The Lazarus Papers (2010) User Reviews

consider yourself warned

[dschlatter · 3/10 · 23 April 2012]

Never judge a book by it's cover, right? Well, the same goes (in this case at least triple) for DVDs. The cover is deception in it's purest form. It lead me to believe I had just bought some straight-to-DVD action flick with Danny Trejo and Gary Daniels doing some, well, action stuff. Nothing could be further from the truth.The movie is terrible! But then again I'm not the right audience. Some art-house fans would maybe see some value where I couldn't. I just kept thinking how weird (WEIRD!!), confusing and boring this movie is.

What gave me the (absurd) idea that it might be an action flick? Oh, I don't know! Maybe some things on the cover like helicopters (as someone already pointed out: Did. Not. Appear. In. One. Single. Scene!), soldiers, , Danny Trejo made to look like he's holding an assault rifle? Damn those marketing people for what they did. Absolutely outrageous!

What happens now? IMDb users will continue to rip the movie to shreds and who can blame them? That's what you get for tricking the wrong community into buying your product.

As an old Gary Daniels fan it pains me to see him doing a good job in such a painfully bad production.

Now I'm actually afraid to watch 'Forced to Fight'...

TREJO SMELLING FLOWERS? SERIOUSLY?

[nogodnomasters · 3/10 · 5 December 2018]

The is nothing like a "bad" Danny Trejo movie. And when I say "bad" I mean "good." Unfortunately this is just a bad Danny Trejo movie with no quotation marks. Danny plays an Eastern holy man/healer who likes flowers. He gets killed in the first scene, but unlike the movie, he doesn't completely die. He can't pass over because there is still work to do, so he occasionally resurrects and helps others along the way.

Danny is killed because his peaceful village, where young girls bathe topless in the stream, is raided by Gary Daniels to abduct girls for the sex trade. Meanwhile, John Edward Lee is getting ready to die and has a brief case full of money. He wants a woman. Together Danny and Lee fight against the bad guys (with some police help) to save Nana (Krystal Vee).

The film is rather boring. While there is killing, there are not any of the "walking tall" action one would expect in a Trejo film. This is far from a grindhouse, although it makes you think it started out as one. A rather lame role for Trejo in this weak action-drama. The film takes place in Pali, an imaginary Asian city/country near India. Might be an interesting film for Buddhists who are Trejo fans.

F-bomb, sexual situations, brief nudity.

A movie with some heart

[mrc303 · 5/10 · 5 July 2011]

After the first part of this movie, I wanted to turn it off due to its dark depressing matter. However, the movie takes you into a very dark place in order to set the stage for the redemption that the female lead makes at the end.

I won't deny that this movie is flawed at nearly every level, its cinematography being the one redeeming value, but the lead actress does grow on you and at the end of the movie you feel as though you have been on a journey with her. A little more than half-way through the movie you begin to see that the tone is moving from the darkness into a story of redemption and a lesson that love conquers fear. The movie was courageous in that it took you deeper into despair in the beginning and held you there longer than most movies will dare, and I admit I turned it off in the middle and came back to finish it the next day. The end leaves you feeling good, providing you don't feel like you wasted your time watching it, which I don't.

So if you like movies with a heart-felt message that love is the path to healing, and you haven't got anything better to do, this movie will suffice. If you don't care about that subject matter, and you want to critique the movie based on its writing, directing, editing and acting, I would say pass it up.

I am interested to see how this writer/director does on his next film, which is currently in pre-production according to IMDb.

Bad scripted ridiculous B movie - Detour and evade

[rightwingisevil · 4 July 2011]

Wow, another drive you crazy DVD rental that wants you to pick up in the video stores and cheat you to waste several $s and a section of your lifetime that you could never get back. The screenplay is so stupid and ridiculous. The Latino actor who played in the "Machete" has become so popular and he's so smart to cash in while he's still hot or lukewarm. This time, he played a tribal magician who could heal the blind and could see his massacred tribal people.... Give me a break.

I simply couldn't find any excuse to watch along after 20 minutes. The scenario is so stupid and the acting...!? The reason why I still want to write a review is because I consider myself a good Samaritan, I don't want you to waste your hard earned money to waste on this pathetic movie.

Too weird for me, but entertaining.

[ellisandre · 5/10 · 22 January 2020]

I bought this DVD ages ago during a sale, got lost in my shelves, and stumbled upon it recently.

Lucky for me I read reviews that told me that unlike the cover, I would get a weird art house supernatural thriller.

Some reviewers who were con into buying the film thinking they would get a Gary Daniels meets Danny Trejo action packed adventure, and gave it an overwhelmingly bad score.

The reviewers who watched it for its face value have enjoyed it, some saying it's an underrated gem. Sadly for the film they are in the minority.

I am right in the middle, while I do agree it's underrated it's far from being a gem. It might be question of taste too.

