directed by Juliusz Machulski

Not that long time ago I shared a post about “Vinci” by Juliusz Machulski and I said that if I like this year’s sequel to it, I’ll let you know. So, here I am, letting you know that “Vinci” is still a must-see, but “Vinci 2” isn’t as bad as I thought it would be. There’s absolutely no point for you to be learning about this part if you haven’t seen the first one. Plus, there’ll be some SPOILERS, so be aware. 20 years have passed since the famous heist. Cuma (Robert Więckiewicz) lives in Spain, drinks wine and swims in the pool. Perfect life, huh? However, one day he has a visitor from Poland, who asks Cuma to take part in another “boom boom”, for big money of course. The thief doesn’t agree at first, but then changes his mind and goes to Kraków in Poland, where the first part of the film was set as well. But when he contacts the other criminal, that one changes his mind saying that Cuma is too old for such games and he has younger guys to do it. As you may guess, Cuma definitely won’t just let it be. He decides to stop the other one from stealing the “thing” and also steal it himself. So, robbing the thief. How cool is that? And that “thing” is for you to discover, because the heist is about to be just like the first one, yet different… I was feeling super nostalgic seeing those characters again on a big screen. The second part is way more dramatic, which is something I disliked. So Julian (Borys Szyc), Cuma’s bestie, has relationship problems and instead of a fun action production we get a bit of Brazilian soap opera. As I think about it now, this plot was rather pointless, because it doesn’t affect the main story that much. Speaking of unnecessary parts – the dancing scene. Very pretty, but what the hell for? Also, I know Cuma is 20 years older, but come on – he’s not a senior in a wheelchair. I expected him to be more involved in some actions instead of just managing them. So now you might think this post will be generally negative and my rating will be quite low? No, because I think that Machulski treated the characters with respect and he didn’t ruin the main story like most directors do in sequels. Also, he was aware that the two parts cannot be similar, because there’s a 20-year gap between them, so we have lots of elements from the modern world included like AI or even electric scooters. Another thing that made me enjoy the film are those Easter Eggs and references to his previous work. If you like Machulski, I’m sure you’ll spot some. My favourite egg, however, is the book. In one scene, Cuma is talking to a woman (you’ll see, you’ll know) and she’s holding a book in her hands. That book is “Wisząca Małpa” written by… Juliusz Machulski. Fun surprise or smart marketing? Either way, I smiled seeing it. And generally, I wanted to rate this part 6/10, but then the ending happened. Each time I watched “Vinci”, I couldn’t clearly understand what happened with the painting and the copies, who has which, who has the original one. And in the second film, after 20 years, we finally get the answer, which is a marvellous way to close the story. I was incredibly satisfied with that, so my rating goes higher. Generally, I recommend you to see both parts and simply relax with the cleverest art thief in Kraków.
My rating: 7/10
S.








