There has always been a difficulty in writing sequels to teen rom-coms because what makes or breaks a franchise is the chemistry between the two romantic leads. The first film is one of the best ever written as both characters have fun and believable without falling into boring or problematic tropes.
The main problem with this movie is that it has a every mixed bag of explanations for things in the first movie that really did not need to be revisited. A good example is when Jen reveals that she confines in Peter because their parents were both separated - which is a good subversion. What most completely ruined this movie for me is how it seemed to forget how much of an b**** this character was in the origin and up to this point. Yet all the blame falls onto LJ for doubting Peter and assuming they were cheating. There is a strong balance between blame in the first movie between LJ and Peter, however all the blame is tipped onto LJ here because she 'overthought' everything.
The worst scene is when LJ learns that Peter asked Jen down to the hot tub, intially it seems like they were going to explore the idea of fate more with who he might have ended up with. Yet this is retconned later on when she apologises to Peter and Jen for blaming him then Peter has to wait whilst she re-evaluates and they get back together: sound familar? The last third of this movie is a rehash of the exact arc she when through in the last movie YET Peter does not learn anything. Instead of following through on the idea of her accepting responsibility for """over-reacting""", they backdown and have him stay with her out of love (beginning to feel like co-dependence). Not consquences. No depth.
This is not mentioning the worst part of this movie. John Ambrose. A generic and unnecessary point of conflict made retroactively worse by the improvement on Jen because we know they can write good romantic rivals.
Remember when I praised the first movie for not falling into problematic tropes? Either way you look at his it a) places all blame on the women or b) is a reversal of the they have to be together because they 'love' each other.
This movie did not need to exist.
The main problem with this movie is that it has a every mixed bag of explanations for things in the first movie that really did not need to be revisited. A good example is when Jen reveals that she confines in Peter because their parents were both separated - which is a good subversion. What most completely ruined this movie for me is how it seemed to forget how much of an b**** this character was in the origin and up to this point. Yet all the blame falls onto LJ for doubting Peter and assuming they were cheating. There is a strong balance between blame in the first movie between LJ and Peter, however all the blame is tipped onto LJ here because she 'overthought' everything.
The worst scene is when LJ learns that Peter asked Jen down to the hot tub, intially it seems like they were going to explore the idea of fate more with who he might have ended up with. Yet this is retconned later on when she apologises to Peter and Jen for blaming him then Peter has to wait whilst she re-evaluates and they get back together: sound familar? The last third of this movie is a rehash of the exact arc she when through in the last movie YET Peter does not learn anything. Instead of following through on the idea of her accepting responsibility for """over-reacting""", they backdown and have him stay with her out of love (beginning to feel like co-dependence). Not consquences. No depth.
This is not mentioning the worst part of this movie. John Ambrose. A generic and unnecessary point of conflict made retroactively worse by the improvement on Jen because we know they can write good romantic rivals.
Remember when I praised the first movie for not falling into problematic tropes? Either way you look at his it a) places all blame on the women or b) is a reversal of the they have to be together because they 'love' each other.
This movie did not need to exist.