Smokin' Aces 2: Assassins' Ball (Video 2010) Poster

User Reviews

Add a Review
57 ReviewsOrdered By: Helpfulness
3/10
Different director, different actors, different result ...
brigada brigada10 January 2010
I really, really liked Smokin Aces, and i was excited to go watch this sequel, featuring my favorite UK actor Vinnie Jones, who always gives violent movies this little extra just be his appearance.

As so often with sequels, this one just doesn't cut it - it is nowhere near as well-acted, intense and spectacular as the original.

The story features some of the assassins from part 1, but they have been cramped into the plot in an awkward way this time - without giving away too much, it's rather unbelievable. Their methods seem dull after watching part 1, and the addition of the new assassins doesn't make up for that at all.

Bad, b-movie style acting and extremely bad CGI (explosions!) take up the remaining 1.5 hours, until the foreseeable-from-minute-1 plot-twist kicks in.

Loads of plot holes, bad dialogs and unexplained sudden character-developments makes me rate this 3/10 unfortunately.

TLDR: Don't bother, grab it once its out on DVD
43 out of 61 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
2/10
Takes all the good out of the original and throws it away
zzmasta10 January 2010
I was sent an advance copy of this movie on DVD. I enjoyed the first Smokin Aces and I had no problem spending 90 minutes on this one. Firstly, there's tons of gratuitous violence and nudity. If that's not your thing, skip this.

Secondly, this is called Smokin Aces 2, but from its apparent direct-to-DVD release status, you can expect that Jeremy Piven and other big cast members like Ray Liotta didn't show up. However, Tommy Flanagan (the guy from the first movie who changes his face) has a reprisal. We see Vinnie Jones of Snatch fame (Bullet-tooth Tony) playing the usual hit-man/tough man. Tom Berenger is easily the best, as he plays the target of a large assassination contract for his head.

The movie is a sequel, but it has nothing to do with the Buddy Aces Israel storyline (though his name is mentioned once, I guess just to get SOME sort of movie-verse continuity). Like the first, Smokin Aces 2 sets up the assassination contract, but the storyline is not even close to as appealing and creative as the first. You do get to see the rival assassins preparing and scheming to be first to claim the prize, however unlike SA-1, there is no creative twist to how they all converge on the target. Instead you just get a boring shootout with some very (VERY) far-fetched comical interludes (All I'll say is exploding midget clowns).

A terrible script, terrible storyline, a worse ending, yet somehow the first half of the movie was tolerable. If you're a male who likes guns and boobs, you'll likely be able to sit through this. Autumn Reeser shows some skin, as does Martha Higareda, someone I had not known until this movie.

It's still a 2/10. One point for guns, the other for naked ladies. I'm pretty sure 99.9% of females will despise this movie, and any male not enamored with action/nudity probably will too.
51 out of 74 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
4/10
Meaningless action
raggsokkn9 January 2010
Good but not as great as the first one.

Vinnie Jones is as always a crazy bad-ass, an other old-school bad-ass in this movie is Tom Berenger from The Substitute, this movies sex-appeal comes from the two beautiful girls; Autumn Reeser aka Kaitlin 'AK-47' Tremor and Martha Higareda that both acted good.

The movie is about Walter Weed who's getting hunted down by a bunch of assassins. Walter Weed is an FBI analyst who in the start of the movie is told by some FBI people that there's some criminals out to get him.

After this the FBI brings him to a safe location where they are attacked by all of the assassins.

The movie has no what so ever meaningful dialogs but the action is god.

It's full of fun action, beautiful girls and meaningless violence. In other words not great but OK for watching with some beer and buddies...
40 out of 60 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
8/10
Missing the point
Milan Stanojevic10 February 2010
OK, I am posting this as it seems that too many people reviewing this have completely missed the point.

First, the Special Effects: Yes they were done the way they were (badly, with a comic slant) on purpose. For two reasons. One, they were emulating British gangster flicks (for reasons of budget or style - your guess) - and second they were following a particular anarchist film style which you may be familiar with - Natural Born Killers anyone? Or perhaps you think Mr. Oliver Stone was also being cheap with the special effects? The scene of the rednecks tooing and froin in the truck with the background changing the way it did was a direct homage to that film.

