Meg 2: The Trench (2023)

The critic finds the film an enjoyable, over-the-top sharky schlock that serves up more fun than the original thanks to Wheatley's handling of the absurdity, ensemble cast and black humour.

The lively sequel greatly improves on the predecessor by getting gorier, funnier and more stylish under Wheatley's direction. The critic praises creative ways of depicting carnage despite the PG-13 rating, including an effective POV shot from inside a shark's mouth.

Ben Wheatley delivers a fun, knowingly silly summer blockbuster sequel with crunchy action and playful pulpiness, though it is let down by a waterlogged script and some murky underwater sequences.

The film is better than the first thanks to Wheatley's direction and willingness to embrace its B-movie cheese, but it still lacks drive and imagination. It is awfully fun in spots when it leans into the ridiculous action and humor.

The first half is dire straits and self-serious, but the film eventually gets in on the joke with fun creature-feature action on the surface. Wheatley loosens up in the second half, and Wu Jing's charismatic wild-man performance stands out as a highlight.

The sequel delivers only scattershot pleasures despite Statham's rugged charm and self-irony. It struggles to balance suspense with monster-movie silliness and feels tonally uncertain.

The action is generic with some surface pleasures, but the slapdash plotting, thinly drawn characters, shoddy CGI and clunky lines make the sequel easy to forget.

The over-the-top sequel is trivial big-budget junk that sounds like it was written by AI and remains numbingly formulaic overall. Wheatley scales up effectively in the shamelessly diverting third act, though the film makes Godzilla look deep by comparison.

The movie is extremely stupid but fails to deliver consistent entertainment or basic storytelling clarity. It misses opportunities for more over-the-top fun with its giant creatures and action set pieces.

Lacking killer instinct, the film lumbers as neither a gripping thriller nor campy escapism; Wheatley fails to replicate the original's scares and silliness, with a frustratingly complicated plot undermining the mindless carnage.

The film spends too long on po-faced submersible sequences before delivering chaotic fun in the final third, but the overall result is a stinker of a sequel that is dead in the water.

The sequel lacks focus and suspense despite some laughs in the second half; the director is ultimately being eaten alive by the franchise's weaknesses.

The film improves by dialing up the camp factor in its second half with absurd action sequences. It owns the ridiculous premise after a dour start, making for a more entertaining if still flawed monster movie.

The critic finds the film dismally boring and one of the dullest of the year, with Wheatley phoning it in until a chaotic final half-hour. The underwater sequences are poorly executed and the story prioritizes an evil drilling operation over the sharks.

The sequel treads water and fails to settle on an identity, mixing ideas from Jaws, Jurassic Park, Alien and Sharknado with little success. Statham occasionally raises a droll smile with his line readings amid the multiplicity of threats.

Two great British talents bring plenty of prehistoric monsters but little panache to a numbing wash of shiny visual effects and multinational mugging that is mostly palatable only to undemanding audiences. The glossy setting makes one wish Wheatley was making a lower-budget Wheatley film.

The film drags narrative incompetence to new depths with an entire first hour focused on lowlights of Eighties straight-to-video action hokum rather than sharks, before a triple meg attack arrives far too late. It is an execrable sequel.

The critic finds that while the horror sections create tension through fear of the unknown, the film is bloated with too many plot threads, leading to a convoluted and boring third act with poorly written villains and hard-to-follow action.

Calls it a big amateurish mess, frustrating with rushed set pieces and lack of wit, though the third act delivers some dumb fun.

The film is a tedious, generic sequel that fails to deliver subversion or excitement despite its director's pedigree, ultimately sinking under a convoluted plot and weak CG creatures. Statham remains a welcome presence, and the finale offers some entertaining deaths and heroic moments.

Finds the film boring despite its silly premise, criticizing the dull script and lack of shark action in the first hour, though the climax has some fun moments.

The critic notes that the film lacks horror nerve and a sense of terror or wonder in the trench, with shoddy effects and editing in the climax, though Statham is a reliable presence; overall, it drowns in silliness without contributing meaningfully to the shark movie genre.

The critic finds the sequel tedious and lacking the original's bite, turning into a repetitive and implausible joke. They single out the conventional plotting involving bad guys and the absurd action sequences for complaint.

The review calls it a dull sequel that plunges into boredom with bad CGI and poor writing. It singles out the shameless borrowings from other films and laughable CGI for criticism.

The critic notes the uneven sequel with a forgettable first two acts focused on business politics instead of shark action, but praises the exciting third act with Statham fighting sharks on Fun Island.