The problems of this film are predictable, but deadly:
1. Lacklustre villain/plot.
2. It's the softest 'satire' ever... Getting a rise out of the movie business and LA's 'preening' culture came about ten years too late... At least the original - with its jabs at cocaine use, etc - felt like a product of its time. Material like this could and should have been released in the early 90's, and it would've been more at home. The world has moved on a lot since then, though.
Also, if you're going to do exactly the same thing, without bringing anything fresh to the formula, then people ought to be asking: 'why repeat yourself, if not for cash alone'?! At least the first sequel was a twist on the original because it goes back to Mick's natural environment; this however was exactly the same theme as the first time round, when the two American cities they've used aren't different enough from one another to make a proper distinction...
So what?!
1. Lacklustre villain/plot.
2. It's the softest 'satire' ever... Getting a rise out of the movie business and LA's 'preening' culture came about ten years too late... At least the original - with its jabs at cocaine use, etc - felt like a product of its time. Material like this could and should have been released in the early 90's, and it would've been more at home. The world has moved on a lot since then, though.
Also, if you're going to do exactly the same thing, without bringing anything fresh to the formula, then people ought to be asking: 'why repeat yourself, if not for cash alone'?! At least the first sequel was a twist on the original because it goes back to Mick's natural environment; this however was exactly the same theme as the first time round, when the two American cities they've used aren't different enough from one another to make a proper distinction...
So what?!