Battle Royale II: Requiem (2003)

Crappy film

It's an amazing and heartbreaking story.

The joyful confection is coated in a sparkly gloss, bright enough to gleam from the darkest, most cynical corners.

This movie feels like it was made purely to piss off people who want good shows

Here they appear in the wilds of Afghanistan and they take the lessons they learnt and the injustices perpetrated on them and turn it around to fight for justice. The brutality of inhumanity and violence is offered as entertainment, yes, but it is fabulous to see the protagonists show that all suffering and death was not meaningless and there is a pay-off. Enjoy!

It's like the move wanted to say "America was bombed, but that's ok, cause they're bad anyways, terrorists aren't really bad they're just misunderstood", and with that line of logic everything those terrorists fight for is worth while too. We had legitimate reasons for bombing all the countries listed, several times, in this crap movie. With any luck this stupid overacted movie will fade into obscurity never to be seen again.

Though it does not fully follow the formula of the first, this film sets to outdo the first film's level of ferocity and violence, and does so beautifully. With extreme levels of gore and violence, it surpasses the first with a political twist. Set 3 years after the first film, where the Battle Royale game defunct, and teens forming a terrorist rebel army. A class of teens are handed guns and forced to complete one task, kill the terrorist leader.Along with the expect extreme amounts of gore, the film audaciously tackles terrorism in 2003, a time when the world had many fresh wounds caused by terrorist acts. Not only is there a scene of two identical towers falling after an explosion only 2 years after 9/11, it also sets out to contemplate what drives terrorists to kill scores of innocent people, humanizing them. Not to mention the terrorist children are all either dressed like al-Qaeda terrorists and Marxist revolutionaries. Not subtle at all and a very brave message to put out for the time this was released.The acting is so over-done to the point of silliness, but thats not why you came here. You came here for the legendary amount of gore, and this film will not disappoint. With nearly 100 people killed on screen, this film has enough gore to satisfy even the thirstiest veteran gore film enthusiast. Though some of the digitally rendered blood can sometimes be a bit unrealistic and take you out of it for a moment, but enough real blood is used to keep it classy.While you won't get the same movie you saw in Battle Royale 1, you will certainly appreciate the spin taken, as well as the dramatic increase in action and gore.

The Simple Question: Is it as good as/better than Battle Royale?Short Answer: No. It isn't.Response Question: Um...Is it at least worth watching?Well...That one depends.First, I'll start off by saying that a lot of the negativity towards this film tends be either in comparison to the first, or irrelevant towards the argument. We must remember that this is not Battle Royale, it's a continuation taking on an entire new direction, with different ideas, director and feel. If we wanted another Battle Royale, why not just watch the first again?I want to begin with, no; this is definitely not as good, nor does it care well with what it was given. Examples of major problems were: The Saving Private Ryan sequence was unoriginal and boring. The actors are constantly overacting in an awkward manor. The plot goes nowhere and seems rather silly. Special effects were generic. The ideas make little sense with no pay-off and it all seems to fall into a clunky mess. The running time is long, and the ending was weak and a sort of a cop-out.However, in it's defence... We wanted a Battle Royale sequel, where did you honestly think it would go? If you wanted another BR act with slight twists; well you got it, by having them pair up to add tension to their fragile life. You wanted another crazy teacher? You got it, and despite the over-acting, did you really think that anyone could surpass the charisma and talents of Beat Takeshi? You were just asking for the impossible. You wanted something different, yet the same? The plot is new, and took chances with direction; if you didn't like it, what could they do? Give you EXACTLY the same as before? Where would you put Shuya now? He was last seen fleeing the government; don't you think it's completely logical to have him fighting back now? Especially after all that he's been through?The problems people claim to have with this movie are irrelevant. Most people complain about the plot, saying it's stupid and unrealistic: Are you telling me that BR wasn't completely ridiculous with it's own plot holes they didn't bother explaining? It was action packed and controversial, that's why we saw it. It took ours minds off such trivial thoughts and allowed us to enjoy the movie as a whole, even spewing clever humour and care for it's characters. Can't we take BRII with the same mind set? Most people complain about the acting: So... your telling me you REALLY watch BR for the acting? Here's an idea, go watch Citizen Kane. Most people complain about Shuya and his choices: Oh I'm sorry, with Shuya being in war with unfair consequences throwing themselves at him, you don't think he'd be scarred for life? Seeing so much death in front of him. You don't think realistically that people ACTUALLY tend to fight back do you? He wouldn't kill? With the way this world is set-up, it's not exactly alien. With a revolution, it seems quite logical one would assume.Overall, this movie isn't great no. The direction is certainly not as good, the controversy is no longer shocking, the acting seems over-the- top and yes the plot is sort of silly. But really, what did you expect they were going to do with a BR sequel, it doesn't exactly leave itself open for sequel potential. If they remade it, people would say ''Don't fix what isn't broken'', if you wanted the same concept with different characters, it wouldn't be original enough. Instead, this director took a chance and tried something new. It's what we all want in a sequel, and I think we've been rather unfair to compare it to something that was as great as the original. Ironically when people talk of sequels or remakes, that's exactly what they want to see. They want it to take chances, but to keep it the same. Want it to keep the feel and characters, but introduce new concepts and problems with out differing much from the source material. Well, that's exactly what this did; and yet we complain because it wasn't good enough, despite we had everything we wanted. Unfair? What's that?IN CONCLUSION: It's not bad. If you can keep an open mind towards the ideas and concepts and respect the director and writers to take a chance at something new while still trying to capture what made the first so great; then you'll find this movie okay. It's certainly not as good, and you might find it humorous in it's choices. With scenes a little boring here and there and characters a little forgettable. But as a continuation of the first, with new ideas and silly acting and plot, it's just entertaining enough. Just, try not to take it so seriously is all and make sure it's the Directors Cut.But if your looking for a film that captured the atmosphere, depth, tension and drama of the first...Go and watch the first one again!