That was an excellent one.

Great Film overall

It's simply great fun, a winsome film and an occasionally over-the-top luxury fantasy that never flags.

Blistering performances.

So Begbie escapes from prison, but then just moves around Edinburgh free as a bird, as if the city is completely devoid of cops. And while making tons of enemies, it occurs to none of them to simply make a phone call to the authorities.Hm, yes, a well thought-out script. Pity Boyle settled for the first draft. As so often.A lazily cobbled-together script in the sloppiest Boyle fashion. It's as if he had the idea of doing a sequel on a Tuesday and had the first draft ready by Friday. That same Friday, not a Friday 15 fridays later as the more wise, conventional approach to film-making is. Because as a film-maker Boyle is an impulsive slob. He's got talent, but very little discipline with which to channel it properly. God only knows how he ever managed to write a good script that first time around, for the first junkie flick. Perhaps he got lucky, or maybe he was more hungry for success as a relative unknown hence more focused. Admittedly, it's also easier to start a story from scratch than to have to continue it 23 years later. Or is it the other way round?Either way, the characters' motives are muddy, confusing, their actions often seem out of character, and the plot fairly wasteful with plenty of stuff that could easily have been cut out, because comedies should last 90 minutes, not the full two hours because they're not James Bond flicks.One of the many plot-holes is the mysterious non-interest Renton and Simon show in the fact that Begbie is still out seeking revenge, and yet the two of them get caught off-guard by Begbie's extremely predictable second attempt at getting his revenge. So Renton didn't worry about Begbie after that close chase? That's the kind of writing geared toward more, how shall I put it diplomatically... "simply-arranged" viewers, not the kind of nonsense that can pass by the customs though of any half-way serious and/or experienced viewer. Yes, I'm bragging again, what the hell, it's The Age Of Brag, so I might as well join in. Yes, I'm too smart for this film.And how about the Bulgarian hooker-with-the-heart-of-gold? What a dumb cliche that is, not a real person in the slightest, hence very dull. Not to mention the predictable betrayal she perpetrates that any viewer with half a brain-cell could foresee, which means I expect every single person to have predicted that "plot-twist" well in advance. Unless they were doing the same substances as these junkie goofball characters.The movie has no spunk, it looks tired, just seems like a quick cash-grab by a director who figured that a half-attempt is more than enough when attached to a famous title. He may have been right, I don't know, haven't seen the box-office figures.If you are quite content to watch badly scripted films - as long as they entertain you - feel free to give this a go. But then again, that's the other issue: it's not very entertaining, is it? I found myself fidgety through large chunks of the film, and that's sort of not what real entertainment is about.

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.

The first 30-40 minutes of the movie were perfect. everyone is back, the scenes are funny and promising, and the nostalgia kicks in and makes you fall in love with the cast all over again.Sadly, after 30+ minutes, it feels like they literally lost the script, and had to come up with the story on the spot. the momentum is gone and so is the excitement. the story is just not good enough.

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.