MamaGravity good back-story, and good acting

FirstWitch A movie that not only functions as a solid scarefest but a razor-sharp satire.

Jenna Walter The film may be flawed, but its message is not.

Logan By the time the dramatic fireworks start popping off, each one feels earned.

chris The Two Jakes has the misfortune of following an absolutely exceptional original in Chinatown. Few sequels live up the original and one can only wonder at how different, and presumably better it would have been if Polanski had directed again. This is not a bad movie.It was nice to see the character of Jake Gittes again. It does have its moments of private eye noir and intrigue. Jack Nicholson and Harvey Keitel are always fascinating to watch. Some of the action and word play is really enjoyable. Unfortunately it has no rhythm. The plot is long winded, confused and tentative. On too many occasion's I felt my interest waning. However I decided to see it through and felt the pace gather a bit towards the end. The acting is good and there's enough in it to keep it fairly interesting, but at times I felt like I was just hanging in there watching and hoping for it to become great, which it never does. If someone asked me to explain what happened in the film I think I would actually struggle to make sense of it. Nicholson and Keitel make it watchable, but not memorable. It's not not great because Chinatown was so good. It's just not great full stop. It was an average sequel. Not the first and certainly won't be the last...

punishmentpark I've seen this one before, but hardly remembered a thing of it when watching it again last night - not a good sign, I suppose. This is the only one of three films that I saw that were directed by Jack Nicholson himself, and I really wonder how much help he got. Some cinematography is dazzlingly beautiful, but did he really - for instance - find that exact location (the one with the wooden poles) at the Californian coastline where Rawley and Gittes have their conversation by himself? Maybe that's not what directing is all about, and I'm a bit of a laymen in that respect, but isn't directing also about keeping an eye on the development of the story and coaching your actors? The story is not uninteresting, but it's a somewhat uninspired carbon-copy of its predecessor with rather mediocre acting, and, I guessed straight away that the 'mystery lady' was indeed Miss Mulwray... And that soundtrack could have been toned a bit, couldn't it?Then, there are some really odd scenes, seemingly thrown in for the 'good measure' of simply trying something different, like the sex scene with Stowe and the 'suck my gun' scene with Keith. They cóuld have worked, but they felt (way) out of tune here.I can't say that 'The two Jakes' is a bad film, it is much too easy on the eyes and the story and acting are entertaining enough, but - unsurprisingly - it has almost none of the magic of its predecessor 'Chinatown'. The cinematography is pretty much impeccable, the story was worked out pretty well and the overall atmosphere was more than doable, but that's about it. By the way, did anyone notice Jack rambling on an on (he could talk the balls off a...) while that one tune set in, that same tune that the Coen brothers used in the film noir parody 'The big Lebowski'? Another fun bit was when Jake broke into a house when an old-time commercial was on. I hope it was an original, but I really don't know.Well entertaining, for sure, but also quite bleak compared to the original. 6 to 7 out of 10.

Maziun It's hard not to compare "Two Jake's " to "Chinatown " and the results are rather bad for "TJ". "Two Jakes" is vastly inferior to "Chinatown". Even the best elements from this sequel (the dialogue and acting) are less impressive than in Polanski's classic. Why this movie was made after 16 years ? "Chinatown" didn't really needed a sequel .The movie is set fifteen years after the events shown in "Chinatown" . Jake Gittes is still haunted by the past , while there is new mystery on the horizon. Unsuspringly the new mystery will be someway connected with the old case… I strongly suggest you should watch "Chinatown" before this one.The biggest plus of the movie is the acting of Jack Nicholson and Harvey Keitel . Both gave great performances mainly because the script gives them a lot to play with. On the other side the acting of Meg Tilly and Madeline Stowe is rather bad . Tilly lacks charisma , while Stowe is terribly over-acting . The other actors provide capable support .The screenplay as other reviewers mentioned is the biggest problem of the movie . The dialogues are definitely good and I have enjoyed more or less subtle references to "Chinatown" . It was nice to see all of the various supporting characters that previously appeared in Polanski's movie. Unfortunately , Towne's screenplay feels like a retread of "Chinatown". Water is replaced with oil , there is another rich old guy and so on… The story uses too many elements from previous movie that seem awfully contrived as they are woven into the current plot . There is one big twist that isn't a twist at all , because it's so obvious ("Do I know you "?). Compare that to the twist in "Chinatown" . Now that was a BIG TWIST … There are also some awfully laughable moments (footsteps , explosion) and good moments (twist with the chair , joke on the golf court). Some characters appear , but have no effect on the whole story (fiancé , oil man ).The movie obviously tries to tell something about the past, how it pervades our lives for the rest of our days, and how we assimilate it into our futures. It feels honest , even if not quite convincing. I also liked the use of voice-over. It certainly helps to create a mood to the film.Jack Nicholson's direction is bland and unimaginative , but in his defense there is one good scene filled with tension ("Suck it") . "Two Jakes" also shows the viewer a convincing re-creation of 1948 Los Angeles. The music by Van Dyke Parks is completely forgettable and lame compared to Goldsmith score from "Chinatown". Director of photography Vilmos Zsigmond capture a Los Angeles of burnt out dreams, on the brink of over-development and over-expansion.There were going to do a third movie - "Cloverleaf" , but it never got made after the failure of this one. This was the second part of a supposed trilogy, all based, according to Towne, on natural goods ("Chinatown" - water, "Two Jakes"- earth, "Cloverleaf"-air pollution).With a better screenplay , director and music "Two Jakes" could have been a really solid movie. It feels like a rather poorly made-for-TV version of "Chinatown" . I give it 3/10.

namashi_1 Film Legend Jack Nicholson Is In Top-Form As An Actor & Director in 'The Two Jakes', a sequel to the 1974 Masterpiece Chinatown. Nicholson Directs This Mystery Film, Splendidly & Delivers A Yet Another Remarkable Performance.'The Two Jakes' Synopsis: Private Eye Jake Gittes shall convict the client Jake Berman's wife of adultery. But instead of making her a scene like planned, Berman shoots her lover in affect - or was it murder? Gittes is surprised when he learns that the dead was Berman's companion, who now inherits his share of the company. 'The Two Jakes' gets better with each passing scene. The Final 40-45 Minutes, in particular, are fantastic. Robert Towne's Screenplay is mysterious & interesting, offering terrific shock-value. Nicholson's Direction is Splendid. Cinematography, Editing & Art Design, are palatable. Performance-Wise: Nicholson is an Emperor when it comes to Acting & he proves that FACT right Once Again with his Remarkable Performance in here. As Jake "J. J." Gittes, Nicholson once again nails it! Harvey Keitel is truly outstanding. Madeleine Stowe is competent. Meg Tilly is excellent. Eli Wallach is superb. Rubén Blades does a fair job. Richard Farnsworth stands out, as always. On the whole, 'The Two Jakes' is masterfully executed.