Chasse à l'homme 2

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?

i didn't expect much from this one. and to be fair all i wanted to see at that moment, was a decent action flick. and surprisingly enough - i got it!

plot is predictable. i mean really. they did put some effort into developing main protagonist and it works, a bit. the acting is fairly average. but since this is an action film, let's get to action.

fight choreography is good, and one particular kill will catch you off guard(believe me i've seen it). since Adkins isn't playing Boyka, his technique is different, more simplified, but efficient enough.

there is a nice nod to the original HT and you will easily recognize it.

as for the supporting cast Rhona is playing a really stereotypical character, which was my main problem throughout the film. i mean she really can do better than that. Robert Kneppers main villain was decent enough to listen to his dialogue.

and for the last when you'll watch it make sure to know that some sequences take place simultaneously at different spots, so you won't feel lost in the pacing

overall i would give it 6.5/10 if you have enough time, watch it...

Anyone remember the 90's? The age of mobile phones that looked like bricks and cheesy martial art action flicks?

Hard Target 2 is firmly set in the 90's action flick mould. Its simple formulaic stuff but its also good fun. There's no pretension here just lots or corny but enjoyable scripting and tons of kick ass action. Lead actor Scott Adkins is a worthy successor to Jean Claude Van Damme. He's a talented martial artist and puts on a polished performance, that really helps to lift this film.

One to enjoy if, like me, you grew up on a diet of 90's action flicks. Seven out of ten from me.

When I herd that Hard Target 2 was going to be on Netflix, I was all set to jump at the chance to see it, but I must admit that I was a little upset to see the film starred Scott Adkins and not Jean Claude Van Damme.

Not that I don't love Scott Adkins, I do. He's this generations' marshal arts action star, but possibly because I'm such a huge fan of Van Damme and the idea that he can still do the high flying kicks that made him worth loving is the reason why it took me so long to see it.

The wait was well worth it. Of course it's not as good as the first one. Like I said the 1st one had Van Damme and was directed by John Woo in his first American picture, Just before Hollywood thought enough of him to temper with his genius. Not to mention that Lance Henriksen and Arnold Vosloo played possibly the first gay villains I ever seen on the big screen.

But like I said, Scott Adkins is this generations answer to Van Damme. In Hard Target 2, Adkins plays a Mixed Marshal Arts fighter (stretch), who accidentally kills his best friend in the ring. Filled with depression, he accidentally signs up to be hunted in Indonesia by a group of rich bastards, but of course "They picked the wrong man to hunt'"

It's interesting that happens though. When you play a game like Hard Target, eventually you will pick the wrong man to hunt, and man, you do not want to be on the team when that happens. There was at least two characters: A billionaire game developer and the son of some rich gun totting type who were hoping to start off with something a little simpler. Rounding out the variety of the hunters was a women with daddy issues and some famous Spanish guy looking for a thrill.

It's an action packed sequel. Not the best fighting Adkins has done in a picture (That I think was Undisputed 2 and 3), but I think Hard target 2 will work on those guys who never herd or don't really know who Adkins is. It's a great way to introduce him to the audience with a group of people wondering why Van Damme is not in it, but will not be disappointed with Adkins.

http://cinemagardens.com

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.