Second and last - you don't go to a film like this expecting it to solve your pointless existence. You go to have a laugh and hopefully some fun. This film did that pretty good.

Too short if you ask me. The director had more ideas then made the screen - I blame the editing :) Cheers
29 out of 48 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
6/10
Not ENTIRELY bad
RipTheJacker7 February 2010
Warning: Spoilers
A lot of people argue that it has bad acting and bad CGI but forget that this was a straight to video release. With such a limited budget, the film-crew can only do so much so well. Taking everything into account, this film is nothing but a mediocre sequel that could have gone unnoticed with or without its release.

With that said, if you ignore some of the minor flaws, it's actually a decent flick. The acting and CG are NOT bad, they're simply mediocre and can be somewhat forgiving when you take into account the budget. If you can an open mind you will hardly notice anything wrong with the GC, and of course if you go into watching this film you shouldn't expect very much from the acting.

What is disappointed, though, is the fact that the premise of the film is simply there to do everything the first film did; and not necessarily better. This film doesn't add or remove anything, it simply plays it VERY safe. The whole assassins after bounty direction is kept intact, and it's VERY unfortunate that most of the assassins share VERY similar characteristics with the previous film's assassins; some even make returns. It's so similar it's actually quite striking.

Putting the bad aside, it has the typical over the top'guy-movie' flare that the first film had. It has guns, women, sex, violence, and plenty of blood to go around. Some of the action scenes seem a bit overboard, such as shooting exploding midget clowns out of a cannon, but that's what one can come to expect from a movie with such flare. The action never slows down, and the plot twists keep on rolling back and forth.

OVERALL: If you have seen the first movie, you have pretty much seen the second movie. That's not to say you shouldn't watch this film. This film is best enjoyed if you can simply tune out every bit of your brain and simply enjoy the movie. Don't worry about the GC, don't worry about the acting, don't worry about plot-holes, don't worry about what's changed since the first movie, just watch the movie for what it's worth: an over the top sequel to an action flick for guys (and maybe gals too).

I gave this movie a 6/10. Nothing special; a bit above mediocre at best, but still enjoyable.
12 out of 18 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
1/10
Much much worse than the original movie
arriva9 January 2010
First of all and most of all, this movie was shot entirely for TV - lousy camera work, very bad acting, bad script, irregularly paced and silly few plot twists.

Characters are not developed, special effects (of e.g. explosives) look highly unrealistic as if the budget was cut in the middle of production.

Also closer to the end of the film the scriptwriters inserted a three minutes needless love story which ended quite abruptly.

Don't waste your time on this even if you liked the original movie - I couldn't make myself finish watching it.
44 out of 82 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
2/10
Bad, But Not So Bad It's Good.
bodiebob-632-90996028 January 2010
What an awful film, the whole concept was absurd. It's one of the dumbest movies I've seen and the way they tried to dress it up as some 'Usual Suspects' style work of genius was laughable. Everything to do with the four morons in the truck (especially the clowns) would ruin any film and the plot was full of holes. Wilful suspension of disbelief is one thing but this required suspension of all intelligence.

There are none of the big stars of the first movie. Vinnie Jones, who's improving as an actor and I want to like, still cannot deliver a line without sounding like he's reading it from a script for the first time and Tom Berenger is clearly desperate to be accepted by Hollywood again if he is taking parts like this. I bet he was very well behaved on set this time.

Bizarrely though, this had one of the best last ten seconds of a movie I've ever seen, which is all that stopped me giving it a rating of one but by then the film was beyond redemption and it was wasted. If it had been put on the end of a decent film it would have gone down as one of the all time classic endings, it was that good an idea. Now it will just be forgotten on the end of a bit of straight to DVD garbage, which is nothing short of tragic.
16 out of 28 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
4/10
Average at Best
majormadmax11 February 2010
OK, I won't even compare this movie with the 'original,' as there really is no connection between the two. Well, other than the one assassin and the fact that the FBI is the main government agency involved.

