Easy Money: La cité des égarés

A compelling follow-up to the first film. This takes place three years after the events of EASY MONEY and follows the fortunes (or rather misfortunes) of a group of disparate and broken characters, each of them possessing a dangerous scheme to make some 'easy money'. Director Daniel Espinosa didn't return for this sequel, but his replacement Babak Najafi does a fine job in recreating the style of the original so that EASY MONEY II feels almost exactly the same as the first in terms of look and feel.

The plotting is engaging and the way the various sub-plots weave together is deftly done. There's definitely a tragic and downbeat tone to the story - some might say that it's merely realistic - a 'crime doesn't pay' kind of vibe that runs throughout. The performances are exemplary, with Joel Kinnaman and Dragomir Mrsic particularly shining here and making for a strong double act. There's not as much character depth as in the first film, but on the plus side the focus is on crime throughout without any of the romantic padding or the like.

This little crime genre film rolls along pretty nicely, because it mixes different types of criminals (the weak minded or the desperate) and underlines the strange role that Sweden plays for immigrants.

The one thing I always remember about Sweden is that all immigrants hate the Swedes. This story mixes in Arabs, Serbs and even a Mexican. So the crime communities just get on with the job - and indeed Sweden itself is just a back drop here.

I didn't see the first film, but the different characters obviously knew each other, but this is only relevant later on. All of them meet some type of nexus because of something going wrong, and have to resort to more crime. Gritty without being unpalatable, we see that crime rarely pays and there is, of course, no easy money.

'Easy Money' was a gripping, albeit conventional, story of an ordinary man dragged into a life of crime. This sequel, while also quite watchable, seems to have less purpose: we're reintroduced to the various characters we met in the first film, and watch their continuing, violent and disastrous efforts to make it rich by dealing in drugs. It's broadly believable if a little exaggerated in tempo: drug gangs wouldn't actually survive if their individual members generally perished at quite this rate, but unlike the first film, there's never any possibility of redemption or escape. The sentimental ending rings a little false given the disregard for human life shown by all participants.

The first one was a small sensation. Can Swedes make crime movies, which won't be ridiculed and parodied the week after? Yes, they could.

The same can be said about the sequel. The story is more unlikely this time and there are some more clichés, but the characters are anyway not square. They are hoodlums with complications and there's a well functioning story-telling with passable action scenes.

Not that you believe posh Stockholm being like that and why should you believe it about the subs? But movies like this have their own agenda, for better and for worse. This is for better. Can be watched, if you don't have anything more exciting going on in your own life.

Well, the first half hour was rather dull, but then the events started to roll and scenes with with chases and betrayals began. This time, the focus is on other characters, but their reasons and acts were logically motivated (apart from the depiction of the Swedish police who were always long time and several steps behind). The characters are more trivial than in the 1st part, and bringing moments with remorse into the lives of hardened criminals was not very convincing; I liked most Fares Fares as Mahmoud.

The film is okay and if you yourself are okay with seeing a film made in Sweden with only a few Swedes in it, and you avoid of pondering why foreign criminals can act freely without having proper sentences and later being expelled, then you are a right viewer.