This is what I liked about it you have Trejo, and Daniels out of their usual typecast doing an outstanding job so does the rest of the cast, and the film held me to the end. Also I did get a few chuckles out Trejo playing a mystical healer. He does a good job but it's so unusual.

I am a person who is not too crazy about experimental films/fantasy/art house. I like my films set in reality. So its just not my cup tea. I have a friend who has completely different set of taste, and I have seen films like that who left a bigger impression on me.

My final thought, once you know what to expect it's quite ok.

An interesting European intellectual type of movie

[rodolphebourgeoys · 8/10 · 14 December 2013]

The movies is very difficult to tolerate in the first 30 minutes but I am the persevering type. I watched it entirely. After the initial 30 minutes, it gets interesting. It is about a guy, the Chaman (Trejo) who cannot die but had enough of this world. He wants to die. Another one wants to die happy. Also, having nothing to loose makes him free and quite spiritual. It is also about how love can act as a redemption. How a single day of love can validate a whole lifetime and let you die happy. I wont say more, I need to let room for enjoyment. Very interesting. It is not a blockbuster high budget production. The scenario is more of the kind of intellectual, meaning-oriented movie we would expect more from the Scandinavians or the Germans. It is a bit hard to follow and I am not sure I understand everything in the movie.

However, I agree with those users who feel deceived by the box cover. The synopsis is fair but the cover is unrepresentative. It is not a war movie. It is a "higher plane" movie.

A very odd film but not bad.

[jhpstrydom · 7/10 · 29 November 2013]

Luckily I found out in advance that this film was nothing like what the cover art suggested it would be and even though it also goes under the title THE MERCENARY the plot doesn't really revolve around any kind of mercenary. It's really a very odd film but I didn't think it was bad at all. The plot was intriguing enough to draw my attention and it was very different to other films Gary Daniels had appeared in before.

I thought about giving a synopsis which I don't normally do so that people would have a better idea of what to expect but I discovered the plot actually sounds more confusing than it really is. If you watch the film itself the plot makes more sense because there is more than one character story and sometimes it goes from being a supernatural drama to a love story to an action movie and during the third act it's all three at once.

On the technical side it's really well made, the cinematography is very nicely done and the acting isn't all that bad. The characters do start to grow on you after a while and granted the film isn't perfect by any means.

Overall, it's a very odd film but not bad but I recommend you ignore the cover art as it doesn't really represent what the film really is about. You can expect to see an intriguing plot that is more of a supernatural story with a bit of romance and a few mild action scenes.

Terrible!...

[ajs-10 · 5 September 2011]

The only reason I watched this is because one of the directors of the company I work for asked me to look at it. It had confused him and so he wondered if I could make any sense out of it. Well, I could, but it's so badly made that I really struggled. The acting, the script… everything about was amateurish and didn't really have any quality to it. More of my thoughts after this brief summary.

When a village in South East Asia is attacked by a mercenary, Sebastian Riker, he murders the village holy man and healer, Aroon, and takes a girl, Nana to work as a prostitute. Little does he know but Aroon cannot die, his powers will not allow that until he can find someone to take his place. So he wanders the land looking for such a person. Some time later Nana is addicted to heroin and working for Riker as a prostitute. He has a scam, luring unsuspecting American tourists over with the promise of a marriage to one of his girls. Of course they get robbed and left in the street. Terminal patient Lonny Smith is such a victim, but he doesn't know it when he meets Nana. She is struck by his honesty and decides to break away from Riker. They go to a refugee camp near her former village, but Riker is on their trail and he wants his cash. I'll leave it there… I've probably made it sound a lot more interesting than it really is! I don't think the Spoiler Police will be bothered this time though.

As I've already said, this is not a very good film and one I really cannot recommend by any stretch of the imagination. It's very poorly produced and, I'm guessing, had a tiny budget. I'll just give a few name checks so you can see just who you're not going to see acting pretty woefully. Danny Trejo played Aroon, Gary Daniels played Sebastian Riker, Krystal Vee played Nana and Johnny Lee Played Lonny Smith. Oh, and I should mention a small part for Damon Whitaker (Forest Whitaker 's brother) as Dock Bagley (a cop).

My Score: 3.3/10.

IMDb Score: 2.5/10 (based on 329 votes at the time of going to press).

Rotten Tomatoes Score: N/A (No listing).

One of the best and most original direct to video film

[altorandy · 8/10 · 23 January 2020]

My second favorite direct to video film after In Hell. While The Lazarus Papers is not an action film one would expect from Daniels and Trejo, it is a thriller with fantasy. It has a pace, with a jaw dropping story, mood, and a curious message. Bai Ling and Tiny Lister have small roles and it's done in a way where they have small but impactful roles. The two leads I've seen in supporting roles in other projects, they do a very good job.

When I compare it to Van Damme's In Hell, is that both films are equally gloomy, where you see shocking things, with a bigger emphasis on the drama. In Hell's action sequence are far superior, and to The Lazarus Papers's credit nor do they have a scene that pretends to be more than what it is. So they are not the same at all. I think In Hell offers more of a chance for Van Damme to explode emotionally. The Lazarus gives actors a chance to expand substantially and because it's an ensemble they never get to explode like Van Damme did In Hell.