So, standing on its own, the best that could be said of 'Smokin' Aces II - Assassins' Ball' is that it is mildly entertaining if you like movies of this genre.

By that I mean lots of gunfire, blood, gore and a few hot women.

Otherwise, the script is weak, the plot weaker, and the acting...well, it can barely be called acting.

By itself, 'Smokin' Aces II' rates four stars at best. You can save yourself some money and wait until it hits the discount bins, you won't be missing anything by doing so. But do pick it up when it gets marked down, especially if you like these kind of brainless shoot-'em-up flicks!
11 out of 18 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
7/10
Did others watch it before reviewing?
thezombieking157 June 2010
I feel like most of the votes for Smokin' Aces 2 were given without an actual viewing of the movie. I'll admit, as soon as I heard there would be a sequel (which turned out to be a prequel) I wasn't happy, and wanted to rate it badly myself. I feel as though most people shared my sentiment, but rated the film without actually watching it first. I feel it's at very least in the category of a 6, with the original Aces at at least a 7 on IMDb. I suppose viewers just don't feel the way I do. Now, about the film...

Aces 2 was... different from the first film. Most notably, no real names here. Jeremy Piven and Ryan Reynolds are gone. It's a big loss, but if you consider Aces 2 to be a similar story without actually RELATING it to the first film, it becomes a lot more fun. Aces 2 has a style of it's own, different from the original. Where Aces 1 had smooth music and a flowing story, a style all it's own, Aces 2 has rock music and probably more swearing. The Tremors family appear again, but this time around, it's only Lester and a few others you could honestly care less about. The setup is entertaining, the shootouts are fair enough, and the humor (Tremors family related) is fun if you can get past the bizarre nature of it all. Aces 2 is far from realistic, and there are enough plot holes to sink a boat, but it really isn't a bad film. Certainly not intelligent like the first, but eh. Watch the film, don't relate it to the original, and at very least, WAIT for the ending. The final moments will make the entire film worth it, if nothing else.
13 out of 23 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
3/10
A weak attempt to cash in on the original Smokin' Aces
Siamois12 January 2010
Joe Carnahan's original Smokin' Aces was received with mixed feelings but a very fine piece of entertainment in itself. The original owed a lot to black crime comedies in the style of Guy Ritchie.

This sequel/prequel/crapquel is only produced by Carnahan. He passes the directing helm to P.J. Pesce. A quick look at this "director" credit list on IMDb will tell you exactly what to expect. Assassin's Ball is diluted in every way imaginable. First, it is only very loosely connected to the original. One can guess the superb and eclectic cast from the original was probably not easy to secure and so, in an attempt to cash in, they came up with a pitiful excuse of a story which tries to keep the theme of assassins all after the same target. But the story brings nothing new and is in fact inferior. The new characters are dumbed down versions of the old ones and the acting quality is also down from he previous effort.

There are sequences in this film that will make you cringe. For instance, a man is shot and the cheap-o blood splatter digital effect goes in an absolutely WRONG, gravity and logic- defying direction. And this single example encapsulates the weak sense of direction on display here.

How could the producer, a man who has shot miraculously cool indie flicks and also a masterpiece such as Narc actually OK any of this? Did Carnahan just cash the check and not control the quality here?

My other reviews will demonstrate I rarely am emotional about films when I review them but here, I must point out how disappointed I am with Assassin's Ball. Although the original was not greatness on film, it had heart, quality direction and a certain unique quality to it. How can Carnahan, who once was headed to great things after Narc, be reduced to a producer role on such garbage? This once great director saw several of his rumored projects scrapped, given to others or go in limbo.

I once felt he would be one of the next great directors and writers of Hollywood but with this offering, I now have serious doubt about Carnahan and he no longer resides on my "must see" list. As for director Pesce, this is without a doubt the last movie from this guy I ever watch.

I'm giving it a 3 solely because of the few entertaining bits they sucked from the original.
12 out of 23 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
loading
An error has occured. Please try again.

See also

Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews