One More Shot

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.

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.

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.

I've seen bad acting in action flicks, in fact I expect it, but this movie takes the cake. The award for worst actor goes to Alexis Knapp. She sounds like Meg from Family Guy, not credible for a villain, over the top acting on scenes that don't require it, and too robotic on scenes that require more emotion. Scott Adkins is his usual bad, but you watch his movies to see his kicks and aerial moves, not to nominate him for an acting award. On that note, don't expect to see anything spectacular. Instead, they replaced the kung fu with "gun fu" closer to a John Wick movie. Understandable since Adkins is getting up there in years. You can't expect to see him doing the same stunts forever. Finally, I wish Michael Jai White and Tom Betenguer had more onscreen time. They are way underutilized.

Solid 7. Movie has very little dead spots. The action and plot move along at a steady clip.

The plot is one you have seen countless times. Terrorists with dirty bomb want revenge on USA. Reminds me of Die hard 2. Like that classic, almost the entire movie takes place in an airport. Was filmed in just 4 weeks.

Choreagraphy is spot on, the action scenes are almost always believable.

Was shot on a budget but used what they had very well. Acting was really good.

The plot gets convuluted towards the last act and the ending sets up a part 2.

Some modern day topics such as middle eastern terrorism wanting revenge on the USA is used but jsut keep watching. Do not want to spoil anything. Movie is not as simplistic as it sounds. It i s NOT racial profiling or typecasing.

Unlike a lot of old time action stars that are cranking out action movies while using a walker, Adkins can still manage to look good and be believable as a bad ass.