A decent follow-up but to what end? *Spoilers*
Trainspotting is obviously one of the most celebrated films ever made, as are the characters within. A sequel would have always been a tough sell considering both the time passed and cult success of the first but fortunately Boyle and co have managed to create a strong sequel that builds on the original. But why I ask? Why did they bother?
By any film's standards T2 is a fantastic piece of work, but ultimately the story they decided to tell struck me as rather lacklustre and un-cinematic. Don't get me wrong, Trainspotting isn't supposed to be filled with cinematic spectacle but as I was watching I couldn't help but think of some of the interviews the stars gave during the promotional period. Everyone involved seemed well aware of the risks of creating a sequel, evidenced by repeated comments of 'we needed to get the script right', or 'we wanted to tell the right story before we came back', and yet THIS is what everyone believed was worth reuniting for?
Sick Boy and Renton trying to build a brothel? Spud finding his inner writer and penning 'Trainspotting' the book? Begbie escaping from jail and trying to kill Renton, before being returned back to jail after an incredibly lame fight? This was the big come back? This is what we needed to see after 20 years? As much as nostalgia based entertainment has deformed the film industry, the best parts of T2 were when the first film was being directly referenced because anything new the film tried to add fell fairly flat. Veronica was an underused, pointless character, who's payoff felt unearned considering her seemingly single digit amount of screen-time. Technically the film was well made as was the acting. There were also occasional moments where the film justified it's own existence but ultimately I was left wondering what the point was?
Ageing sucks? Did we need a reminder of that? Trainspotting had the perfect ending, with Renton happily ready to embrace a life of the mundane. But did we need a catch up with of these characters who ultimately hadn't really grown or changed in any meaningful way save for the the fact that their lives had all disappointed them. The image of Renton dancing in his childhood bedroom to a song of his youth was on the surface supposed to be uplifting perhaps, but it really cements what a crushing position each of our loveable characters were left in. And perhaps that was the central problem with the film.
Trainspotting was an incredible portrait of a distinct point in time, following characters that despite their obvious shortcoming we grow to love. But as much as it was about the present it was also about the future. The potential, the hopes of leaving everything all behind and finally embracing a normal life and so naturally it's disappointing and a little crushing that ultimately each character stayed the same. To quote a film that has nothing to do with trainspotting but sums up my fundamental question, the filmmakers were so preoccupied with whether they could, they never stopped to ask if they should.