compare and contrast between the comic and the film on MTV Geek, which indicated that the film lost much of its sense of humour in the transition. From what I remember (and wrote!), I quite thoroughly enjoyed 2 Guns (named it one of my favourites of the year even) and it seemed ready-made to go straight to the screen. In fact, it began life as a screenplay, so it makes sense. It's disappointing then to hear that the filmmakers and producers felt the need to make it more austere, to try and "improve" upon the original. It so rarely works (George RR Martin in his recent interview with the Nerdist discussed how comic book movies generally fail when they stray too far from the source), I feel that if something is successful, even mildly as a book or comic or whatever, then it should be adhered to. It takes an incredible amount of hubris to take the work of an artist or artists and think that you can improve upon it. But I guess that's Hollywood, it's all about ego.
Anyway, the counterpoint to that is "there's always the source, they can't change that", and that's totally true. Even if the 2 Guns movie sucks, the comic is still the same as it always was. And even if Hollywood can't handle the property properly, its creator, Steven Grant, certainly can. Hence 3 Guns, a sequel that feels much in the Lethal Weapon/Die Hard/Beverly Hills Cop (?)/48 Hours(?stretching?) vein of 80's pithy action movie. It's just a fun good-looking
read with characters who feel familiar (even though I've pretty much forgotten everything about 2 Guns 6 years later).