Shows
Now Reading
Battle Royale 2

Yes… the sequel to the amazing Battle Royale is a Christmas movie.


About The Author
Matthew Coats
Matthew Coats
Formerly known under the pseudonym of Alex Jowski. Site owner, movie aficionado, and film school grad. Matthew Coats presents reviews, some written, some as vlogs, and some as weekly shows, for a variety of different movies and television shows. After years of struggling to get his own projects off the ground amidst the normal routine of living, Matthew Coats decided to create a site in order to share and promote movie reviews, video games and much much more from talented and original people all across the internet.
4 Comments
  • hodor
    December 11, 2014 at 8:09 am

    while i have seen br 1 probably 4-5 times and br 2 3 times,i think its a kinda hard sit-throug,its so much chaos everywhere!
    and while i understand thats what they was out after, it feels hard to watch.

  • Ankai
    December 12, 2014 at 9:11 pm

    Honestly, I didn’t really mind the political commentary of the film, but I felt that it was two movies that could have been pretty good that were haphazardly stitched together. Whether that was due to the death of the director is not for me to say.
    Of the various changes that the first movie made from the book, one thing that I did like was changing the purpose of the games: instead of being some absurd method by some totalitarian government to create super soldiers, it came across as some desperate attempt by people at their wits end to tackle a problem that they did not understand with the few resources that they still had. The Battle Royal games may have been stupid, but they made a bit of sense as being the end result of a messed up world. With the second movie, I got the impression that the government could have sent in troops or just send missiles flying into the place at any time. It has been a while since I had seen the movie, so maybe there is a reason why this did not happen. Well, they did eventually send troops in, but only after the surviving kids defected; kids who should not have been sent there in the first place.
    The original games seemed very self-contained and focused squarely on the kids. The new games had an actual mission with national stakes…why send in these kids at all, let alone saddle them with exploding neck collars? I could understand some of the allegorical context behind the first movie, but it seemed extremely mixed up in the second one. Is this about conscription? Sending in troops unprepared? Child soldiers? Or was it just feeling the need to stay true to the original movie at the expense of making any sense whatsoever? It became way too distracting for me. And while the first movie may have been over the top and cheesy at times, I could not shake the impression that the second was plain goofy in a way that sapped any impact its political statements may have been trying to make.

  • ArmymanZ
    December 17, 2014 at 3:36 am

    And then Shuya and Takuma were killed by the Taliban. Seriously though the Taliban or any of those local Tribal Warlords would’ve killed them or worse sold them into sexual slavery called “Bacha bazi”.

  • erni79
    December 18, 2014 at 8:14 am

    Great review Alex!
    I think the reason why many people did like BR1 so much is because they did not understand its central and subversive social critique. I’ve talked to many people who adore that movie but because of the violence, really not understanding how much it is saying about our education systems and how we treat children.
    BR2 makes sure that the message is clear, and it is a big subversive message. It could almost be subsumised in “Stop thinking in terms of black and white, because if you do so, those who you thought were on the “good” side, on closer inspection, actually are not.”
    Or as one of the great philosophers of the 19th century put it: “If the end justifies the means, then the end was never just.”

Leave a Reply