Exterminator 2

Exterminator 2 (1984)

* 1/2 (out of 4)

In 1980 the low-budget THE EXTERMINATOR hit theaters and become a rather big hit so four years later this sequel followed. Robert Ginty returns as John Eastland and this time out he's dealing with more bad guys including the leader of the pack who is known as X (Mario Van Peebles). This sequel certainly has production companies Cannon's signature all over it and in fact I think this film owes more to DEATH WISH II than the actual first film. I say that because the exploitation factor is a lot higher here for a number of reasons. I think director-producer Mark Buntzman probably saw that Charles Bronson hit and decided to do like that film and just deliver what people wanted. Part of what people wanted from the first film was the flame-thrower, which was pretty much shown on the poster of the first film but here it becomes a major character. Whereas in the first film it was only used once or twice, here it is the main killing force as we see countless people set on fire and burned to a crisp. This effect is put to great use throughout the picture and one has to tip their hat to the stunt men were were doing these dangerous stunts on a low-budget. The biggest problem with EXTERMINATOR 2 is that the pacing is so incredibly bad that the 90-minute running time feels three times as long. At one point I thought the film was almost over and my boredom turned to shock when I realized we were only thirty-minutes into the picture. There are a few good points along the way including the silly violence, which is certainly over-the-top at times and this is especially true of the garbage truck hunting. I thought Ginty was good in his wooden way. Van Peebles is certainly a lot of fun in his own way and you've got to love the various wild outfits he wears. Is this better than the first film? Considering I wasn't a fan of either, I'd say this one here manages to be a tad bit sillier and contain some campier, wilder moments that somewhat make it more entertaining. It's just too bad that the pacing wasn't better.

This movie reminds me of a Troma film (e.g. Toxic Avenger) with higher production values. It's not apathetically bad; it embraces its cornball center, staying barely a step ahead of camp, and is thoroughly enjoyable. Early 80's gangs wearing costumes with a disco/Mad Max theme, in a solemn torchlit procession carrying the driver of an armored car into the subways to make him a sacrifice on the train tracks, several of them topless (male) with suspenders, set to an energetic synthesizer soundtrack that sounds like it could have been written for a Nintendo game.. it has to be seen to be believed. Probably inspired by Michael Jackson's video "Beat It".

Just like John Rambo this movie captures a vet pushed past his limit but this time in an urban massacre film. I saw this film as a teenager in the 80's. I always appreciated the straight forward good guy kills bad guy with minimal exposition way of the 80's.

Follow-up to the exploitation classic. This one is produced by the Cannon group, which should set off alarm bells given these are the guys who made their fair share of crap back in the 80's, including the Sylvester Stallone arm wrestling movie. True to form Cannon have injected their brand of cheese into this one as well. The Exterminator (Robert Ginty) battles a gang led by Mario Van Peebles. Sporting an impressive flat-top and clobber that would not have looked out of place in The Warriors, Van Peebles chews up the scenery at every given opportunity; Ginty, on the other hand, acts like he is heavily sedated throughout. There is a lot more explosions in this sequel and Ginty drives around in a garbage truck rigged up like a tank. The stupid level has been ramped up at the expense of the scuzz factor basically and this is a more typical cheesy 80's actioner for the most part, while it sports an often truly terrible soundtrack. Still, I did find it enjoyable enough as these things go.

Oh boy, where to start with this one? Well, I'll start off by pointing out how the movie seems determined not to be a sequel! Yes, Ginty returns and is supposedly playing the same character. But hang on a minute - remember how the previous movie ended? Knowing that, there is NO WAY Ginty's character could be continuing to slaughter criminals undetected by the authorities, especially after several years have passed. As well, it's difficult at times to see this as the same guy from the first movie when this time around, Ginty's character hardly says a word, seems to have no real motivation, and no real life. Sure, he has a girlfriend, and meets and pairs up with a friend, but what do we learn about him from this? Nothing! It's as if he's walking around in his sleep.

The unfolding of the "plot" is equally light and pointless. There are many scenes that seems to have no purpose except to extend the running time to 88 minutes (including the closing credits - a suspiciously short running time). We are expected to hate Peebles' character just because he is seen killing people and committing other crimes - when he talks, he doesn't say anything we haven't heard from a generic bad guy before. He just comes out of nowhere, makes trouble, and the passing-by Ginty hunts him and his gang members one by one. The end. That may sound overly simplified, but really the plot isn't that much more elaborate than that.

The editing is terrible, with scenes mish-mashed together with almost randomness, and with important moments missing (just HOW did the gang stop and take over the armored car?) Observing this almost incoherent editing, some big continuity bloopers (keep your eye on Peebles' hair!), and a climatic sequence between Ginty and Peebles that suspiciously looks like it was NOT the original one filmed, I came to the conclusion that some really big problems arose during filming. This seemed even more likely when the first credit during the closing credits read "Additional scenes directed by William Sachs".

Is there anything positive to find here? Well, the production values, though still pretty cheap, are a few steps above what they were in the original movie. As well, there are a couple of shots of burned corpses that are surprisingly gruesome. But a pretty look and scorched flesh do not a film make. At least by themselves, as it is in this case.