassins Ball.
The staging of the many complex sequences was indeed brilliant. I lovedhow all the assassins were introduced from the present time line intomany intricate flashback sequences.
Tom Berenger played the unassuming FBI retiree well and delivered onebrilliant performance after another.
I enjoyed the new assassins especially Vinnie Jones and MarthaHigareda. They made a dynamic duel and wished that they were on screenlonger.
PJ PESCE pleasingly intertwined the many genres of Action, Comedy,Suspense, Crime and Mystery well in this complex cast of characters.
I look forward to seeing more of his movies and hope he is wise to castVinnie and Martha again.
Added: 21 February 2010
Vote: 2
Not able to watch, it's just that bad!
The original Smoking Aces was a okay action movie, but had a over thetop violence which was not enjoyable. But this piece of (homemade) crapis just to bad to watch! What were the director and editor thinking?There is no line, there is no story, there is no directing there isnothing that makes a movie. And those explosions, artbeats.com? Theediting, was the editor on drugs? Was he feeling sick? Looks like thewhole crew was sick and didn't care for making a good action movie. No,not for cinemas not for rental, just for the garbage can! It's onlywatchable for those who have no taste, just like the creators of thismovie! Stay away from this and go see a real movie from a realdirector.
User: tja-deblesAdded: 3 March 2010
Vote: 1
Smokin' Bad.
A few years ago, I was in a dutch cinema watching Smokin' Aces 1. Beingunable to keep me glued to the screen, I decided to go for a quick peeas the pint of soda was becoming an increasing threat to the conditionof the pair of pants I was wearing at that time. After coming back fromthe bathroom, I noticed I missed the final four minutes of the movie.After checking with the mates I was with, I concluded that I did notmiss anything important, as SA 1 was not relying on the plot to be asatisfying movie. SA 1 got it's potential from the crazy action scenes,which were quite impressive with proper effects and a very decentblow-me-away factor, and from the variety of crazy-ass assassins whichwere actually quite convincing in what they were supposed to bring tothe movie.
Expecting the same level and sort of entertainment from Smokin' Aces 2,I anxiously began watching this sequel. And boy was I disappointed.
I'll start my little rant with the special effects. As in every actionmovie, SA 2 has quite some explosion packed sequences that are supposedto make your pupils shrink to bits and your eardrums tremble in fear.Unfortunately, a four year old yelling ''BANG'' while clapping it'shands has a lot more impact. The fire and debris are glued into theimage in a way that makes you wonder if they had just finished readingup on ''Microsoft Paint for Dummies''. The sound effects in thegunfight are easily inferior to your new year's eve popping ofchampagne bottle corks, whereas I'd really like to know who had thebrilliant idea to make victims to poisoning instantly turn orange.
Next up is the story. Or wait, there was no story. There was howeversome gibberish throughout the movie about some assassins, some randomguy they want to kill, and the same random guy who turns out to be thebad guy in the end. But we don't get to know that before we are beingwitness to the shameless abuse of some awful events that took place inthe real world(ie. the Madrid train bombing and the torturing ofprisoners in the Abu-Ghraib prison) in a fruitless attempt to add somespice and depth to the story.
Throughout it's length, the film tries to acquire the same bizarrefeeling and atmosphere that it predecessor had, but fails miserably.The NeoNazi family fails at being funny, Vinnie Jones is nowhere nearas mad as he was in Snatch, and the disguising silent assassin isdownright silly where it seemingly tries to be dark and mysterious.
In short, SA2 tries to be everything SA1 was, but fails miserably atit, and shows every sign of being a low-budget sequel that has beenbrought to life with the sole purpose of milking as much money aspossible from the success of it's predecessor.
Added: 17 March 2010
Vote: 1
A very mediocre straight-to-DVD sequel
I found the film Smokin' Aces to be an unmemorable but entertainingaction film which adequately combined a North American sensibility withthe frantic British "neo-noir" style.Now, 3 years later, we have theobligatory straight-to-DVD sequel of that film, which is prettymediocre and is very far from the original one.Part of the problem isthat its screenplay thinks it is intelligent when it is in factconfusing; and the style chokes the substance.
I do not have any proofs to endorse this theory, but I dare tospeculate that Smokin' Aces: Assassins' Ball started as a cheapindependent screenplay, and when an entrepreneur executive noticed thesimilarities with Smokin' Aces, he decided to adopt it as a sequel,rewriting what was necessary in order to emphasize the similarities andadd some references which in some way relate both movies.The cast isirregular.Vinnie Jones, Tom Berenger and Autumn Reeser bring competentperformances (and I liked to see the brief cameo from the great ErnieHudson).However, the rest of the cast is absolutely insipid.
The words "insipid" also applies to the direction from P.J. Pesce, whobrings to the movie a frantic rhythm which plagiarizes the classicvisual excesses from directors like Tony Scott, Guy Ritchie and OliverStone (the scenes with the Tremor family look like "outtakes" fromNatural Born Killers).But the problem is that Pesce used those visualexcesses in order to distract us from the fact that the screenplay isvery weak, and that irritated me.And talking about the screenplay,there a few plot twists near the end; however, I found them to beforced and not very coherent.
