"Four horsemen", the team of the best illusionists of the world, is again assembled! Their "magic" has become even more perfect, and the enemies are more dangerous. This time they will have to save their reputation and bring to the clean water the brutal technomagnet ...
ReviewNow You See Me 2: The Return of the Four HorsemenThe main problem of modern cinema can easily identify an incredible craving for the creation of continuations of successful paintings and the creation of long-running franchises. After all, why risk with an absolutely new and untested idea, when there is already a successful product like the audience? Recently, these very continuations promise nothing good, but on the example of this picture of director John M. Chu we see a pleasant exception. To say that the director of the first tape, Louis Leterrier, managed to shoot an excellent entertainment thriller with elements of the adventure popcorn of the cinema, to tell quite obvious things. The only question was whether the clipmaker, who managed to ruin the franchise "The Throw of the Cobra" and did not have time to remove anything worthwhile to this day, to remove a worthy continuation? It turns out, maybe.
For obvious reasons, the continuation was worse than the original and noticeably inferior to it practically on all fronts. Nevertheless, it is willingly kept well during the entire screen time. In general, the "illusion of deception" creates the impression of an absolute studio product that has not lost or gained anything essentially new with the change of the director. Of course, with Leterrier at the helm, the thriller turned out to be much more exciting and full of unexpected turns. When, as directed by director John M. Chu, a typical popcorn blockbuster turned out. Although the creators of the tape put their best efforts to recreate the atmosphere, spirit and mood of the source without any changes, and it almost completely succeeded.
It is also gratifying that the plot of the picture did not become obsessed with and repeated after its predecessor. Thus, allowing history to develop further, to embrace new horizons and to reveal new character traits of characters we already know. Unless, considerably having spoiled impression one obvious moment. If the first film was interesting in that it focused on focuses and bypassed the process of making foci by the side, then the creators of this tape went differently. More screen time is occupied by the tricks themselves, rather than planning and implementing them. Against this background, the film lost some mystery and zest. In the end, turning into a kind of movie about "Ocean's friends." In the rest, the story turned out to be very intriguing and despite an obvious culmination, insanely intriguing and interesting.
The trio of the main characters in the performance of Jesse Eisenberg, Woody Harrelson and Dave Franco are also looking great in their images. Moreover, that all three actors sincerely play in full force and this is seen throughout the tape. Very good and Mark Ruffalo, who perfectly developed his character on the screen and presented with an entirely different side. But replacing Ayla Fisher Lizzy Kaplan to be honest I was not particularly impressed. Although I like Kaplan and I think she is not an incompetent actress. Veterans of the cinema Michael Kane and Morgan Freeman are not very bad, but they are not allowed to run away from the shackles of the script and how their characters are spelled out. Separately I want to mention Daniel Radcliffe, who not only abstracted as much as possible from the usual image of "the boy who survived", but also embodied on the screen an extremely charismatic image of the main villain of the tape.
8 out of 10
Now You See Me 2 2016 is not a bad continuation of an excellent adventure thriller. By all canons, the continuation is noticeably inferior to its predecessor in everything, but still creates the impression of a very intriguing, interesting and exciting feature film. Naturally pulling the picture of an interesting story, an excellent cast and of course - tricks.