Brilliant and touching

Awesome Movie

Ok... Let's be honest. It cannot be the best movie but is quite enjoyable. The movie has the potential to develop a great plot for future movies

One of the most extraordinary films you will see this year. Take that as you want.

The return of Trainspotting to the screen such a weird bit of timing. The cast are almost all moved on to very successful careers in cinema and television, with a range of big and personal projects between them. Likewise the film sits in a period in the mid-90's where cinema seemed so vibrant with ideas and new directors (most of whom are now the new establishment); so returning to a place with that establishment didn't think it would work - particularly seeing so many big name actors trying to convince as broken shells. It felt like it would be an exercise in looking back, rather than being a new film in and of itself.I thought this would be a negative, but actually this is what the film does, but it is a strength not a weakness. The film reconnects with the characters, who are all in their different places, some having moved more than others. Regardless though, they are all looking back. Some of them look back with fondness when their violence was at its peak, others feel regret for what little they have to show for life - some putting that on themselves, others putting it into blame on others for closing off options. This sense of hitting a certain age and looking back is universal I think, and it works well here. The base plot is not as good, but this element of nostalgia (fond and regretful) mixes across the film well and carries it through.It also allows the film to do what it does in terms of style. It references the original film a lot, but thanks to this theme, it doesn't feel like it is trying to replicate it or ride on its coattails, but rather it is a touchpoint for the characters, the cast, the crew, and the viewer. Doing this strengthens that theme. Of course, it also repeats the energy of the original film, with the director/cinematographer very much pushing the style and design. This doesn't work quite as well when sometimes there is not quite the substance to carry it off. How it would work for younger viewers, or those who have never seen the first film, I don't know. But for me it had the style and energy it needed to keep it all moving, but what worked most was that it took that feeling of a backwards looking film, and made that a strength that ran through the 4th wall from the characters out to the production and to the viewer. It is not a match for the original film but it works very well as a companion piece.

There's some great music, a couple of genuinely good scenes, but aside that... they really shouldn't have bothered. This is lazy, with none of the spark of the first film. The energy from the original is turned into dull predictable lethargy. So that's where I'd leave it after the first hour, but this does get better, with some very nice scenes (well not 'nice' of course), but it still never quite shakes the nostalgia trip, with many of the characters feeling dialled in and bloated, especially Robert Carlyle's Begbie who is largely unwatchable compared to his visceral 90s portrayal. Ewan Bremner's Spud however really works being elevated from his bit part existence, but still this is a far cry from Boyle's first shot in the arm.

Okay the first film was good one. Then I thought it was unnecessary to make a sequel for it. But someone clarified that it was not made outside the novel to make money. It's indeed adapted from the sequel book of the original film's source. Though coming out 20 years later was the disadvantage. Except some praises it had received, particularly by its hardcore fans, it was average at the box office and I thought same as well. I did not like the story. It was just a random drag, not knowing what direction to head. That's until the third act, and once all the three main characters come together, so it gets interesting with something. Like surviving from from a revenge threat. It was the actors who saved the film. Otherwise, it is not even an average as I consider now. I don't think retaining the title was a good idea, but I think it was just for its fans. Or else, a new title name would have done a decent justice to what it had narrated. As I know, this is the director's first ever sequel and he's not getting better since his Oscar win, a decade ago. Especially the last two flicks, despite based on the very good subjects. Definitely no to the T3. Instead, I want another Oscar nod film from him. This would have been ever worse if somebody else would have made it. Yet, a watchable film, only if you had liked the first. So just think about it before going for it after seeing only positive words from a few people.

Having just finished T2 I can pronounce it a worthy successor. I first read the book (which I thought fairly dark) as a young man in the 90s then saw the movie and thought it relatively lighthearted and funny. T2 is in the same vein and hits all its marks just as Mark says. The updated "Choose Life" monologue is excoriatingly on-point. The film is worthy in its story, its visuals, but particularly in its perspective. It allows the viewer to reflect on early choices made in the heat of the moment, and on the importance of "character". All the characters grow up a little bit, but not as much as you'd hope. Spud is still a loser but he is the childlike heart of the story to Renton's intelligent yet impulsive grownup. Diane is also worthy of mention, remaining an aloof and cool super-ego, the person Renton wishes he could be. In the Netflix age this could easily have been spun out to a dozen hours (which would have eclipsed the original movie) but does well to tell its story in the alloted time.Finally: read the books.