Posts from Recently viewed movies. Auto-translated

Time to come out of hibernation. Over the next few days, I'll try to write about a number of movies at once. I can't say they're particularly cool and deserve long, sprawling reviews, but the desire to speak my mind is there.

Jeez, I wrote that over a year ago...
Anyway, the thing is, when I wrote that, I wanted to do a bit more than a review of one, two, or three movies? I wanted to do a review of a film series, but I had to watch them first, which I didn't do then, but I did now. So, it turned out that back then, a year ago, I watched Scream, also known as Scream 5 (Scream, 2022), not to be confused with the original 1996 film (you thought I was just being a snob by including the original title and year?) and I quite liked the film. Specifically, I liked the abundance of jokes and all sorts of meta-commentary within the film, where the characters themselves understand the rules of the horror genre. Out of curiosity, I looked into it and found out that even the very first film in the franchise did this. I found it interesting and promised myself I would watch them all, or at least watch them until it became clear that it had all gone completely downhill. And I did watch them, let's go in order:

Scream (Scream, 1996), not to be confused with the 2022 reboot. Plot-wise, it was essentially completely spoiled by the film Scary Movie, which is a literal parody of this film, not just in terms of the plot, but with tons of repeated scenes, right down to the shots and visually similar actors. Searching for the right words to describe it, I turn to external sources and find this wonderful phrase:

The film combines black comedy and a slasher with detective elements, satirically mocking the clichés of the genre

Yes, that's spot on. There's comedy here (a number of jokes in Scary Movie are, essentially, just a logical/hyperbolic development of the original's jokes), a slasher, and even a detective element for the attentive viewer. And it seems like when you mix so much together, it should all fall apart; at some stage that cringe should appear, or at the very least, boredom. But it doesn't happen, it all works as it should. As my friend correctly noted, it all feels organic. You just sit there and feel that the people behind the film had a good knowledge of the horror genre, love for it, and a healthy dose of self-irony. And in the end, they delivered a product where characters sometimes break the fourth wall, sometimes say the rules of horror movies out loud, sometimes the film sprinkles red herrings that you carefully note and think you've figured out who the killer is, then suddenly the characters themselves comment on the fact of red herrings, and suddenly someone is slashed with a terrifying melody. And it all feels cohesive, like a labor of love, not a forcibly squeezed-out attempt to play on clichés or forcefully create subverted expectations. And again, you can't accuse me of being a duckling, or of loving horrors (I probably should have said this earlier, but overall I find the genre stupid and boring). But the combination of professionalism and love for the genre yields a good result, no matter what. Still, I'll note that the film is clearly designed for viewing in a fun company – an enjoyment I was unfortunately deprived of. But even this was done with a clear understanding that many horrors are watched this way (this will be shown more than once in this and subsequent films). A wonderful movie, in a word.

Scream 2 (Scream 2, 1997). Most of the words I said about the original apply to this one too. What did you expect – filming started almost immediately after the first one was released, and the same people made it. The only danger in such situations is a lack of talent or burnout, but the screenwriter would later say in an interview that he originally had a general idea of the trilogy in his head, so there weren't any major screw-ups. But this time, the meta-commentary within the film shifted from the general horror genre to discussing sequels – about how they usually flop but sometimes succeed, that sequels in horror have their own rules, and so on. I found the plot more interesting to watch because the parody-comedy hadn't spoiled it for me. The killer's identity seemed like a questionable choice, but again, in this kind of film, you can't really hold onto that too seriously. Overall, I'd rate it as slightly weaker than the first part, literally in a couple of small details, while everything else is on par.

Scream 3 (Scream 3, 2000). So, why repeat myself, you basically already know everything. Red herrings, meta-jokes, slashers – everything is in the film. Here, I can only criticize the resolution; it seemed much weaker to me than the first two films, especially the first one. Also, the authors realized they had made a mistake by killing off a certain character in the second part, so they had to unexpectedly bring them back here – even if it was a stretch, it pleased me, and overall that episode turned out to be amusing. And, the logical conclusion of the trilogy; internal and external conflicts are resolved, who survived got married, all who lived are happy, in short; I love such endings for trilogies. After all, if you've known a character over three films (or games, for example), then in my opinion, it's perfectly normal that seeing things end well for them becomes more important than some forced drama.

The film received mixed reviews from critics and audiences, who called the film "the weakest in the series"

Yeah, you don't even know what's coming next... Happy are those who lived in the year 2000...

Scream 4 (Scream 4, 2011). This is where serious problems began. Well, what did you expect, 11 years had passed since the last part, and it was an era when remakes were being made for all films, absolutely all of them. In keeping with the previous parts, this fact is also meta-commented on, but overall you can already feel the previous formula starting to crack. Yes, there are still cool moments, but those same red herrings have become noticeably worse than what came before; I can't even remember any particularly cool hints. But still, grains of the old magic remain; I open Kinopoisk – yes, the director of the previous three parts worked on this film. How does that feel? I didn't know this before watching the films; I dove into them blindly. But it still comes through somehow; there's a sense of the author's touch. Overall, the film doesn't destroy what was built in the third part, on the contrary, it even builds a little on top of it, but by itself it feels much weaker than the previous ones.

And now we've come full circle:
Scream (Scream, 2022) – on my first viewing, I liked this film, as I noted at the beginning, but now that I've watched all the films in a row... Let me start breaking it down point by point. Firstly – the cast. When I watched from the start, the diverse people didn't particularly bother me; people are people, colors are colors. But my god, it's so hard to see this immediately after the previous part. It feels like in 10 years (or however much time passed in the plot? 15, I think) some kind of genocide of the white race occurred in the USA, because otherwise it's completely impossible to explain where all the white people disappeared to. A left-face after a left-face, saw a Mexican, a Mexican, a black guy, a black guy, an Asian. By the way, sorry for the spoiler, of course, but literally three out of three white cisgender men in the film will be killed Anyway, I usually try not to get worked up about the agenda, but here it was really hard to ignore. Of course, you could decide that the film's authors, in the spirit of the series, decided to ironically play with the agenda in a post-meta way, but unfortunately, that's unlikely. But even if it were so – when you show the viewer something unsightly – even if you do it ironically, it still remains a display of something unsightly. Secondly, the narrative itself slowed down. Before, the films clearly understood that they were slashers; I didn't emphasize this, but the films regularly had people getting slashed; they literally remembered to constantly keep the level of the massacre at a certain point, otherwise the laws of a lively slasher would be violated. Here, they decided to shift the tone, supposedly focusing more on tension and constant fear. It paid off exactly once; one scene turned out to be very, very good, but the rest of the time, the previous action was replaced by two left-faces first shouting at each other and then making up a couple of scenes later. I sound terribly racist somehow, but what can I do, the movies spoiled me message boards radicalized me...And finally, sorry for another spoiler, they start killing off old characters. This is, in principle, expected; the film itself meta-predicts it when discussing how reboots work and bringing up the new Star Wars. But for a film of the resulting quality, it was, in my opinion, completely undeserved. And finally, the humor. As I indicated, even the very first film had "black comedy" listed among its genres. And I immediately pointed out that it's very easy to slip into cringe and destroy the product's integrity, but the previous films knew how to feel and maintain this balance. But here, the jokes are overdone in places, which is even more strange when combined with the pretension of being a slower and more tense horror movie.
Can I say with a clear conscience that the 2022 film is complete crap? No, I can't. Despite some overkill with the meta, on the other hand, it's more or less justified – we live in a time period where previous, more subtle and sly hints (tongue-in-cheek, if you will) now seem frankly weak; you need bigger guns. The red herrings are back, and I'd say their quality more or less matches the first three parts. The humor, though overdone at times, sometimes hits the mark. I especially liked how at the beginning there's a classic phone call scene and the zoomer girl pretentiously replies, "Oh well, I don't like those old horror movies, they're nonsense; I prefer smarter horror with allusions and metaphors." For which she receives multiple stab wounds – very, very much in the spirit of the previous parts, and an excellent decision without any buts. One scene from the attempt to switch to a slower and more tense horror turned out great; I briefly mentioned it earlier. So, there are good moments. But still, while watching, there was a strong feeling that strangers had touched a product of someone else's love and were trying to remake it in their own image. And I can't even say they were crudely milking it for money – no, while watching, there was still a distant feeling that these strangers felt at least a certain degree of respect for the original and were trying to understand what made it so good and successfully replicate it. But if you think about it – even the original creator eventually ran out of steam and got tired, so what hope can new people have that they can rework formulas already repeated 5 times in a new way, so that they work again like before? Anyway, now I'm interested to see the sixth part, which should be released this year, but at the same time, my expectations are extremely low.

