What drew me into seeing 'Blood of Redemption' in the first place? The reasonably likeable cast, a potentially intriguing story and that it was part of my low budget completest quest and popped up in my recommended for you section. Was also a bit apprehensive, with a less than favourable rating and generally reviews that were lukewarm at best.
'Blood of Redemption', when checking it out, certainly could have been much worse. There are definitely worse films about, of the genre and overall. Is it a good film let alone a great one? Not even close. Did it use its potential? No. Is it that bad? Not quite. Does it has redeeming qualities? Yes, but not many. To me, while having learnt not to trust ratings and not worry about going against the grain (though am in the minority here who respects critics opinions and tend to be on the same, or slightly above or below, page as them), the rating is about right and do have to agree with the criticisms here.
Dolph Lundgren, Billy Zane and Gianni Capaldi do serviceable jobs and are the reasons as to why 'Blood of Redemption' wasn't any worse, Lundgren being the best thing of the film.
Some of the story intrigued, namely the early stages, and the music while not the most memorable is at least listenable.
Unfortunately, Vinnie Jones and Robert Davi are poorly served and used. Jones overdoes it and shouts his way through a stock character and Davi is saddled with a clearly fake accent and spends the whole time looking uninterested. None of the characters are developed enough and are very difficult to get behind. 'Blood of Redemption' looks cheap, especially the badly organised and sometimes incomprehensible editing and catastrophically awful visual effects, so fake looking and doesn't blend well with the setting at all. The action is both dull and chaotic, there is nothing exciting and it's choreographed with no enthusiasm or finesse.
The script is too talky and has no tautness, the pace is flabby and the story gets far too complicated with the twists not being that much of a surprise. The direction seemed indicative of lack of experience or ease.
Overall, not horrendous but severely lacking in many areas. 3/10 Bethany Cox
'Blood of Redemption', when checking it out, certainly could have been much worse. There are definitely worse films about, of the genre and overall. Is it a good film let alone a great one? Not even close. Did it use its potential? No. Is it that bad? Not quite. Does it has redeeming qualities? Yes, but not many. To me, while having learnt not to trust ratings and not worry about going against the grain (though am in the minority here who respects critics opinions and tend to be on the same, or slightly above or below, page as them), the rating is about right and do have to agree with the criticisms here.
Dolph Lundgren, Billy Zane and Gianni Capaldi do serviceable jobs and are the reasons as to why 'Blood of Redemption' wasn't any worse, Lundgren being the best thing of the film.
Some of the story intrigued, namely the early stages, and the music while not the most memorable is at least listenable.
Unfortunately, Vinnie Jones and Robert Davi are poorly served and used. Jones overdoes it and shouts his way through a stock character and Davi is saddled with a clearly fake accent and spends the whole time looking uninterested. None of the characters are developed enough and are very difficult to get behind. 'Blood of Redemption' looks cheap, especially the badly organised and sometimes incomprehensible editing and catastrophically awful visual effects, so fake looking and doesn't blend well with the setting at all. The action is both dull and chaotic, there is nothing exciting and it's choreographed with no enthusiasm or finesse.
The script is too talky and has no tautness, the pace is flabby and the story gets far too complicated with the twists not being that much of a surprise. The direction seemed indicative of lack of experience or ease.
Overall, not horrendous but severely lacking in many areas. 3/10 Bethany Cox