Machete Mata

I love Machete. The character is incredible, the premise is perfect, literally everything about it just screams B-movie stupidity, and it's insanely awesome. I actually saw this movie before the first Machete so I wasn't sure what to expect, and I laughed until it hurt. Seriously, it was everything I wanted in a silly action movie. Machete Kills is somehow even more ridiculous than the first one, this time with president Charlie Sheen ordering Machete to go after a lunatic nuclear arms dealer played to perfection by Demian Bichir, and Mel Gibson wants to destroy the world and colonize space. Yeah, and you thought De Niro playing George Bush was crazy. Mel Gibson is basically a Bond villain in this movie.

This is another revenge story, except this time it's Machete's love interest Jessica Alba who is killed in front of him. Needless to say when President Sheen asks him to go on this suicide mission, Machete isn't exactly in the best frame of mind. Then again, it's f*cking Danny Trejo, so he's awesome at it anyway. The first half of the movie focuses more on Machete going after this crazy arms dealer, with random villains like Sofia Vergara with machine gun tits coming after him. There's also the shapeshifter El Cameleon played by Cuba Gooding Jr, Lady Gaga, and Antonio Banderas. Literally the best plot device to get as many famous people in a movie as possible. Then Mel kicks in during the second half of the movie and that's where it goes full-on ridiculous mode (in the best way, as if it wasn't ridiculous enough before).

After seeing Machete and Machete Kills back to back, I realize the only thing that makes Machete Kills slightly weaker is that the laughs aren't as consistent. Machete had me on the floor 90 percent of the time. Machete Kills is more like, 70 percent hilarity and 30 percent of jokes that either don't hit or are just repeated to the point of desensitization. Still, when the jokes hit, they are laugh-out-loud funny. There are gags in this movie that make the original Machete look like a documentary. Oh, and Amber Heard is the special agent helping Machete this time, and she tries to do an accent every once in a while and fails miserably, but who cares because she's sex on a stick. That's basically the trend in these movies. You try to analyze something and then think to yourself, "Who cares?" It's so damn entertaining you don't have to think at all. Just lay back and enjoy the gratuitous violence, T&A, and everything else you'd want in a ridiculous action-packed B-movie. I, for one, cannot wait for the sequel.

First came "Grindhouse" (2007), a critically acclaimed but commercially unsuccessful ode to exploitation films of the 1970's & 1980's. Then came "Machete" (2010), an unapologetically violent spin off adapted by popular demand from one of the fake trailers that accompanied "Grindhouse".

Unlike "Grindhouse", "Machete" was a commercial success, making 2 1/2 times its money back in domestic grosses alone. Inevitably, there would be a sequel. Because of how much I enjoyed "Machete", I was looking forward to "Machete Kills" (2013).

Unfortunately, while the movie's predecessors were aware that they were both parodying and paying tribute to low budget schlock flicks, "Machete Kills" somehow forgets that fact. The over-the-top violence and sex is still there, but something still did not feel right as I was watching this film.

The movie starts out right as you get an allegedly fake trailer for "Machete Kills Again . . . In Space". In this "preview" (which may or may not actually get made in the near future), the film is grainy, scientifically unrealistic, and primarily fun to watch.

Then the movie begins, and the film is as clear as crystal, the first indication that the director, Robert Rodriguez, somehow forgot what he was parodying. Based on the casting of supporting characters, Rodriguez may have also intended "Machete Kills" more as a second chance for once-prominent actors with now-notorious reputations than a tongue-in-cheek tribute to his love for fun, low-budget cinema.

The original "Machete" was no masterpiece, but it was enjoyable to watch because Danny Trejo played an appealing bad-ass, and the narrative was solid. In "Machete Kills", Danny Trejo somehow doesn't seem to be into the character he made his own, keeping the same inexpressive face throughout as if he is already bored with playing the character.

The story in this movie is also too simplified and hackneyed to accommodate as many supporting characters as it does. There's a terrorist who is about to launch a nuclear missile from Mexico to Washington, D.C., and is one of those villains who doesn't know what he wants to do with the world once he takes it over.

While Trejo, Michelle Rodriguez, and others from the original movie make welcome returns to this sequel, so many characters are added to this story that their presence actually makes the story more confusing. There's a Miss Texas beauty pageant contestant (Amber Heard) who serves as both a femme fatale and almost an Agent Q to Machete, a brothel owner (Sofia Vergara) with an uninspired bra gun which has been done in countless movies and TV shows before, and a lone assassin who assumes many identities (including Lady Gaga) who wants to kill Machete for reasons the film doesn't seem to explain.

If you're going to accommodate that many characters, write a story where every character has more of a useful goal than "Kill the hero", or even "Make a clever cameo". While I thought it was clever to have Charlie Sheen be credited as Carlos Estevez (his birth name) in the beginning sequence, he served no purpose playing the President of the United States.

It's as if the screenwriters just said, "Hey, you know what would be funny? Let's have a formerly legitimate actor whose life is a train wreck play the President!" Sure, Sheen smokes, womanizes, and swears in his role, but those actions alone don't elicit more than a chuckle.

