hyped garbage

It's complicated... I really like the directing, acting and writing but, there are issues with the way it's shot that I just can't deny. As much as I love the storytelling and the fantastic performance but, there are also certain scenes that didn't need to exist.

All of these films share one commonality, that being a kind of emotional center that humanizes a cast of monsters.

It’s not bad or unwatchable but despite the amplitude of the spectacle, the end result is underwhelming.

Not much of a sequel to CHINATOWN. Same writer--Robert Towne. But what's missing?--Well first of all, a plot! And a mystery! And some kind of revelation. It's a real mush-mash, looking like no one was really in charge of the movie. It's troubled production history--with personnel changes, etc. might have something to do with that. The movie--as a story or drama--just kind of stumbles along. With no real momentum or any recognizable tone or style.(Like the slapstick explosion early in the film--what was that?--an homage to Charlie Chaplin??)Of course, what's REALLY missing from this film--the TWO JAKES--is Roman Polanski.He knew what he was doing in CHINATOWN and told an intriguing and relevant story, with many memorable scenes that still stay with me years and years later. What stays with me from the TWO JAKES is just a sad feeling of disappointment. Nothing much else. A waste!

I've seen this one before, but hardly remembered a thing of it when watching it again last night - not a good sign, I suppose. This is the only one of three films that I saw that were directed by Jack Nicholson himself, and I really wonder how much help he got. Some cinematography is dazzlingly beautiful, but did he really - for instance - find that exact location (the one with the wooden poles) at the Californian coastline where Rawley and Gittes have their conversation by himself? Maybe that's not what directing is all about, and I'm a bit of a laymen in that respect, but isn't directing also about keeping an eye on the development of the story and coaching your actors? The story is not uninteresting, but it's a somewhat uninspired carbon-copy of its predecessor with rather mediocre acting, and, I guessed straight away that the 'mystery lady' was indeed Miss Mulwray... And that soundtrack could have been toned a bit, couldn't it?Then, there are some really odd scenes, seemingly thrown in for the 'good measure' of simply trying something different, like the sex scene with Stowe and the 'suck my gun' scene with Keith. They cóuld have worked, but they felt (way) out of tune here.I can't say that 'The two Jakes' is a bad film, it is much too easy on the eyes and the story and acting are entertaining enough, but - unsurprisingly - it has almost none of the magic of its predecessor 'Chinatown'. The cinematography is pretty much impeccable, the story was worked out pretty well and the overall atmosphere was more than doable, but that's about it. By the way, did anyone notice Jack rambling on an on (he could talk the balls off a...) while that one tune set in, that same tune that the Coen brothers used in the film noir parody 'The big Lebowski'? Another fun bit was when Jake broke into a house when an old-time commercial was on. I hope it was an original, but I really don't know.Well entertaining, for sure, but also quite bleak compared to the original. 6 to 7 out of 10.

Sure it's not Chinatown, but the atmosphere, sets, costumes and iconic actors carried this film and left me longing for the third part of the trilogy. Quick while Nicholson is still breathing! Some had the opinion that it was too long, but the longer I could stay in that world, the better. Even Meg Tilly, sounding as if she had the worst sinus infection on record, brought an excellent performance to the table. It's too bad that it was a sequel and a sequel to what has become a late twentieth century classic film. I've found that it's the same with going to see any film - you have to keep your expectations under control. Many of the reviewers were expecting to see a second classic in this sequel, but I don't think they realize how rare it is, in spite of the effort and talent associated with the making of a film, for it to all come together into something like Chinatown. So, here's to the films that aren't so great, because they make the great films well..great.

The opening twenty minutes are fine, but the movie slowly, ever so slowly starts rolling downhill from there. At about the one hour mark, I was having a tough time paying attention. The problem is perhaps that you don't really care all that much about the characters. A few of the contrived "cool" scenes, like the "hand grenade" or the "blow up" or the "down on your knees" scenes are momentarily interesting, but they're really kind of "in your face" pointless.It is my belief that when you have all actors acting well in a movie it is to the director's credit. In this case, everybody is acting mediocre, including Nicholson, which points towards the sad fact that Nicholson, a great actor, is only a mediocre director. When you have Harvey Keitel, Jack Nicholson and Meg Tilly in a movie and you can't get a great performance from any of them, it is time to go back to film school.The really sad thing is that if we didn't have terrible district attorneys and judges in California who are more interested in being famous than following the legal system, a truly great director, Roman Polanski would have probably given us a great movie. Instead we have a movie that is repetitious, meandering and dull.The costumes and set design are quite good and occasionally striking. However that should be the icing on the cake of a good story. In this case, we're just getting the icing on the pop-tart.You might let Robert Town know that I am available to direct the third part of the trilogy. I am confident it would be better than the second, although not nearly as good as the first.