|What? I thought Van Damme was better than this!?|
But this is the least of the problems. First of all, why is Deveraux assisting in the creation of more Unisols? What's his motivation behind this? What possible benefit could he have from this if he knows exactly what could go wrong? It doesn't make any sense. There's even a scene where Deveraux has a flashback to his death and the kind of treatment he was given when he was a Unisol. This almost hints at that Deveraux isn't passed his own stress, but it's never visited again. Deveraux even has a daughter named Hillary who he named after his wife of the same name - wait what? In the 1992 movie, the nosey news reporter was named Veronica and most fans can safely agree that it looked like the future couple was going to be Deveraux and Veronica. Where did this Hillary girl come in?
Even more insulting is how obvious and obligatory it becomes when Deveraux comes in contact with another thickheaded female reporter, guess where that goes.
These issues alone amount to a very confusing, poorly written main character that feels like a totally different person. Forget trying to even understand anyone else that's brought in because his or her development is given far less attention. The villain played by Michael Jai White brings up multiple questions as well. Just because a computer system becomes self-aware does not mean it all of sudden knows how to perform martial arts. S.E.T.H.'s motivations are also unexplained besides him wanting to rid the world of chaos. I assume this was apart of the fad for 1999 - making all computers self aware and ready to massacre mankind. Then there's Bill Goldberg as the skull-smashing wrestler turned Unisol. The only thing audiences will know about him is that he hates Deveraux. Why - no will know because it's never explained. What's the point of creating a personality if there's nothing to back it up? I enjoyed him more as the silent type in Looney Tunes: Back in Action (2003).
William Malone and John Fasano are the writers behind this. Fasano was probably the man behind all the parts to the film that tried to recollect on what made the original as good as it could be. For all that, it seems like Malone's parts were favored more, which is what made this story so inconsistent. Malone is also the director behind the illogical Creature (1985) film. Just horrendously bad. What's even stranger is that these two writers tried to incorporate comedic lines that are as subtle as the ones of the first. For example, going back to Goldberg, he would be flattened by something and say "I hate that guy" in a cartoony way. What made the first movie funny at times was that of how deadpan it was delivered. Here, it just sounds silly.
|and then there's this barrel of potatos|
It's practically nothing like the 1992 original. For a title that supposed to signify the return of greatness - the return is far less than even minimally acceptable. Continuing stories do not contain writing like this.
Points Earned --> 2:10