On the other hand, I bought into Mel Gibson playing Voz, the villainous operator of a weapons manufacturer who made the nuclear missile. Does Gibson's presence here show how fall the former A-lister has fallen? Maybe, but he still sold every line he spoke, and still showed his good acting days are not behind him.

As for the gratuitous violence, I was hoping for more irony in what I was watching. Machete doesn't seem to have more creative ways to use a large knife beside slashing it from right to left. Plus, any creative ways a nemesis dies seems to be ripped right from "The Itchy & Scratchy Show" cartoon on "The Simpsons".

If Robert Rodriguez decides to go ahead and make "Machete Kills Again . . . In Space", he needs to make sure there's enough room in the story for any celebrities whose careers he wants to revitalize. Plus, he needs to embrace the graininess of fun B-movies, and remember that even schlock fails without a coherent story.

Probably foremost, he also needs to make sure Danny Trejo actually wants to reprise his role, because you got no indication of that desire here. Or, even better, give Michelle Rodriguez her own spin off as Luz, the Mexican revolutionary. Unlike Trejo, she actually seemed like she wanted to be there.

Despite the terrible plot and unsatisfying sequel bait ending, Machete Kills is still good fun that manages to be even more ridiculous and over the top than it's predecessor. Danny Trejo and Michelle Rodriguez are once again great and Charlie Sheen and Mel Gibson both give gleefully over the top performances. Robert Rodriguez's direction is good, it's well filmed and reasonably well paced. The music by Carl Thiel and Robert Rodriguez is also good.

In Robert Rodriguez's Machete Kills, Danny Trejo's character—deadly Mexican secret agent Machete Cortez—is about as three-dimensional and grounded in realism as a Looney Tunes cartoon character tripping on peyote. For many, this move towards a crazier style with even more unbelievable splatstick violence will be a step too far, the live-action-cartoon style antics exceeding many people's willingness to suspend disbelief. However, those who can find their way safely past this potential stumbling block should have a whale of a time.

Rodriguez directs proceedings with a carefree attitude and sense of fun that I found infectious, with all ideas—no matter how dumb they must have looked on paper—making their way into the final film. Thus, we have a Bond-style baddie in the form of megalomaniac Luther Voz (Mel Gibson), our hero killing numerous henchmen in a variety of creative ways, some innovative sci-fi weaponry, plenty of cool in-jokes for us movie geeks (I loved the visual reference to Mad Max II) and a bevy of lovely latino babes in sexy gear (including Alexa Vega in PVC and Michelle Rodriguez in tight, cleavage enhancing top). Hell, Rodriguez is having so much fun that he doesn't even care about the quality of his CGI, which only adds to the gleefully gaudy vibe.

It all gets very silly, and with the next sequel featuring Machete in space, it's set to get a whole lot sillier; I for one will make sure I've booked my seat for the ride.

7.5 out of 10, rounded up to 8 for being marginally more fun than the first one.

1. "Poor acting, poor dialogue, even worse actors. I didn't see the first one and will not see this one either." - DUH. This is what happens when one segment of society is bound and determined to shrink government so small that it can be drowned in a bathtub; things tend to get a bit, shall we say, dumbed-down.

2. "People who actually pay money to see these films are as brain-dead as the writer, director and producers of these films." - This, written about people who make a great living producing movies... written by someone who, based on the text of his review, probably has yet to achieve one accomplishment of note that even remotely compares to the production of just one movie.

3. "These remind me of the old Blacksploitation films in the 70s, only they are considerable lower budget and lower class." - Again, DUH. Uh, that was kind of the point, John Baggs. These movies are an HOMAGE (do the google) to 70s grindhouse and blacksploitation movies. The excessive scratching on the film stock? Intentional, to give the movie the "feel" of a 70s grindhouse/exploitation film. There are many other things in the movie that directly pay homage to the 70s films, and you can find these elements in many Rodriguez and Tarantino films. Since it reminded you of a 70s blacksploitation movie, I would say "MISSION ACCOMPLISHED", and not "lower budget, lower class", etcetera.

4. "Honestly I can't think of a single good thing to say about it." - Since you didn't see EITHER of the Machete movies, yet insisted on commenting about them, I am not surprised that you are unable to say anything good about them. Generally, to develop an opinion (that matters), one must EXPERIENCE the subject at hand. I guess your parents didn't teach you that, "if you have nothing good to say, don't say anything at all". If they had, perhaps you would not have commented and could be given the benefit of the doubt that you might be intelligent.

5. "Meth-Head Charlie, Crack-Head Danny, and Brainless Jessica. What a team. The three of the together couldn't make one good brain between them as evident of their acceptance to participate in this film, but then I guess when you are broke (or drugged out like Charlie, you'll do anything for money. " - Let's do the math, shall we? Charlie, Danny, Jessica.... many movie credits, many accomplishments in life, respectable bank accounts. John Baggs? Produces rambling, semi-literate "reviews" of movies that he has never seen, so that he can attack people who have actually succeeded in life. Sorry John, but the math doesn't add up in your favor.

In summary, Machete Kills is exactly what it is advertised to be. It is an homage to 70s grindhouse and exploitation films. Why attempt apple v. orange comparisons between an intentional B movie, and Oscar-caliber films (that John Baggs probably hasn't seen either)? Why not just get some popcorn and enjoy it? (That means actually SEEING it, John)