In prefer overall In Hell, but I will say The Lazarus has very cool story, concept, weirdly involves magic in a good way that makes it a more unique film.

This film is unpacked with action

[b9713961 · 29 July 2011]

If you were expecting an action packed thriller having picked this up based on the title, star names, or cover art, then you will be disappointed. It is essentially a supernatural drama, with only brief moments of action. The helicopters on the DVD cover art, do not in-fact appear in the film.

It is refreshing to see Daniels take on a more prominent speaking role (which he does well), but would also be rewarding to see him kicking more ass in this film. Trejo adds an element of enigmatic charisma, but too many unresolved details surround the character for it to play out with satisfaction.

Johnny Lee's acting is excellent and he carries the film's intrigue well. He is unfortunately let down by his on-screen counter-part, Krystal Vee, who's erratic and inconsistent delivery fumble the opportunities the script had to shine.

Though well directed, and with some excellent cinematography, this film is ultimately let down by a slightly bizarre performance from the lead actress, and lack of action for the aficionados.

A mini hidden masterpiece

[johnanders-79334 · 10/10 · 23 January 2020]

When I saw The Joker, about a week ago it made me want to write a review on IMDb because I liked the idea of a pulp movie with depth. I talked about it with my cinephile friends.

One of the guy in the group, the one who likes all the B film, mentioned The Lazarus Papers, and said it was also an art house film, mixed with a supernatural thriller. He lent me his copy, and I couldn't believe it, especially once I saw it had a cover of types of films I really despise.

I gave it go, and a lo and behold to my shocked it delivered.

Since I mentioned The Joker earlier on I want to make a clear distinction where the Joker is pulp film with a budget to make an epic A-list film, The Lazarus Papers is a pulp film with a minor budget to make it one of its B-list counterpart.

It's an art film with a b-movie feel. While the mood is art house and the pace moves forward.

The film has a fantastic message about life, death, and the yearning of living to the fullest even in the direst circumstances. Good acting overall, dialogue, drama, locations, editing, photography, unique and original mood. I don't see a flaw.

The setting, the violence, being a story surrounding a prostitution rink, the supernatural elements, and the presence of Danny Trejo, Bai Ling, and Tiny Lister. Give it a solid and well done B feel.

Acting wise Trejo is completely out of character, and Lister, in a much smaller role, while still a bad guy he is not typecast. They both do a great job, it's jaw dropping in the case of Trejo. Bai Ling, while giving a good performances, is typecast but it's fine since her role doesn't over reach either.

Our two leads are played by unknown but working actors, who do a great job. The main villain is played by a guy named Gary Daniels who I just found out is also action film actor. I personally would have never guessed, I just thought it was a random unknown actor doing a first rate job. For his fans I recommend it, only if you want to see him doing something different and doing it well.

Finally it's a slap in the face on expectation, weirdness, and quality. A supernatural art house thriller is the best way to describe it. A must see.

A mini masterpiece

[johnanders-79334 · 10/10 · 25 January 2020]

When I saw The Joker, about a week ago it made me want to write a review on IMDb because I liked the idea of a pulp movie with depth. I talked about it with my cinephile friends.

One of the guy in the group, the one who likes all the B film, mentioned The Lazarus Papers, and said it was also an art house film, mixed with a supernatural thriller. He lent me his copy, and I couldn't believe it, especially once I saw it had a cover of types of films I really despise.

I gave it go, and a lo and behold to my shocked it delivered.

Since I mentioned The Joker earlier on I want to make a clear distinction where the Joker is pulp film with a budget to make an epic A-list film, The Lazarus Papers is a pulp film with a minor budget to make it one of its B-list counterpart.

It's an art film with a b-movie feel. While the mood is art house and the pace moves forward.

The film has a fantastic message about life, death, and the yearning of living to the fullest even in the direst circumstances. Good acting overall, dialogue, drama, locations, editing, photography, unique and original mood. I don't see a flaw.

The setting, the violence, some of the scenes are shocking, the supernatural elements, and the presence of Danny Trejo, Bai Ling, and Tiny Lister. Give it a solid and well done B feel.

Acting wise Trejo is completely out of character, and Lister, in a much smaller role, while still a bad guy he is not typecast. They both do a great job, it's jaw dropping in the case of Trejo. Bai Ling, while giving a good performances, is typecast but it's fine since her role doesn't over reach either.

Our two leads are played by unknown but working actors, who do a great job. The main villain is played by a guy named Gary Daniels who I just found out is also action film actor. I personally would have never guessed, I just thought it was a random unknown actor doing a first rate job. For his fans I recommend it, only if you want to see him doing something different and doing it well.

Finally it's a slap in the face on expectation, weirdness, and quality. A supernatural art house thriller is the best way to describe it. A must see.