Machete Kills

This is no longer grindhouse, this is Asylum :-( The first part three years ago was a perfect homage to American trashy movies from the 1970s and I had it in my TOP 10 of that year. But this is something else. Without any restraint, reason or knowledge of what a healthy dose is, so basically unwatchable. If a Mega Piranha fell from the sky and Danny Trejo bit its head off, nobody would be surprised. Too much Rodriguez. (11/14/2013)

The basic disconnect between public opinion and Rodriguez's work is that Rodriguez does not create tributes to (m)explotation or grindhouse, but to xplotations and grindhouse. Quite logically, he annoys the liberal snobs by referencing nothing but himself, the cheapness doesn't play well, and as significantly more ambitious as it is than its predecessor, it doesn't obscure the fact that someone has kicked ten mil off the budget compared to the last installment. Acknowledged shit is still shit, but I still consider it a cool obscurity of our times that this is able to make its way into global cinemas. And I think that's kind of cool. (01/28/2014)

This was a pretty dull blade compared to the first Machete film, which, in hindsight, feels like a masterpiece next to this one. It’s missing that wild, over-the-top finale where the bad guy gets his guts blown to bits, and there's no over-the-top poolside action where Machete proves he's the ultimate badass by seducing both the enemy’s wife and daughter. This time around, Machete just didn’t go all out. Sure, there’s plenty of killing, but it never quite hits that epic level. I’m giving it three stars purely out of love for Machete—and I’m really hoping that when he heads to space, everyone loses their minds. Including critics, who won’t understand a single scene and will probably declare that the writer lost it while wrapping up this trilogy. (12/28/2013)

No, I thought it would be a bit better, that there would be a more meaningful story, that it would be exciting, but it's still quite boring here and there. Yes, there are scenes that I enjoyed, performances that pleased me - or maybe just actor appearances - but at times I just caught myself not enjoying it. It's a shame, although I still think that this is the way modern B-movies are supposed to look. If only the creators, including Rodriguez, ignored the digital tricks that simply look terrible. (11/15/2013)

The first film was a nice parody, full of humor and irony, it was clear that the people behind it relaxed and enjoyed it. The sequel is more commercial, filled with celebrities without any potential for the given theme (so why recruit "serious actors" for a parody?). I could understand Steven Seagal in the first film, and it was okay, but not Mel Gibson. The female cast is very above average and also the only thing that can be praised. It's a jumble that lacks image, direction, and style. (11/30/2013)