Smokin' Aces: Assassins' Ball is a very mediocre action film, whichdoes not provoke any emotion or mystery, and it also has someimplausible digital effects.So, needless to say, I do not recommend it.
Added: 2 April 2010
Vote: 1
Tries to be clever which it isn't,still watchable!
It doesn't matter if this movie is a prequel or sequel. This movie canbe enjoyed without having seen the original. Even more so because thanyou won't be inclined to compare all the time. With this movie theycould have achieved so much more if they at least tried. Essentiallythis prequel tries to be clever as the first one. Featuring strangecharacters,violent action and a twist. The twist can be predicted fromthe start (If you play close attention to the scenes where theassassins get hired). The characters however aren't that interesting.While the characters from the original also lacked depth they werecompelling to watch. The action scenes are adequate with one scene thatsurely would offend the little people. Overall this movie isn't half asclever as it tries to be but still is pretty watchable if you don'texpect it to be like the original.
User: imdb-178478Added: 16 May 2010
Vote: 1
Absolutely revolting abomination of a movie
While I thoroughly enjoyed Smokin' Aces No. 1, this movie gave me braincramps. I don't even no where to begin, since all parts of it wereequally wrong.
I'm no quitter, I watched the movie in it's entirety, the wholeuninspired story, the sickeningly corny dialogs, the cheapest-possiblespecial effects, the mind-boggling "twist" ending and everything. Icould literally feel my brain strangling itself with the spinal cord sothe pain would end. I just now signed up at IMDb to warn you, for thattaking one for the team wasn't completely in vain.
Let's review it in a more structured fashion:
First: The Plot. It has nothing to do with the events from Smoking Aces1 and it's only very loosely related. We have several insane assassinscompeting for the kill, several FBI agents and a mark. There, thesimilarities end and the convolutions begin.
More than the entire first half of the movie is introduction of theassassins. And you get to sit through very long scenes of unreflected,extreme gore. In a flashback scene, one of the killers is drivingseveral ice picks into the brains of a restrained but conscious mandescribing the process in every intricate detail. While the camerawatches it without blinking. I enjoyed Rambo 4, but this made mystomach turn. It's unneeded and doesn't manage to transport anyemotion, not even shock or hatred towards the killer. The rest of theidiocy is stereotypical White Trash Nazis that fornicate their siblingsand The Black Widow, a Femme so incredibly Fatale, they had her kill achild molesting, Black Widow-seducing priest right before the altar.Then the FBI assembles to escort the mark to a not-so undisclosed,not-so safe location, but need to hand in their FBI badges and theirbrains first. Any climactic moment is either ignored (see: Brain IcePicks) or ruined by one-liners coined by the directors three-year oldnephew (see: Black Widow poison-kissing the priest)
Second half of the movie is watching brain-deprived FBI agents tryingto secure the bunker below. They could've appointed Chief Wiggum fromThe Simpsons and he'd made less screamingly dumb things. FBI SpecialAgents AND professional assassins are shooters worse than ImperialStormtroopers. They're shooting live midget clowns strapped with bombsinto the bar above the bunker. Explosion CGI are worse than the specialeffects on Windows Minesweeper. Dumb FBI agents again, then cornyone-liner, then another endless firefight among Imperial Stromtroppermarksmen and then the forcefully contorted ending that will leave youfeeling mentally molested for at least several hours.
The last seconds are the best of it: the main villain is simply shotlike a dog. Two bullets put him and his shame of a movie down. Noone-liner, no looking back.
By adding Jar Jar Binks and Wesley Crusher, this movie would haveGAINED character likability.
Remember: what has been seen cannot be unseen. Friends don't letfriends watch this.
Added: 27 July 2010
Vote: 1
This Movie Was Exceptionally Bad
This move came on sky movies, and there had seemed to be nothing elseon, so i decided, as i absolutely adored the original first one, whichwas brilliant, that this one couldn't be much worse, so i watched it,and i can honestly tell you, this movie was horrifically terrible, theacting was stiff and heartless, only known actors were Vinnie Jones andit was almost unbelievably unbearable The action sequences wereterrible, looks like they were done in imovie, explosions lookedunrealistic, the storyline was terrible and the director wasinadequate. overall this movie was not worthy of B-Movie, maybe noteven a C-Movie, i wouldn't recommend this film if it was the onlychoice, you would have more entertainment sitting alone in the dark inabsolute silence.
This movie was an abomination, and a disgrace, this is a perfectexample of a terrible sequel. however, i "Would" recommend this film ifit was being used as a punishment, or as torture.
I would just like to stress how unbearably awful this movie was, nowords can truly describe how bad it is.
Added: 12 January 2010
Vote: 9
A weak attempt to cash in on the original Smokin' Aces
Joe Carnahan's original Smokin' Aces was received with mixed feelingsbut a very fine piece of entertainment in itself. The original owed alot to black crime comedies in the style of Guy Ritchie.