In the end, I would rate all parts like this:
Scream 1 => Scream 2 > Scream 3 >>>>> Scream 4 > Scream 5.
While writing this long text, I googled a bit; everyone writes that part three is the worst, even worse than part four, and part five is supposedly awesome. I deeply disagree with this opinion and think that rather, evaluation standards have changed from decade to decade, and duckling memories have done their job. As I already wrote, I watched the films in a row, or to be precise – the first two in one sitting, a week break, and then the other three in a second sitting. So my opinion is much more objective 🤓

I watched exactly one film from this series, but I don't remember which one. Most likely, judging by the years, it was one of the first three.

I usually try not to get worked up about "wokeness."

And rightly so, because it doesn't exist.

'The Party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command.'

Why watch "Scream" when there are much scarier movies?

Kickboxer: Vengeance
I haven't seen such a good action movie with Van Damme in a long time.
Now I'm going to watch Kickboxer Returns.

And by the way, I watched the movie with Van Damme called Legionnaire a long time ago, when I was thinking about moving to France and how to do it!

Vice (2018)

Let me briefly summarize the plot, as there's nothing unexpected in it: there was a gray, unremarkable bureaucrat who was good at nothing but carrying briefcases for his boss. A series of coincidences led to him achieving some political success, and eventually, he became the second most powerful person in the country. Suddenly, terrorist attacks began in the country, and thanks to this, the bureaucrat gained significant influence, expanding the powers of the government, both his own and the state as a whole. In domestic policy, he advocated for conservatism and traditional values; in foreign policy, he acted as a gray eminence in initiating the special military operation "Iraqi Freedom" and orchestrated an invasion of Iran, which was successfully completed in three weeks.
Overall, I can't say that I particularly enjoyed the film. It feels like the Democratic Party of the United States at least partially sponsored it, and it also feels very drawn out and stuffy. The film's director, Adam McKay, tried to repeat the techniques he used in The Big Short (2015). In short, that was also a quite informative film that attempts to explain complex things in a simple way. And to prevent the film from being too overwhelming, it constantly includes semi-funny, semi-serious scenes that help make the material easier to digest. But in that film, these scenes worked well and served as an excellent way to lighten the mood and make the film more enjoyable. Here, however, they feel just as stuffy as everything else. In general, I can't say that it's difficult to watch, but I was bored and often glanced at the clock. But the plot was worth it, more or less.

The Father (2020) and The Son (2022)
Two films by director Florian Zeller, which I will briefly comment on in one post because I'm feeling lazy.
In general, they are not similar in terms of plot or atmosphere, but both are family dramas, and quite powerful ones at that.
“The Father” seemed interesting to me because while watching it, you try to understand, roughly until the middle of the film, who is actually crazy in all of this – the old man, his relatives, the director, or you. In the end, it turns out that it's you, since you're still watching with interest. But in the end, the film doesn't leave an open ending or a feeling of incompleteness, as sometimes happens in such psychological mind-benders; instead, it leaves behind a feeling of sadness and compassion for what is happening.
I watched “The Son” first, and looking back, it's better to watch it in that order. No, there is no plot connection; my recommendation is based purely on some script and directorial nuances.

spoiler

To be more specific, after watching “The Father,” you might accidentally spoil the explanation of what is happening at the very end of “The Son.” This is a soft spoiler, but it might slightly spoil the impression, I think.

Also, “The Son” will be easier on the psyche and easier to perceive, and overall it moves along more briskly and doesn't feel as oppressive, while still maintaining the intensity of emotions. The acting was very good, especially the teenager (psychotherapists, take a closer look at Zeno McGrady, just in case). It's not very clear why the rating for this second film is lower than for “The Father”; I liked it more, even if it's not as “innovative.” It's clear that the authors have gained experience and learned from their mistakes in the genre.

Well, that's all... Enjoy watching.

