Exterminador 2

i've read some bad comments about this film on this site, mainly from people who i think took even the first film rather too seriously. this is a brilliant piece of absurd 80's action, dutifully modelled on the superb death wish series. the "street punks" are one of the best features and resemble the b*****d offspring of the warriors and mad max 2. the exterminator himself spends most of the film going berserk with a flamethrower and at one point he operates a rubbish truck armed with remote control machine guns. the action is interspersed with ridiculous love scenes involving a stripper. although i think this film does lack some of the quality of the original i found it just as enjoyable and anyone who can appreciate the death wish series should certainly enjoy this

"Exterminator 2" brings back the great Robert Ginty as flamethrower wielding vigilante John Eastland, but has nowhere near the impact as the first film. That's not to say that it's not enjoyable, but overall it's silly stuff.

Directed by Mark Buntzman, who produced the first film, it sees Eastland start to date an exotic dancer named Caroline (Deborah Geffner) and make friends with an outgoing garbageman named Be Gee (the excellent veteran character actor Frankie Faison). Eastland agrees to take on a job as a garbageman (!), but finds his happiness threatened by the activities of a street gang led by the fiendish "X" (Mario Van Peebles, in a breakthrough role). Of course, Eastland has already been up to his old tricks by torching various criminal scum, but is he going to be ready for this particularly sadistic gang?

The viewer can have an interesting time checking out the early appearances by actors who would go on to become busy and recognizable if not famous: Irwin Keyes, Arye Gross, Thomas Calabro, and John Turturro, who has a bit. The gang members basically come across as cartoons and there's a certain goofy quality to a lot of the dialogue, performances, and situations. (If nothing else, the audience may find "Exterminator 2" laughable enough to be entertaining.) The music is also particularly amusing, providing the perfect accompaniment for assorted violent goings on. Ginty is reasonably engaging although his character of Eastland was a more compelling individual the first time. Faison is superb and shows off a natural charisma. And Van Peebles makes the most of his demented & depraved role, making for a pretty good antagonist.

Especially entertaining is seeing Ginty turn Faisons' garbage truck into an assault vehicle and watching the final cat-and-mouse chase between hero and villain. There's plenty of characters going up like Roman candles to keep the viewers interested.

All in all, this is decent enough, and it might be worth watching it along with, say, "Death Wish II" and/or "Death Wish 3" for a dose of vigilante vs. gang escapism.

Six out of 10.

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.

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.

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.