The first installment wasn't exactly Citizen Kane but its story was intriguing enough. This one had virtually zero plot and Keanu Reeves' acting couldn't carry the dramatic scenes. Action was a 10, however.
I could understand someone disliking over the top action movies in general. But acting as if there's a significant difference between John Wick 1 and 2 is about as retarded as you can get.
There is a significant difference be tween 1 and 2.
1, 2, and 3 are significantly different types of films. I'd have expected anyone who likes over-the-top action films to realize this.
1 is an grounded, action film that starts slowly and picks up speed more and more, and is vaguely realistic.
2 is relatively more stylized, evenly paced action film that comes off a bit slower than 1 and 3 in terms of the progression.
3 is far more over-the-top film that fully commits to being unrealistic and in some cases, fairly surreal.
It's very reasonable to have different opinions about each of these films, not unlike the Matrix trilogy.
Again, I understand if you don't like over the top popcorn entertainment action flicks. But don't be daft. I can't stand metal, but I'm not gonna act like all metal is just noise even if I can't differentiate it personally.
Obviously there's differences for someone who cares.
I liked this better than the first one but all the story was stacked at the beginning and end. The monotonous solid block of action in the middle got very tedious after a while. Wick desperately needed a side kick to drag around just to have somebody to talk to. That's something the Transporter flicks were really good about.