Lethal Weapon 2

Warner Bros. Pictures | Release Date: July 7, 1989

8.1	USER SCORE Universal acclaim based on 166 Ratings

USER RATING DISTRIBUTION

Watch Now

Stream On

Buy on

Stream On

Expand

Review this movie

VOTE NOW

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Please sign in or create an account before writing a review.

Check box if your review contains spoilers

0 characters (5000 max)

User Reviews

User score By date Most helpful

FilipeNetoSep 15, 2021

I really liked the first movie of the franchise and was very curious to see the rest. So I had some expectations about this film, as is natural and understandable. But what I found is so much weaker that I couldn't avoid feelingI really liked the first movie of the franchise and was very curious to see the rest. So I had some expectations about this film, as is natural and understandable. But what I found is so much weaker that I couldn't avoid feeling disillusioned. Even so, it was a huge success and represented a huge financial income for everyone involved, from the studio to the actors. Mission accomplished!

The problem starts where almost all problems start in cinema: the script, written in a fanciful and absurd way. Again, we'll see Murtaugh and Riggs in a new investigation, betting on eliminating an organized crime group that's strongly associated with South Africa, an ostracized country at this time due to the "apartheid". In the midst of all this, without even being immediately understood by the public, the detectives are removed from this case and are going to babysit an important witness. Understood? Not? In fact, it's hard to understand.

In addition to a confusing script based on an absurd premise (the police cannot act against someone protected by diplomatic immunity... they can, but this requires contact with the diplomat's country, in order for immunity to be suspended), the film totally sacrifices the script for tons of unbelievable action filled with explosions, gunfire and destruction. The opening scene is pretty clear on what we're going to find, and the film's climax includes the destruction of an entire house by a single man. The movie is fun, entertains the audience, gives them a lot of action... but it doesn't make much sense.

Again, Mel Gibson and Danny Glover showed up to the characters they had and give us a happy performance. Is it better than the first movie? No, I felt the two actors were lazier here, but the truth is that you only get to feel that once in a while. Joss Ackland was a more irritating villain than a threatening one, but he gives the franchise the first villain worth noting. Joe Pesci, unfortunately, was left with the painful and arduous task of bringing the movie moron to life, and his performance resented that.

Technically, it's a movie where the bet goes completely back to special, visuals and sound effects. It is completely packed with action scenes, each one louder and more spectacular than the last, with explosions, gunfire, destruction and stunts doing a truly well-done and commendable job. The cinematography is regular, it is within what we would expect from a nineties film, and the sets and costumes fulfill their role with dignity. The soundtrack does not deserve any mention.… Expand

0 of 1 users found this helpful01

All this user's reviews