Another movie in the series. I liked the first two. Vin Diesel returns again as a furion [video=youtube;u2VVaTSbM4I]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u2VVaTSbM4I[/video]
2013 science fiction film and the third chapter in the chronicles of Riddick. Vin Diesel once again plays the antihero role this time more closer to the original horror approach of PITCH BLACK premise than the overblown space opera that was The Chronicles of Riddick second film. In a flashback Riddick remembers how he was betrayed by the character played by Karl Urban, here in a cameo, and eventually became stranded in a hostile planet. Soon there will be bounty hunters searching for the head of Riddick. While not as memorable as Pitch Black, this film captures some of best aspects of that film while at other times kind of drags a little too much on its fascination with its main character. Battlestar Galactica fanboys will be jizzing at the sight of their beloved Starbuck finally showing her boobs, which are average at best btw. Most of the characters are not developed and remain as merely two dimensional part of the film's bodycount. When the most sympathetic character turns out to be a CGI pet, you know that this was a half-baked rushed production like some of its special effects. Had promise, but it was too focused in copying the first film. 7/10
Big Riddick fan. That said this was a steaming pile of shit. Just an attrocious film. Dialogue wasn't bad, and the pacing wasn't either. It did have dumb decisions, and the film seemed to have no sense of direction but the biggest thing holding it back was it was just badly written. While I was watching this film the biggest thing I felt was somebody wanted to make another Riddick film but didn't exactly know where to go with it. It almost felt like Diesel himself was writting this film as it was being filmed. It was by far the worst film of the trilogy and has no replay value whatsoever. I'm serious, this was abort viewing material but I stuck with it due to my love of the character which actually didn't even feel like the Riddick from either film. There seemed to be something missing and I think that something was a level of badassness. I know they needed to tone him down from the previous film but he seemed more toned down then even the guy from the first film. 5/10
Seriously, what the fuck!!?!?!?!? What would it take for a film to be a "1/10"?? What adjectives would be used in that case? 5 is exactly between 1 and 10... Therefore, it would stand to reason that "5" would describe something that was mediocre, and not a "steaming pile of shit" That shit drives me crazy!!
"This is a masterpiece... I've never seen a more perfect film... It was incredibly moving... 6/10" -- a typical fightbeat movie review
'Sitting through this film was more miserable than any two hours of my spell building the Burma Railway. 3/10.'
To me the overall movie was a steaming pile of shit. However you have other factors that don't necessarily go into the story that brings the score up. Things like good acting, decent dialogue, good CGI, etc. The writting for the film was horrible, it was a horrible movie, but my personal likeness of the film isn't what the overall score is based on. It was probably my fault for focusing so much only on the negatives in my review but I hope that explanation clarifies things a bit for you and Hut Hut.