Nothing Changes on the Western Front (2022)

Initially, I thought I'd write something along the lines of: "the film is just a film; without any exaggerated indifference – despite the high ratings and awards, I didn't expect anything special from it, and I didn't get anything, but at least it's watchable in one sitting." However, after comparing it to all the war films I've seen, I realized that wouldn't be entirely fair. First, the very fact that it portrays World War I is a plus – if there are any good films about it, I probably haven't even heard of them; usually, all the attention of filmmakers is focused on the sequel. Second, it lacks the unpleasant trait of many typical war films – in an attempt to show ordinary characters and the relentless nature of war, filmmakers often add a huge number of characters who are not particularly different from each other to the plot, and throw them into the thick of battle scenes, where each of them, wearing a helmet and with a dirt-smeared face, shouts something in the midst of gunfire, and it's completely unclear what's happening. There is no such problem here, as the focus of the narrative is on the main character, and there are few fights (which is also a plus), and those that are present are shown in a structured and meaningful way. Perhaps this was not so much a deliberate choice as a limitation of the creators, due to the monotonous nature of World War I, but even if that's the case, it worked to their advantage, preventing them from spreading the events in all possible directions. Moreover, this also benefits the visuals. Third, there is no glorification of the events, but I'm not entirely sure about this point. What I mean is the absence of particularly pompous scenes in slow motion with epic music of overcoming, or dramatic scenes with sad violin music, but this may be due to the fact that the narrative is told from the perspective of the Germans, and this would be taboo, or that most people are not particularly moved by this war, unlike World War II. At the same time, there is no excessive negativity either. I expected a certain amount of brutal and meaningless deaths, dismemberment, and other Hollywood shock tactics, but overall, what is happening is shown in moderation. The factor of dislike here should be the awareness of the meaninglessness of the events, and given the well-known attitude towards World War I, I also expected a strong focus on this, but strangely enough, it didn't seem to me that this was artificially exaggerated – based on my own level of empathy and understanding, the viewer is invited to independently draw conclusions about whether to be bored or horrified, or something in between. In the rest, there is not much to add – I will conclude by saying that, in my opinion, all the elements of the film, such as the characters, events, fights, and everyday life, micro- and macro-moments, are shown very balanced and harmoniously, which is really rare for a war film. If you like this setting as much as I do, then it's quite watchable, just don't be fooled by the hype and awards – you won't get a mind-blowing experience or a rollercoaster of emotions, but a very solid film.

Not a bad topic; it allows us to assess how significant the first (presumably) Russian-Ukrainian conflict was and whether things were actually worse before. (Though not in every aspect).

...................Crimes of the Future

Let's start by saying that this isn't body horror, nor is it some depraved, dark fantasy for the perverse; it's just a mediocre drama about nothing. It's filled with woke agendas, adolescent pseudo-erotica, and some scenes and storylines seem completely unnecessary. Also, I noticed that the actors' intonations and the pauses between lines are so unnatural that they surpass any classic theatrical performance. The theatricality of the acting doesn't match the logic of the scenes at all. Although, to be fair, there isn't much logic there in the first place. And I also Googled the actors' ages, and I was quite shocked to find that the women look ten years younger than they actually are, and the main character looks twenty to thirty years younger. I hate rich bastards. We're all fighting the wrong battles.
4/10, for the supposed originality and the visuals with a color filter that resembles diluted urine. Maybe I just didn't get the post-irony, and the message is that people are inherently flawed creatures, but they always try to deny it and aestheticize their own depravity, even in its most extreme forms, and whine about bullshit. In that case, there are no complaints about the content, but there are still complaints about the form.

2001: A Space Odyssey

I was aware of this director's style beforehand, as I had watched three of his films and heard about this particular one. I can't say that I spent the entire two hours in vain, because during the dull moments (about 65% of the total runtime), I was engrossed in my smartphone, and I won't criticize the film too harshly, even though it seemed rather empty to me.
I'll just mention the most obvious and, undoubtedly, over-discussed criticisms from the past half-century: watching a completely black screen for five minutes while suspenseful cacophony plays; watching rubber monkeys waving their arms wildly for 25 minutes; listening to the same repetitive classical music track for 40 minutes against the backdrop of a space station/space; enjoying psychedelic effects during an interstellar journey with distorted sound for 30 minutes – none of this is very interesting, and I don't think it was particularly engaging or profound even by the standards of its release year.
Everything else is quite watchable, despite its extreme slowness and superficiality. The film's underlying meaning, including the one and a half general themes it touches upon, as well as the plot itself, can be summarized in three sentences without much difficulty. Does stretching these ideas out over two and a half hours add artistic value? Sometimes, yes, but in this case, it seemed excessive to me. Are the one and a half general themes raised in this film deep and original? For its release year, perhaps, but does Kubrick's execution explore them in a way that they deserve? I'm not sure.
I'll also offer a commonplace compliment for the visuals – except for a few individual, somewhat comical details of the space-futuristic design, such as the corrugated limbs of the spacesuits, the gadgets, as well as the interior and exterior of the ships, look decent (five years later, "Moscow-Cassiopeia" was released, and today, it can only be viewed with a condescending, understanding smile from a post-Soviet person), and the color palette is quite pleasing to the eye.

