I laughed at some of these reviews. I too wonder WHY am I watching a THIRD film of this . . .
In the first film, I wondered why actors like Ray Liota, Statham & others were willing to work with this director.
I figure maybe they were needin' work . . . ?
Then I found out there were 3 of these.
I SHOULD'A looked them up - instead, I assumed they were sequels to the first one. Like, maybe the story got better . . .
But . . . No.
Thankfully, I got the 3 disc DVD set pretty cheap . . .
While 2 & 3 ARE worse than 1, I actually think 3 was a tad better than 2.
At least, there are no modern vehicles parked around the kings castle in 3, but Ulrik the shaman did have a modern yellow, metal bird cage . . .
The first movie had 12 producers.
The second one had 2. This one had 6.
Apparently, if any of these were going to approach being good, they need a minimum of 24.
Aside from really bad directing, I'm a little stunned that any group of 2 or more producers go along with these poorly done movies.
Apparently, these ones are all birds of the same cheezy feather.
Did they keep making the same basic movie with the same general story & title because they were TRYIN' to get it right?
I mean, in the movie industry, if you fail on the second try WORSE - are ya supposed to do the same movie again but with different actors to see of that helps? Make the 'catalyst' a tattoo instead of a dragon? Oh yeh. That'll make it better, and DON'T call it a catalyst this time . . .
Basically, I think these must be a big tax write-off. None of these were ever intended to be even fair, much less good. Doesn't matter. We needed a tax break to cover some yachts, etc.
Also wanted to add - this Purcell guy is so dull. I'm not sure if his character is meant to have no personality.
For some reason, I kept thinking Mickey Rourke shoulda played this part. He would've at least brought somethin' to the character.
ANYWAY - I guess we need really bad films now & then so we recognize & appreciate the really good ones.
Note: This review contains no spoilers - bc - how can you spoil somethin' already rotten?
In the first film, I wondered why actors like Ray Liota, Statham & others were willing to work with this director.
I figure maybe they were needin' work . . . ?
Then I found out there were 3 of these.
I SHOULD'A looked them up - instead, I assumed they were sequels to the first one. Like, maybe the story got better . . .
But . . . No.
Thankfully, I got the 3 disc DVD set pretty cheap . . .
While 2 & 3 ARE worse than 1, I actually think 3 was a tad better than 2.
At least, there are no modern vehicles parked around the kings castle in 3, but Ulrik the shaman did have a modern yellow, metal bird cage . . .
The first movie had 12 producers.
The second one had 2. This one had 6.
Apparently, if any of these were going to approach being good, they need a minimum of 24.
Aside from really bad directing, I'm a little stunned that any group of 2 or more producers go along with these poorly done movies.
Apparently, these ones are all birds of the same cheezy feather.
Did they keep making the same basic movie with the same general story & title because they were TRYIN' to get it right?
I mean, in the movie industry, if you fail on the second try WORSE - are ya supposed to do the same movie again but with different actors to see of that helps? Make the 'catalyst' a tattoo instead of a dragon? Oh yeh. That'll make it better, and DON'T call it a catalyst this time . . .
Basically, I think these must be a big tax write-off. None of these were ever intended to be even fair, much less good. Doesn't matter. We needed a tax break to cover some yachts, etc.
Also wanted to add - this Purcell guy is so dull. I'm not sure if his character is meant to have no personality.
For some reason, I kept thinking Mickey Rourke shoulda played this part. He would've at least brought somethin' to the character.
ANYWAY - I guess we need really bad films now & then so we recognize & appreciate the really good ones.
Note: This review contains no spoilers - bc - how can you spoil somethin' already rotten?