Agree. I saw it yesterday in a 'marathon' (2 movies back to back, if you can call that a marathon )

In addition to the above mentioned plot lines that went nowhere: Begbie's erection-problems. Two awkward moments with his wife --> discovering Viagra tablets --> taking too many of them... and finally Begbie staring for a moment at his bulging trousers. That's it.

Anyway, the original Trainspotting is clearly the winner. In T2, the characters (and the director) were looking back way too many times. For instance, Spud exiting a sports gym and realizing he is at the same spot where he an Mark (20 years ago) were running from the police. Flash back (obviously). But since he hasn't moved from Edinburgh ever, why a flashback now? Or does he have a flashback every time he crosses this street?

Actually, Simon was the only one who wanted to move forwards with the plans of his brothel (sorry, 'sauna') The whole 'choose life' rant of Mark, although impressive, was sad in a way. He turns out to be someone who cannot keep up with the modern times anymore.

It was by no means a bad movie. It just didn't had the spark, the first one had.

In T2, the characters (and the director) were looking back way too many times.

Yeah, that's true - a classic case in point was spud's recollection of Begbie's glass over the balcony. We get Spud reading it out, we get the flashback of the actual scene AND then we get Begbie reading it out as well

Like you say though, it wasn't a bad film, just not the classic the original was...

I haven't seen this film, but to me the original Trainspotting is one of those films that didn't need a sequel.

@theburbs said:

I haven't seen this film, but to me the original Trainspotting is one of those films that didn't need a sequel.

I'd certainly agree with that - In fact given the original's positive ending that Renton had managed to move on and leave that world behind him, showing him back with the same crowd actually undermines that and sours that iconic finale.

Or it could - it's so dripping with Danny Boyle's now polished visual shtick, that in some ways it seems more just a stablemate of Millions and Slumdog say than a true "spiritual" sequel...

Completely agree with that. Saw the movie 2 days ago and it's already leaving my brain. Forgettable generic sequel to a classic.

@The Midi-chlorian Count said:

I enjoyed this film, to an extent, and it was great to see all the characters again. However, I can't help but feel a little bit cheated - I read so many interviews with the cast before hand claiming that they were hesitant but got involved because it was such an amazing script, but I'm not so sure that's really true. It seemed it didn't really know where it was going plotwise:- I haven't seen this movie but if you can't see the pattern of 90's movies getting remakes/reboots/sequels in the 2000s-2010's solely because of milking potential - you are either deaf/blind or stupid.

Just look at all the franchises that have been revived in the last few years and coming in the next few; Star Wars, Trainspotting, King Kong, Godzilla, disney movie remakes, Ninja turtles, Transformers, Death Race, Jumanji, Harry Potter (Fantastic Beasts movie), Stephen King's it, Stephen King getting a TV series, Ghostbusters, Blade Runner, Halloween, Friday the 13th (which seems to have been cancelled howeveR), Texas chainsaw massacre, Ocean's Eight, Star Trek, i'm sure there are others I can't remember right now.

I don't really give a shit tho, if the milk is tasty I will drink it. Hollywood is run by money hungry bigwigs and that's how it's always been. We can always hope they listen enough to fans that the products they churn out aren't forgettable trash, because the milking will never, ever, EVER stop. Disney alone will pump out 3-4 of these movies every year (Marvel movies, remakes of classic Disney movies, Star Wars movies) until the sun dies out. FOX will do the same with X-men, and the X-men universe is growing exponentionally right now what with the upcoming X-force, "Xmen Supernova", Deadpool 2 etc.

Generally agree with everything said here. No classic squeal, but nice to see the characters again. But only "nice", as the script is flawed and has too many holes as identified in posts above.

Totally agree with you. It left me feeling a little underwhelmed because the plot was very similar to the first. There were funny parts but it isn't the same calibar as its predecessor.

When is the North America release date? I don't see it playing at the two local theaters near my house.

plot lines that went nowhere: Begbie's erection-problems. Two awkward moments with his wife --> discovering Viagra tablets --> taking too many of them... and finally Begbie staring for a moment at his bulging trousers. That's it.

where should such a small plot line have gone? Was closure so necessary to such a relatively small subplot? He was going back to prison anyhow, what else should the movie explain? Should Boyle have tacked on a post credits scene with Begbie having boner problems in prison?

Should they have remade it instead of making a sequel?

It seemed a bit too soon for a remake and I'm not sure if the premise of the original film worked for a sequel... I think they should have waited another 10 years and did a new film that was a homage to the original instead of a sequel...