In conclusion, I'll say: if you love space-themed films, don't watch this; you'll only see a general backdrop and a certain vibe in some parts of the runtime, but it won't satisfy your craving; if you enjoy serious plots or at least a subtle subtext to ponder, don't watch it; it won't live up to your expectations; if you have little time or are likely to regret spending it, or if you have a choice between vacuuming your apartment or watching this film, don't watch it; it won't be worth the effort; if you're an art-house enthusiast, are you sure this is the director you're interested in?; if you have a few free hours that you can spend without actively engaging, and you're not feeling particularly good, and you have a smartphone that you can dedicate at least an hour and a half to while watching the film, then you can probably watch it; it probably won't hurt. If you're a film school student, watch it; it's likely to be part of your curriculum.

Dungeon & Dragons: Honor Among Thieves

I waited a long time before writing a review, hoping that the words would come. But, to be honest, they didn't. The movie is just a movie; it's unlikely that anything better exists on the topic of DnD – that's a fact. The plot is moderate, the humor is moderate... If this were a real gaming session, it might even be fun. But in reality, in the format of a movie, it doesn't exceed expectations at all. Just a typical fantasy adventure.
However, the time wasn't wasted, and that's the main thing.

Spider-Man: Across the Spider-Verse (2023)

Five years ago, I wrote about the first part here – very briefly and reservedly (less than a line, I think), but I praised it; I also wrote a review, essentially right after watching it in the cinema. Since then, I've rewatched it a couple of times, but it was quite a while ago. To give a somewhat objective assessment of the sequel, frankly, it would be necessary to rewatch the first part and then write here. But I'm too lazy to do that, and I'm not writing a professional review, but just my humble opinion for a limited circle of forum users. So, if my memory fails me during inevitable comparisons, please forgive me.

I will still have to give a brief description of the first part to set the context for the second. For reference, I'm talking about the animated film Spider-Man: Into the Spider-Verse (2018). First, it had a unique visual style that tried to mimic an animated comic book. At first, immediately after starting, it looked awful, as if the animation was cut short, and that's why we're watching a cartoon in 14fps. Second, the main character is black. And at first, the cartoon doesn't look particularly appealing. But after about 15 minutes, the visual style starts to unfold, and you realize that it was a bold but cool decision. It's hard to explain in words, but everything looks really great. As for the main character, he wasn't just lazily recolored black; they decided that this was it – he really feels like a different character, not a black Peter Parker, but a different personality, with a different lifestyle, different problems. Therefore, regardless of the desire to find "agendas," the authors at least worked out their decision. So, the first minus turns into a huge plus, and the second becomes at least neutral. All this is polished with excellent humor, evenly scattered throughout the cartoon, which is always appropriate and never causes negative feelings. And finally, interesting ideas about what the Spider-Men from parallel universes would be like (I'm only talking about the three main characters, although there are more) give the film not so much an interesting "plot," but create interest in observing what is happening. Well, since I've essentially written a ready-made review, I'll say that, in my opinion, the result turned out to be simply excellent, and the bold visual solutions made this cartoon objectively a breakthrough of the year. And I was very much looking forward to the sequel, the release of which was delayed.

The first impression of the new part, when I started watching, was that this time the artists/animators were given complete freedom and a complete carte blanche to implement their vision. Well, you understand – like, the first part was a limited experiment, it worked, and in the second, the responsible people were given a budget and freedom of action. There is no feeling of jerkiness and low FPS at any point. But the change of styles, the work with colors became very dynamic, constantly changing, and at the same time, there is a certain "boldness," as if the artist didn't care if anyone liked it or not; he did what he thought was right. And it turned out simply amazing. Among the many styles and colors, there were moments when what was happening resembled art from Disco Elysium – and although I didn't particularly like it in the game itself, in this cartoon, it worked just great. But at the same time, there was a feeling that, on the way to this, the original authorship and originality were lost. On the other hand, this feeling could have been caused simply by the greater polish and refinement of the animations in the second part, and not by a conscious design decision in the first part. This is what I was primarily talking about when I said that it would be more objective to watch both parts one after another. So, if someone does this, they will most likely give a more objective assessment than I will.

