Una vez más

ONE MORE SHOT is a weaker and cheaper sequel to the first movie that never quite manages to reach the highs of its predecessor. The problem with this one is that it's obviously much cheaper and thus the action, although plentiful, is far sloppier than what we've seen in the original. Adkins still proves himself in the action stakes as you'd expect, but the bland, JOHN WICK style shoot-outs just don't have the same oomph as we saw before. The most interesting thing about this one is that it was shot entirely in and around Stansted Airport, which allows for a good use of space and setting. Michael Jai White is criminally wasted as the bad guy.

Adkins deserves some credit for relentlessly trying to keep his career afloat, against all odds, in the grand tradition of Van Damme and Seagel and Lundgren. Also nice to see Berenger and Jai White back in the saddle. However, that said, there are signs of desperation here. This is sort of a sequel to ONE SHOT, in a quantum universe where time is relative and nothing much happens between installments. Film students will especially appreciate the way every possible trick and hack is used to make a small budget seem bigger than it is. The small cast and static locale -- both telltales of B-moviemaking, are made to seem larger and more important than they actually are. Think Hamburger Helper, only for directors. However, at the end of the day, and in real time, it becomes obvious that world has moved on (in 2024, the Enemy really is inside the gates) and these guys have not. Rule of Thumb, any film where Adkins is not playing the most "perfect" Russian cage fighter on the planet is going to be forgettable. Ditto for any film where Jai White is playing the bad guy. (Blood & Bone still highly recommended for newbies.) ((Designated "IMDb Top Reviewer." Please check out my list "167+ Nearly-Perfect Movies (with the occasional Anime or TV miniseries) you can/should see again and again (1932 to the present))

What made 2021 "One Shot" stand out was its concept. To my knowledge very few movies actually done this. Sometimes you get long amazing sequences but not a whole movie. So i think that concept kinda carried the first movie.

So obviously this movie follow the same pattern and pick up very close to where the first one ended. But altough you can clearly apreciate the effort and the filmaking behind everything just as the first, its not as new anymore.

That said once again the team behind the cameras really made it work. The cuts are well hidden. Maybe a filmaker would notice them but me, an average movie fan, watching this with a few beers, i couldn't. So on that side the movie does work great.

But behind the concept itself, you have a very average plot. Pretty much "Die Hard in ...add location" as so many movies have done before. One lone soldier picking terrorists one by one to achieve a goal. That said its perfectly servicable.

Now where i am thorn is in the concept of the movie versus the action itself. The action looks great on a point of view of thinking it was done surely with minimal takes and having to coordinate all of this. We all seen Jackie Chan bloopers and how many takes he usually needed to nail his crazy stunts. So when i compare what they done here and HOW they done it, i think its pretty good. BUT... If you compare the fight scenes to other Scott Adkins movies, its nowhere on the same level.

When it comes to gun fights, again its very decent but maybe its due to the fact most guns had silencers attached to them, the sound effects felt a bit off to me. Obviously comparing them to John Wick or Extraction would be unfair, due to the nature of the movie, but i feel some scenes worked great while others felt a bit flat.

I was pretty exited to see Michael Jai White in this movie. I had no idea who he was gonna play as i didn't watch any trailer. Sadly his screen time is VERY minimal and compare to their previous work together (Scott and Michael), its their less exiting collaboration for me when it comes to them interacting.

Now the big 2 questions. Did i had fun and do i want "Another Shot" (my homemade title for a triquel). Answer is yes and "yeah but...".

I would rather have Scott do another Accident Man or especially another Boyka way before another sequel to this franchise. And quite honestly i feel by a third movie the novelty concept will have fade off even more. Sadly its kinda the whole point of this franchise so if they don't do it the same way, then why do it at all?

Bottom line, if they make a third one, i will surely watch it, but i won't be insanely exited for it. As a Scott Adkins fan i try to watch pretty much everything he star in anyway. Im gonna give the movie a 7 out of 10 on IMDB (3.5 Stars on Letterboxd) because it did entertain me and i can surely apreciate the effort put behind it.

First off, I liked this sequel more than One Shot. I liked the setting in an American airport more than a military base in Poland. I liked that he fought the same (really good) opponent three times and his fight against Michael Jai White wasn't as good as Undisputed 2 or Accident Man, but was one of the best parts of the movies. Just like the first movie, takes that long have to be impressive even if you don't like it. The movie may not have ended on a cliffhanger, but it left room to imagine that there is the potential for another sequel. Overall, this isn't one of Scott Adkins better movies but it was more entertaining than some of his worst.

The predecessor to this film, One Shot, was a unique experiment in action filmmaking. It seemed to be shot in one continuous sequence. It does not jump around in edited from location to location- it follows one linear path at a time. The stateside story of a terrorist transported by Scott Adkins, who is the linchpin to a terrorist plot around the State of the Union address is very engaging and cool. The story and acting are good. The action is unrelenting. The look and feel matches the first one. James Numm;s filmmaking works. Michael Jai White is a great addition to the film. He, like Adkins, is a always fun to watch on screen no matter the budget of the film.