AhmedMhmdRabie

"Offender" is a failed attempt to attract audiences with a mix of drama and thrill within the prison walls. The film tries to present the story of a young man, Tommy Nix, who deliberately gets himself imprisoned to exact revenge on a group of criminals who harmed his pregnant girlfriend. Unfortunately, the screenplay fails to deliver a convincing story or relatable characters.

One of the biggest flaws in "Offender" is the lackluster acting. The film's lead, Joe Cole, gives an unconvincing and uninspired performance, making it difficult for the audience to empathize with his plight. Additionally, the other characters are shallow and underdeveloped, especially the actor who played the main villain, English Frank. His performance is one of the worst I've ever seen. He attempted to portray a psychopathic criminal who does whatever he wants, whenever he wants, with anyone, but he failed miserably in his role. This failure prevented feelings of anxiety and fear from reaching the audience, undermining the credibility of the events and leaving gaps in the story without sufficient explanation or justification.

The direction suffers from a clear lack of innovation and creativity. The violent scenes, which are supposed to be thrilling and impactful, come off as exaggerated and devoid of realism. The excessive reliance on violent scenes strips the film of its message, making it seem like a superficial experience rather than providing a deep social analysis of the prison environment, which the film attempted but failed to deliver.

The screenplay is full of plot holes and predictable scenes, causing the film to lose elements of surprise and excitement. The dialogues are unrealistic, clichéd, and childish, adding to the overall frustration with the film. Additionally, the soundtrack is often inappropriate, exacerbating the film's shortcomings.

Overall, "Offender" fails to achieve any of the goals one might expect from a gritty prison drama. It is a film that lacks depth and innovation, leaving viewers feeling they have wasted their time watching an ill-constructed story with unconvincing performances.

My Rating is 5 out of 10

Note: If you have free time, look for a better experience unless you want to waste your time. Sleeping is better than watching this film.

When a film succeeds and receives acclaim from audiences, especially when it has a good story suitable for continuation, a sequel is often produced. If the sequel also succeeds, even if it's not as good as the original, smart directors often stop there to maintain the films' status. This is what smart filmmakers do, as did Eli Roth. However, I don't know how director Scott Spiegel acquired the rights to produce this nonsense of a film.

Let's review the events of the previous two installments, set in Prague, Czech Republic, where there is a human torture club called Elite Hunting Club. Did you notice I said "in Europe"? So how did it evolve to become a global club with a headquarters in America, specifically Las Vegas, where the events of the third installment take place? But that's not the only problem. There are other issues like repetitive and boring plotlines, poor acting, lack of scary scenes, and ineffective direction of cinematic scenes, which diminish the horror and prestige of this club. The club's presence in a city like Las Vegas is strange. Simply taking the events out of Eastern Europe is unacceptable. Do you know why? Because the previous two films exhausted the club's concept, leaving no room for a third part.

Here comes the alleged brilliance of director Scott Spiegel in producing a third film destined for failure from the outset, unable to find a suitable location for filming, thus arbitrarily moving the setting to America without justification within or outside the film. However, it was still possible to write a better story by delving deeper into the historical background of the torture club, but laziness prevailed in writing, resulting in a weak film relying on the success of its predecessors.

This film is one of the worst I have ever seen, and I rate it 4.5/10.

Note: If you want to experience torture inside Elite Hunting Club, watch this film. You'll feel tortured.

Is this a sequel or a separate film that has no connection to the original movie?

That's the issue here. When a film succeeds and gains popularity, the creators decide to produce a sequel and turn it into a film series. However, the second part often fails due to exploiting the success of the first part, relying on its reputation while neglecting the story, plot, and direction. This results in a poor-quality film that ruins everything built by the original. Such is the case with this disastrous film, which tells the story of a man named Ray who owns a company specialized in discovering prison loopholes that make it easy to escape. It's a different story and had potential for success, but then comes the second part, which barely features anyone from the first except Sylvester Stallone and 50 Cent. The new film's story is unrelated to the previous one except for the idea of prison escapes, which is poorly executed. Sylvester Stallone is sidelined, and the focus shifts to a new hero who gets imprisoned in a supposedly secure prison but decides to escape and fails miserably, searching for hope to escape this hell called Hades. The plot is weak, the story unsatisfying, the direction poor, and the graphic scenes are of the lowest quality. The antagonist lacks value, background, or clear motivation-yes, revenge, but even that motivation isn't properly justified.

This film is considered one of Sylvester Stallone's worst, if not the worst, according to him personally regretting his involvement. My rating for it is 4 out of 10.

Note: Do not watch this film unless you're interested in watching worst Sylvester Stallone movies.