Murder is legal during the night of the "Purge". Most serial killers are law abiding citizens, just pathetic wannabes. Thanks to the "Purge" they can finally live their dream and kill, kill, kill. But there are like-minded souls roaming the streets and a better armed group or a sneaky sniper can stop the nicest killing spree. This is total war, like Verdun, and even the toughest soldiers hated Verdun. So actually only total nut-cases with a death wish would participate in the "Purge". Additionally, killing someone you know will make you the prime target of his friends and relatives, it's not "purging", it's stirring things up.
The first "Purge"-movie was just a run-of-the-mill home-invasion thriller with a strange background story. The second installment is supposed to flesh out the original concept, except it doesn't, because, well, it really is a very stupid idea. There are a few psychopaths killing the homeless and each other. But the main "Purge" participants are: a) Soldiers, sent by the white, Christian fundamentalist government to raise the disappointing "Purge" death toll. b) Mercenaries kidnapping random people, so rich, Christian fundamentalist whites can kill them in a save setting. c) Black revolutionaries that fight both groups and save their brothers & sisters. If the main character would have been black, constantly spouting ethnic slurs against whites, it would have been just like the blaxploitation movies from the 1970s. This will doubtlessly happen in part 3, when the revolutionary leader "The Stranger" will turn into a "Shaft"-like savior.
Why do people like this hateful and hypocritical trash? Is it a splendid satire on social trends happening in today's USA? Au contraire. If the really rich would want to get rid of the poor, they would start with ending the illegal mass immigration. But instead - of course - they do promote it. No administration likes heavily armed citizens. They want control, not anarchy, no "Guns are out new gods"-nonsense. Crime is great. If you treat it in a very liberal way, it will flourish until the people will demand all the right things: the abolition of cash, a snoopier and more intrusive police, stricter gun control laws (for non-criminals) ...
Is it "thought-provoking"? Yes, everything that annoying is.
Is it a "gripping suspense thriller"? If you manage to evade the provoked thoughts, you might enjoy the ride. I actually considered part 1 to be a silly, but quite suspenseful "Assault on Precinct 13"-version. Due to the sheer amount of stupidity in part 2, this time around I wasn't quite up to the challenge, it didn't amuse me at all.
250 years ago a prejudice purported that somebody without god would just pillage and murder. As it turned out, there is no such correlation. The "Purge" says that without governmental control and persecution people would just pillage and murder. Again: not true. Except for those few poor souls who aren't, we, the people, are much better than that.
The first "Purge"-movie was just a run-of-the-mill home-invasion thriller with a strange background story. The second installment is supposed to flesh out the original concept, except it doesn't, because, well, it really is a very stupid idea. There are a few psychopaths killing the homeless and each other. But the main "Purge" participants are: a) Soldiers, sent by the white, Christian fundamentalist government to raise the disappointing "Purge" death toll. b) Mercenaries kidnapping random people, so rich, Christian fundamentalist whites can kill them in a save setting. c) Black revolutionaries that fight both groups and save their brothers & sisters. If the main character would have been black, constantly spouting ethnic slurs against whites, it would have been just like the blaxploitation movies from the 1970s. This will doubtlessly happen in part 3, when the revolutionary leader "The Stranger" will turn into a "Shaft"-like savior.
Why do people like this hateful and hypocritical trash? Is it a splendid satire on social trends happening in today's USA? Au contraire. If the really rich would want to get rid of the poor, they would start with ending the illegal mass immigration. But instead - of course - they do promote it. No administration likes heavily armed citizens. They want control, not anarchy, no "Guns are out new gods"-nonsense. Crime is great. If you treat it in a very liberal way, it will flourish until the people will demand all the right things: the abolition of cash, a snoopier and more intrusive police, stricter gun control laws (for non-criminals) ...
Is it "thought-provoking"? Yes, everything that annoying is.
Is it a "gripping suspense thriller"? If you manage to evade the provoked thoughts, you might enjoy the ride. I actually considered part 1 to be a silly, but quite suspenseful "Assault on Precinct 13"-version. Due to the sheer amount of stupidity in part 2, this time around I wasn't quite up to the challenge, it didn't amuse me at all.
250 years ago a prejudice purported that somebody without god would just pillage and murder. As it turned out, there is no such correlation. The "Purge" says that without governmental control and persecution people would just pillage and murder. Again: not true. Except for those few poor souls who aren't, we, the people, are much better than that.