By: Dominic La-Viola

The film should have ended long before it even began. This is the follow-up to “SISU”. There is no need to see the first film because this one sums it up in 15 seconds of monologue at the beginning of the film. Although, just because you don’t need to see the first film, doesn’t mean you should see this one.

The film realistically should have ended within 5 minutes of it beginning. Since our protagonist had the opportunity and skill set to kill our antagonist. Dead to rights. No questions asked. Bluntly proven to us. Telling us he could have, but chose not to. 

The film is marketed as a revenge film, yet the entire plot of the movie has nothing to do with revenge. Our protagonist, the Finland Commender, whose family was brutally murder, and he took revenge and went on to become a legend, based on the events in the first film that is. 

Now, he simply goes to his old property, which is now in the land of the Soviet Union. To take down his house, log by log, to rebuild it back on Finnish land. For obvious sentimental reasons. 

At no point was he out for revenge.  Which he could have easily gotten in the first five minutes of the movie before the action even really began. 

There is very little dialogue in the movie, which would work perfectly. Since it is an action-driven film. Following the steps of “Silent Night” and “John Wick 4”.

Yet the action by definition is god-awful. The storyline has more plot holes in it than the dead bodies have bullet holes. 

The film is tone-deaf and flat-out incoherent. The film lacks luster, style, and direction to even come close to being a great or even good action movie.

 

Almost none of the action sequences are realistic or even plausible. We are shown nothing to prove or convince us that this man is a legendary killer. 

When we live in a world where there have been so many great action films that show you what a great action movie consists of and what makes them great. This is an example of what not to do. 

Whether you’re going for a realistic style, like “John Wick”. Where all the shoot-out scenes are realistic, look and feel legitimate and accurately portrayed, or a 

John Woo style film. Where there’s an unrealistic amount of gunfire, with slow motion, intense shootouts and wall-to-wall insanity. 

Even JCVD movies from the 90’s gave us action movies with unrealistic action scenes and shootouts. That are obviously over the top for dramatic effect. Yet have a signature style that captivates and draws you in, for its sheer chewiness. Whereas this film falls flat on every aspect and route it could have taken. 

At one point in the movie, they literally have our hero walk through broken glass, from a whisky bottle that falls right before his feet. Where it would literally be easier and more natural to just step over it based on his height and distance from the glass. 

Making it so unnatural and forced. Trying to convince us that this man is more than just a man. A myth, some type of legend.  But instead, simply comes off as sheer nonsense and a desperate attempt to put our protagonist on the pedestal. 

 

Overall, the film lacks vision, style, and substance. Some may argue that it’s a genre action film. Nevertheless, that may be true. However, that doesn’t excuse the lack of craftsmanship. To defend this movie as a “genre” film would be a disservice to the genre of “genre” films.

Overall rating: 2/5.