Chasse à l'homme 2

My quick rating - 5,3/10. The same basic formula as "Hard Target" and the superior "Surviving the Game" of take a person (Scott Adkins) and hunt him down for sport. This movie tends to lead into ridiculous category a few times but still delivers some quality action scenes which mostly are martial arts related. If you like those types of movies, you will like this. Scott Adkins plays a pro fighter who accidentally kills his best friend in the ring and ends up down and out due to depression. He takes on one last fight for money, but it ends up being him fighting for his life against a bunch of rich people who hunt him for sport. Very cliché from start to finish so you can fill in all the plot points in your head now. Entertaining it is. I would say Adkins is slowly solidifying his role is the times new action hero. I, for one, prefer that as opposed to all the really bad Seagal movies going straight to video these days.

Yours truly is a Belgian, and was a teenager during the 1990s, so as a matter of course I went through a fanatic Jean-Claude Van Damme phase. "Hard Target" was definitely my favorite! The premise of hunting humans for sport is one of the oldest in action/thriller cinema history, and "Hard Target" is by no means a classic, but the combination of a long-haired Van Damme and excessive violence worked effectively; for sure. I never even realized there existed a sequel, even if it was a cheap and direct-to-video one. Luckily, I have a good buddy who specializes in lousy and obscure sequels, and he assured me that "Hard Target 2" was fun, straightforward, unpretentious, ... and worth a look.

My pal's judgement is reliable, as always. I enjoyed this film, although I'm likely to completely forget about it again in just a few days. I never heard about lead actor Scott Adkins, but he seems to be a regular in the field of meaningless action guff. Some of the people hunting down Scott in the Myanmar jungle are more known, like Rhona Mithra ("Doomsday") and Temuara Morrison ("Once Were Warriors"). The background story of Wes - the prey - Baylor is hilariously dumb. During an ultimate fighting battle, Wes killed his best friend and feels traumatized ever since. How could he not realize that his endless kicks and punches were going to cause irreparable damage? Please, don't go sobbing and mourning that you "accidentally" killed your buddy after you hit him repeatedly in the brains. Anyway, it's not the type of movie where you expect logic or intelligence, merely fast-paced actions, nasty killings and ingenious death traps. "Hard Target 2" does deliver in this particular department.

Could the film have been even more enjoyable? Well, yes, I think so! They should have lobbied to have JCVD appear in a small cameo. He's at a point in his career where he probably had accepted if the paycheck was worthwhile. How cool it would have been if Van Damme starred as an arrogant and eccentric hunter, for instance?

First of all, anyone expecting ties or similarities to Hard Target will be disappointed from this so called sequel.There are inexplicable doves flying in slow motion and some daredevil action sequences, that's about the only sequel touch we get here.

This just is a no-frills human hunt movie capitalizing on the title of the 90's hit film. On the story part there isn't anything interesting but it moves at a rapid clip and the action never really slows down.

We have to accept the fact that it is a low budget action flick meant to be enjoyed for its combative nature. Like most 'B' movies the acting is a little uneven,Although It delivers a good amount of action and Adkins does a sterling job at being the hunted hero. The film is fun once the hunt gets going, which takes a good half hour. Adkins is in top form here, getting in lots of those crazy slow motion kicks and shows us a little bit of acting.

I am not saying that its a good sequel to the JCVD film but still you can give it a try if you like to see some action and some slow motion kicks, the film won't disappoint you in that.

This movie is just bad. Really bad. I don't care how many times Scott Adkins kicks his legs and does the splits. The script is worse than D budget quality, the cinematography is D level, the acting is barely above C quality, and there's some very good actors in there who obviously just wanted a paycheck, Rhona Mitra. If you don't care, don't do it. It will show in your performance and it did. No one really seemed to care. And the original is no masterpiece, but this is beyond bad. And it looks bad. Very cheap looking and they had a jungle to work with. Wow! And the color of the scenes was "meh" The filmmakers had no point of view. This was very amateurish and unoriginal. It's not enough to just have action anymore. You have to have a strong point of view and interesting characters. This had neither. And the action was not good. Just because something is slow motion doesn't mean it's cool. In fact, slow motion is so over used it has the opposite affect. Anyway, I love movies, and if you're reading this I'm sure you do too, but for the love of movies stay away from this lazy target.

Uh, I'm sorry I gave up my time to watch this. The main issue is how dumb, clichéd, and slow it is.

After the first few minutes I should have stopped watching it - I must be just as dumb, if not more so, that the creators of this movie because I watched most of it.

Watching it became painfully painful, like being softly but incessantly clubbed. I kept thinking, 'oh, this is so weak .. it has to get better.' It didn't.

I gave up before the end - I'm lucky that I didn't keep watching until the end because I probably would have died from head injuries. Still, I'm pretty damaged from just watching the three quarters.

The makers of this movie should have rather have donated the investment money to poor folks, honestly. They just wasted it.