But if I liked everything visually, then the plot is a completely different story. This is partly due to circumstances independent of the original product – in the cinema where I watched it, there was some absolutely terrible sound. But even apart from this, the Russian dubbing and translation could have influenced the perception of what was happening. In the first half hour, there are no funny jokes, but there are completely idiotic attempts by the translators to insert Russian-style modern-meme expressions. When the original is released on DVD, I will check how justified this was, but there is a feeling that not the best original was further ruined by brilliant Russian talents. In terms of new characters, we are introduced to another Spider-Man, who is a woman, black, and, attention... take a deep breath... pregnant. When I found out about this, I regretted that they didn't make her one-legged or one-armed, because in this way, they could immediately fulfill the quota and not introduce new "quota" characters. So, even though everything looked great visually, I felt discouraged.

But then, everything (not quite everything) improved. Funny jokes began to appear, and a plot began to appear – I can't say that it was original, but if you're not deconstructing superheroism, it's difficult to come up with an original plot; in the end, everything will still come down to the fact that the good guys/girls/non-binary people fight the bad guys. In general, it became interesting to watch what was happening, and the outstanding visual style simply pulled all this further and made the process of watching enjoyable. I wasn't even worried that they didn't introduce a single new white character, only two old ones, whom it was already too late to recolor. If the cartoon annoyed me, I would not fail to criticize this and ironically note that I may not fully understand the meaning of the English word "diversity." But honestly, when it's interesting to watch, I practically don't care. But if this is a red flag for you, you have been warned. I also heard objections to the plot, saying that everything again came down to saving the universe and so on. In general, the claim is valid, but this made me think about the first half hour. No, I won't suddenly start defending them and say that they became good, but I will still note one fact, which may explain its dullness. The first half is devoted to fighting the so-called "villain of the day" (in fact, even two), and by the way, this term is used in the cartoon itself. Perhaps the screenwriters wanted to show how stupid and ridiculous such a story would look, given that in the first part, the heroes essentially saved not just cities or planets, but entire dimensions. Even if this was the intention of the script, and not my personal excessive imagination, the beginning of the cartoon is still very weak and boring.

I completely forgot the most important remark about the plot. Formally, this cartoon is divided into two parts. That is, the "ending" here is not a full ending, but only a prelude to the next film. Usually, I consider this technique to be the most uncool and unjustified. But this cartoon specifically pleased me so much that I am willing to forgive it. And yes, in the end, despite all the comments, I had extremely positive impressions after watching.

And a little more about ratings. The first part has a rating of 8.1 on Kinopoisk and is in 145th place in the top 250 films. The second part, at the moment, has a rating of 8.8 and is in 34th place in the top 250 films. I will treat the rating of the second part more cautiously, mainly because of the weak beginning and, possibly, the loss of the original vision compared to the first part. But at the same time, I will say that these ratings from viewers mean something. The visualization here is so well done that it caused delight not only in me.

Perhaps, someday, I will watch the first and second parts one after another and return to this topic. But no promises.

For the first half hour, there are no funny jokes, but instead, there are completely idiotic attempts by the translators to insert modern, meme-like Russian expressions.

I understand. I'll check it out on a torrent when the English version is released (although I'm just kidding myself; I would have done that anyway).

The first part has a rating of 8.1 on Kinopoisk and is ranked 145th in the top 250 films. The second part currently has a rating of 8.8 and is ranked 34th in the top 250 films.

It seems like a typical story with second parts/seasons, where their rating is inflated due to a smaller sample of viewers (only those who watched the first part and liked it). But we'll see...

I wasn't even concerned that we weren't introduced to a single new white character, only two old ones that it was already too late to recolor.

Wait, did they change the canon for 2099 and Noir? Or did they just play a minor role in the plot?

I understand, we'll check on the torrent when it's released in English (although who am I kidding, I would have done that anyway). It seems like a typical story with second parts/seasons, where their rating is inflated due to a narrower sample of viewers (only those who watched the first part and liked it). But let's see... Wait, did they change the canon for 2099 and Noir? Or did they just play a smaller role in the plot?

2099 is dark-skinned in the cartoon, but less than the others. Sometimes he looks almost white.
And Noir isn't there at all, but they hinted that he will be in the next part.

There isn't a Noir unit at all, but they hinted that it will be in the next installment.

Oh, it was in the previous installment, but they ignored it in this one, which is a shame... I saw some GIF with it and thought it was in the game. It's the best one overall.