This sequel/prequel/crapquel is only produced by Carnahan. He passesthe directing helm to P.J. Pesce. A quick look at this "director"credit list on IMDb will tell you exactly what to expect. Assassin'sBall is diluted in every way imaginable. First, it is only very looselyconnected to the original. One can guess the superb and eclectic castfrom the original was probably not easy to secure and so, in an attemptto cash in, they came up with a pitiful excuse of a story which triesto keep the theme of assassins all after the same target. But the storybrings nothing new and is in fact inferior. The new characters aredumbed down versions of the old ones and the acting quality is alsodown from he previous effort.
There are sequences in this film that will make you cringe. Forinstance, a man is shot and the cheap-o blood splatter digital effectgoes in an absolutely WRONG, gravity and logic- defying direction. Andthis single example encapsulates the weak sense of direction on displayhere.
How could the producer, a man who has shot miraculously cool indieflicks and also a masterpiece such as Narc actually OK any of this? DidCarnahan just cash the check and not control the quality here?
My other reviews will demonstrate I rarely am emotional about filmswhen I review them but here, I must point out how disappointed I amwith Assassin's Ball. Although the original was not greatness on film,it had heart, quality direction and a certain unique quality to it. Howcan Carnahan, who once was headed to great things after Narc, bereduced to a producer role on such garbage? This once great directorsaw several of his rumored projects scrapped, given to others or go inlimbo.
I once felt he would be one of the next great directors and writers ofHollywood but with this offering, I now have serious doubt aboutCarnahan and he no longer resides on my "must see" list. As fordirector Pesce, this is without a doubt the last movie from this guy Iever watch.
I'm giving it a 3 solely because of the few entertaining bits theysucked from the original.
Added: 27 January 2010
Vote: 2
An OK film but falls way short of the first one.
I LOVED the first one. Was incredibly tickled when Santa stuck it in mystocking so when my husband got this for me for our anniversary,well... I was dying to watch it. Compared to the first, horrible. Onit's own, mediocre. I felt like I was watching something inspired bythe filming style of Natural Born Killers, but not in a good way. It'slike they went "ooooh, I like that" but didn't really think of how itfit to the movie. The Tremors weren't on the same level of crazy asthey were in the first. Honestly, their characters felt like a rip offof Devil's Rejects. None of the characters are really developed and Ididn't find myself excited in the least to see what was going to happenwith the assassins. It is crammed with action and is fun for blowupsand interesting murders but it's not enough to save the film. I willprobably watch it again but not really recommend it to anyone.
User: (bob-rutzel-1)Added: 2 February 2010
Vote: 2
Disappointing
FBI agent Walter Weed (Berenger) appears to be the target of assassinson a $3-million dollar contract. The FBI takes extraordinary steps toprotect Weed.
This is not a sequel to the first Smokin' Aces. It is a prequel. Thefirst SA was a class act, this one is classless. The only good thingsin here are the acting by Berenger and others; the script is suspect.The reason for protecting Weed is also suspect. There doesn't seem tobe any good explanation for all this protection except to make a lot ofpeople rich with brass contracts. Yes, there is a ton of shooting inhere as you would expect.
But, be warned. There are many extremely gory scenes in the beginningas we are shown how some of the assassins make their living. I had toturn away from many of these scenes. I mean they are extremely gory andin bad taste. We do not need to see killings in these more thanexplicit ways. But, they only appear in the first 20-minutes. So that'ssomething. Not much but something.
This may be Berenger's best performance ever and to have a script likethis doesn't help him or any of the other actors who did good jobs.Pity. One more thing: Weeds is a amateur magician so you need to bevigilant with the ears. If you can get by the gore in the beginning,you'll be fine. I'm still recovering.
There is a note on the screen at the end of the movie, and it doesn'treally make any sense and if you try to wrap it around what you justsaw, you will go mad. Only clue I can give you is found in the firstparagraph of this review. And, of course, if you google the name in thenote, then you'll see (maybe), but still it doesn't make all that muchsense. At least not to me. Like I keep saying: this is disappointing.
There is a huge flaw in all this: manhole covers. You'll figure it out.And, that's another nail to the disappointment.
But, still for a Smokin' Aces movie this was highly disappointing. Thefirst one being so good.
One more thing: we need to do away with prequels. They causedisappointment.
Violence: Yes. Sex: Yes. Nudity: Yes. Bloody Gore: Yes. Language: Yes
Added: 3 April 2010
Vote: 2
a turgid mess
No, seriously, this is AWFUL! It's easily the worst movie I've seenthis year. It has a terrible script peppered with one-liners andriddled with plot-holes and the acting? Omigod, the acting! For shameTom Berenger, that you have to be reduced from almost-Oscar-glory tothis. For shame! Vinnie Jones turns in his usual English-thugperformance, so no surprise there. The movie bears no resemblance tothe original. I suspect that the few positive reviews here are eitherfrom male, pre- pubescent boys and sad lonely men who get their kicksout of watching bad actresses take their clothes off or brainless gormswho can't follow a movie unless it has running and guns and stuffexploderising every three minutes. Not worth your time. Avoid at allcosts.
