Battle Royale 2: Requiem (2003)
Directed by Kinji Fukasaku and Kenta Fukasaku
Starring: Tatsuya Fujiwara, Ai Maeda, Riki Takeuchi, Takeshi Kitano
Genre: Action/Satire
Running Time: 133mins

Rating:

After escaping the horrors of the first Battle Royale, Nanahara Shuya and partner Noriko vow to get revenge on the adults that mercilessly let them down. Enlisting other survivors into a terrorist organisation known as the Wild Seven a series of devastating attacks lands them as the prime target of not just the Japanese military but also the world. With increasing threats of invasion and missile attack a new concept is devised. BR2 - the difference this time round? Instead of killing each other, they will be forced to infiltrate the Wild Seven's island retreat and put a stop to Nanahara. Let battle commence!

It was never any doubt that following the enormous success of the original, that there would be, at some time, a sequel to the smash hit that was “Battle Royale”. It was also never any doubt that following the successful mix of black humour, melodrama and social satire of the original that I would find myself sat in a cinema awaiting the continuation of Nanahara’s story. It opens with the spine tingling image of Tokyo’s city scape being reduced to rubble, echoes of 9/11 are inevitable the morally challenging image is the perfect way for the movie to start as you sit with baited breath at the path the film will take.

However, I could only wish that from this my review would be a continuation of the praise lavished upon its predecessor. Unfortunately, Battle Royale 2: Requiem falls significantly short of the intelligent and thought provoking original and gradually descends into nothing more than a frustrating exercise in unsatisfied expectations.

The problems start with the repetitious opening that echoes the opening moments of the original. While there are subtle attempts at self-referential parody (in particular the teacher’s name being specific to the actor – Kitano as Kitano, Riki Takeuchi as …. yes you guessed it – Riki Takeuchi) the whole set of sequences adds up to very little in terms of originality and lacks the spark and humour of that very first time we were introduced to the high pitched frantic greeting of the introduction video. Instead we get an adrenaline fuelled performance from Takeuchi who is left solely responsible for any excitement in these opening scenes with his tremendously hideous grin, and showboat gurning. However, all this fails to stand up against what we have seen before (again comparisons must be made to the comic timing of Kitano’s performance and that feeling of witnessing something we had never seen before) in other words it is no longer fresh, no longer new. Meanwhile, the changes to the rules (the pairing up of students relying on each others survival in particular) fails to make sense in the greater scheme of things and feels exactly what it is, a tacked on decision, almost as if to say “look this is different from the last one”.

What’s more is that the characterisation of the class is virtually non-existant, concentrating mostly upon the fate of no more than three classmates we are left with only cannon fodder for the remaining 39 who gargle and splutter, scream and explode with very little emotional impact. The fact that two of the most promising and intriguing characters are killed off within the first twenty minutes is an insight (if you will) into the many wrong turns that the film takes. Not least in the decision of casting Shugo Oshinari as the lead student, capable it seems of only wild eyed anger and silent tantrums, his character fails to connect with the audience as someone to root for, in fact there is no character in the whole of the film who can even faintly boast this claim. Fujiwara’s moody, youthful terrorist Nanahara is embarrassingly bad, surrounded by a candle light vigil of “those who have died for the cause” cradling an AK-47 we never get to scratch beneath the surface of his characters motivation. Other than “I don’t trust adults” and “the smiles of innocent children” his purpose is never explained, and the destruction of the Tokyo skyscape is an action so unforgivable that any message he presents will undoubtedly be questioned as technically he is just as bad as (if not worse than) those he opposes. The fact that his character is approached in a sympathetic light presents a muddled message about terrorism present that teeters a little too close to sympathy for comfort.

But the main problem with Battle Royale 2 is that we simply do not care who wins or loses, with such clichéd paper thin back story revelations as “I lost my family to terrorism” its very much a case of join the dots characterisation and motivation, the whole affair seems rushed, clumsy. And to quote the films question of whose side are you on? The winners or the losers? I say neither just finish the damn film.

And while I write this I cannot help but feel that it’s such a shame that Battle Royale 2 fails to deliver as the initial concept of the film certainly isn’t at fault. There are plenty of avenues that the film could have taken, and plenty of themes of interest it could have explored, but the conviction is not there and the avenues not taken. The courage, usually applied to its director (the late Kinji Fukasaku) is not present. Instead we get a shallow attempt at understanding the harsh no win situation of terrorism, war, innocence and global paranoia that only touches the surface.

There is no attempt at saying anything new, we have all seen what we are shown in news broadcasts the world over, the message of war is hell has been told and re-told time and time again. And so, what is left is entertainment value only, and with the exception of a few set pieces in which the big guns come out to play and the budget gets stretched there becomes very little reason to watch Battle Royale 2 other than curiosity.

There is much more to say about Battle Royale 2, the misguided use of the children of Afghanistan is too easy, too obvious a contrast to the violence of war. The conclusion meanwhile, is borderline ridiculous, and annoyingly amateurish failing to be either crowd pleasing, profound or even remotely entertaining. Don’t get me wrong there are positive things to be found in Battle Royale 2; the storming of the island – from a purely aesthetic sense – is well shot frenetic and exciting. The conversation between Takeuchi and the prime minister (though marred by the pussy footed use of “that country” instead of just plain out saying America) is still a fine comic moment. And the pairing system of students is an interesting idea. However, all of these are only brief moments that are never explored to their fullest resulting in more and more plot holes to be found.

Highlight to read spoilers below:
The entire relevance of sending out the class to the island is continually deemed pointless by the fact that the Wild Seven terrorist group fails to cope and is almost obliterated by only two separate and relatively low maintenance military attacks.
End of spoilers.

I wanted to like Battle Royale 2, and God knows I tried, in fact I don’t think I’ve ever had to try so hard just to enjoy a film. But regardless of being a fan of the original, the sequel just isn’t enough to satisfy even the most ardent of fans. Once all the big explosions have stopped ringing in your head you will be left with a sudden ping, its disappointment at how shallow experience the film really is. Average.