Usually I don't reward a movie with something like 2/10 but boy, this one is just, oh man. I thought the second movie was bad. I actually thought second movie was bad and this one will be the same level of badness. I was wrong.
Cast changed.. again, budget was probably about 100$, skill and effort put into it.. well, OK, maybe not 0, but flimsy 2/10.
This time, casting went even lower, into below-C-category of TV actors, somewhere along letter H or something like that. I'm amazed that every movie from this "trilogy" was worse than the previous one. And the first one was plainly OK. Second one was cheap and rubbish(y) kinda looking all around, but this one is just bad all across the board.
Acting was just not giving a f#$%. Sets were two, three mid sized badly dressed rooms, one or two cabins in the woods, a lot of stock footage, etc. Now, I know I shouldn't judge the movie by how little resources they had to work with, but here that is just so much obvious and worse and counterproductive. Maybe someone would have done it better with those same resources, not the case here.
Script is awful, rushed, pure cheese, nonsensical and bad acting does not help it, at all. Editing is just random, confusing and poorly done. There's a bunch of random scenes for a few seconds and then back to main plot. For example, the scene where we find out about Jim Taggert's wife and her death, and flashbacks that follow it, it's just cringe and laugh inducing.
It's beyond me why this movie exists in this poor form and execution in the first place. I guess they had to make some kind of a closure to the project. Now I wish that rumor/joke few years back, about third movie being a musical, were true.
This is an absolute waste of time. Don't watch it. It's not good, it's not good-bad, it's just straight bad. Blandly bad. If you want to see your favorite G list TV stars fumble around, reciting some dumb script that is supposed to be a movie adaptation of Ayn Rand socio-emo-economic manifesto, don't. Read a book instead, even if you read it already.
Cast changed.. again, budget was probably about 100$, skill and effort put into it.. well, OK, maybe not 0, but flimsy 2/10.
This time, casting went even lower, into below-C-category of TV actors, somewhere along letter H or something like that. I'm amazed that every movie from this "trilogy" was worse than the previous one. And the first one was plainly OK. Second one was cheap and rubbish(y) kinda looking all around, but this one is just bad all across the board.
Acting was just not giving a f#$%. Sets were two, three mid sized badly dressed rooms, one or two cabins in the woods, a lot of stock footage, etc. Now, I know I shouldn't judge the movie by how little resources they had to work with, but here that is just so much obvious and worse and counterproductive. Maybe someone would have done it better with those same resources, not the case here.
Script is awful, rushed, pure cheese, nonsensical and bad acting does not help it, at all. Editing is just random, confusing and poorly done. There's a bunch of random scenes for a few seconds and then back to main plot. For example, the scene where we find out about Jim Taggert's wife and her death, and flashbacks that follow it, it's just cringe and laugh inducing.
It's beyond me why this movie exists in this poor form and execution in the first place. I guess they had to make some kind of a closure to the project. Now I wish that rumor/joke few years back, about third movie being a musical, were true.
This is an absolute waste of time. Don't watch it. It's not good, it's not good-bad, it's just straight bad. Blandly bad. If you want to see your favorite G list TV stars fumble around, reciting some dumb script that is supposed to be a movie adaptation of Ayn Rand socio-emo-economic manifesto, don't. Read a book instead, even if you read it already.