Detective Knight: Redemption

No pun intended - I am talking about this being the redemption ... of either Bruce Willis, his career or the character he took on in this trilogy (though it could have ended with this one ... it seems like it concludes ... the business). Now I assume that people are aware that Bruce Willis got diagnosed with an illness ... that made him do a lot of movies, because he knew his (on screen) time was limited ... and therefor he wouldn't be able to make more ... for his family primarily.

That all said, this is a bit better than the first one ... the action is well done ... and while I wouldn't say there is anything perfect (story or character wise), it at least looks good ... well mostly. But still if you are not someone like me who watches a lot of movies anyway ... I don't think there is a reason to watch this ... I wonder if anyone still watched this before the news got out (Willis) ... and how they rated it ... but I won't seek those out, I wasted enough time as it is.

James Knight (Bruce Willis) is no longer a cop after the events of the first movie. He is in jail with Casey Rhodes (Beau Mirchoff) as they wait for their trial. A Christmas-themed bank robbery gang led by evil Santa Ricky Conlan (Paul Johansson) is hounding the city.

The first movie is almost passable. I really like Beau Mirchoff in that one. He is able to do the heavy lifting in place of Bruce. Bruce is not doing well. I am surprised to see that he did so many movies in his last year. I am shocked that he did a trilogy of these movies. This one struggles mightily as he becomes more the lead character again. He cannot lead anything at this point in his illness. For some reason, this one turns into a comic book story. They're trying to make evil Santa into a Joker-like figure. It's really bad.

I can only assume that before his announcement that he was retiring from the film industry, (Bruce) Willis must have worked overtime to churn out a lot of films before hanging up his guns etc. I didn't immediately notice the following (but it dropped everything into place with the styling of the films unfurling) that the script parts for Bruce were kept very limited -and short- which, would assist greatly in his ability to remember his lines etc; his debilitating sickness makes it hard for him in this subject matter.. As a prequel to the first film its a no go in that it is boringly tame and nothing of value to make it an unforgettable film.

If you saw part 1 then watch this part2 to complete your interest!

Bruce Willis has only got a small supporting role, but he is still THE MAN. He is has gotta battle a group of vicious bankrobbers this time around...

Let us not forget that Bruce is suffering from a severe neurological disease which affects his voice and muscles. Considering all that, he still does a heck of a job.

I have seen ALL Bruce Willis' movies and I would recommend this movie, but only for the true Bruce Willis fans, who wanna watch all his latest work, no matter what.

This movie is actually not that bad. Seriously, I am being honest. It is a tough action B-movie. Look upon it as a B-movie and you'll have an enjoyable watch. Expect another Die Hard and you'll be severely disappointed though...

Lots of shootouts. Lots of them. And they are pretty decent shootouts. Lots of oneliners by Bruce. Pretty good photography and editing. The soundscore is okay.

All in all not bad, considering Bruce Willis is in his last years of his life and fighting a severe neurological disease.

At an (excrucially) important sidenote, let us not forget WHY we are watching Bruce Willis movies to begin with. We watch Bruce Willis movies because of DIE HARD (1988). THE ONE AND ONLY BIGGEST ACTION AMERICAN ACTION CLASSIC OF THE CENTURY.

This classic is still standing strong after more than 30 years. Millions of people still REwatch it during every Christmas holiday. Recently a petition was launched to rename Nakatomi Plaza into DIE HARD plaza.

A life time achievement award for Bruce Willis is in the making as well, so I have heard...

DIE HARD (1988) NEVER DIES but is still ALIVE AND KICKING in 2022. Let's celebrate that.

It's shocking how a writer and director gets worse instead of better with every film they make. Every time I see BondIt Media Capital having funded a film (all of Edward Drake's flops), I question if BondIt is simply a money laundering front, because there's no way they're making money on all these failed films, and they seem to keep funding every flop film ever made - usually nothing better than a 3/10 rating. Once again, Drake's writing was atrocious, with convoluted and incoherent scenes and dialogue. Literally, there are scenes when various characters blab on and on about nothing. Then there's Drake's directing 90's slow-mo scenes, with faded and blurred flashbacks, that although I saw the first film, still made no sense why those scenes were needed, as they were just meaningless, random events from the first film. As usual, he also failed to direct his cast effectively, as Willis looked barely awake, and Paul Johansson was just too overbearing like he was on speed the entire runtime. I can't believe there's a third and thankfully final film of this trilogy.