Blood of Redemption

Once again Serafini, Lundgren and Capaldi hook up to make a Movie. And they fare somewhat better this time around.

Plot: small time Corleones need to step down to avoid jail time. They cannot agree on how among themselves, but some are prepared to kill to get their way...

Rush, which I reviewed a couple of Days ago, was far too complicated for its own good due to too layered characters although 3,1 is too low a rating. On this Point Blood of Redemption succeeds much better with not so complicated characters.

On the other hand, the plot twists and secrecy gets the better off of this one. In this Movie the writers try too much to create suspense whereas in Rush they try too much to create interesting characters. Perhaps the next Movie will get these things right. I like Movies that have different groups of people and/or individuals with different goals that at the end Clash together because they usually tend to be entertaining. but here it does not quite convince which may be due to lacking script, budget and acting performances.

However, the current rating is 4,1 which I Think is unfair. The acting is good enough and Lundgren, Zane, Jones and Capaldi do their job (at their capacity anyway) and the action sequences are decent enough, at least to the level where they do not bother you. the only thing that bothered me is that some of the bullet holes/blood splatters looked like CGI work to me, which is something I do not appreciate (CGI or not, they still look bad).

I give it 5 out of 10 because it is entertaining enough. The quality of the Movie is like Caught in the Crossfire, Nico, Marked for Death and Under Siege 2 for instance.

I am a fan of Dolph Lundgren. While he may not be a master Thespian, he is a perfectly good action star, and that's why I rented "Blood of Redemption". Sadly, this is a considerably lesser vehicle for him. Lundgren here looks tired and worn. I know he's aging, but he's come off a lot better in other recent movies. Probably his tiredness comes from the fact that his surroundings here were not adequate. This was a very low budget production (only a $2 million budget), and while I will praise the filmmakers for squeezing every last penny out of their limited funds (the lighting and photography *do* look good), much of the movie still looks cheap. I could have lived with that had the rest of the movie been good, but it isn't. The script is way too talky, slow-moving, and boring. While it does offer a twist towards the end, I think many viewers will be able to predict the "surprise" long before it comes. And the limited action sequences are choreographed and directed with absolutely no punch. It certainly doesn't help that the gunshots have been "enhanced" with obvious CGI effects. You have to wonder how Dolph and the rest of the memorable B movie cast were all convinced to appear in this utterly forgettable production.

Cool, a new Dolph Lundgren, thats what i said when i found out about this movie. I watch most of the stuff he did in recent years and one thing that always comes to mind, minus the Expendables(which is awesome), his movies are always decent, minus a few exceptions. They never give me any "wow feeling" but they are honest DTV release.

This one... isshhh, i want to like it, but there is major problems. As some people mentioned, holy cow the special effects where terrible... I mean i expect some very cheap CGI in an episode of the Angry Video Game Nerd... but not in a real movies. Gunshot sounds and effects where horrible... And if at least the shooting was decent... but way too much "guy stand in the open, kill everybody in 1 bullet, never get shot" Fist fights where below average, especially when it came to the ladies in this... felt fake as hell... Speaking about fake, we have the pleasure of a cameo of Tasha Reign and Rikki Six, two well known pornstars with fake tits in this, which made me smile. But to come back to fist fights, well a couple ones where decent but again the noise of them... felt very cheap 80s movies...

Finally the story... decent. Overly complicated a bit in some part but the whole scenario was interesting and all.

In the end i would say thanks god they manage to get decent B actors like Dolph and Vinnie(also Billie Zane), which is probably the reason why a bunch of guys like me watch it in the first place. But in the end, not a movie to be remember. I know the budget may not had been the best, but please guys... i saw better gun wounds and effects in 80s movies...

(2013) Blood of Redemption ACTION THRILLER/ MYSTERY

Co-written and directed by Giorgio Serafini and Shawn Sourgose. It opens with Axel (Dolph Lundgren) narrating the terms of events he turns around and gets shot during a shootout in a warehouse before the movie goes back two weeks earlier. As it opens with Axel and a young lady both walking into his apartment. She sits down and Axel begins to showcase viewers and her his chart of who's who. We find out Axel's profession as a bodyguard and chauffeur for a particular crime syndicate family that consists of a father, Sergio Giraldi (Robert Miano) and his two sons; younger son, with aspirations to work for the FBI, Kurt Giraldi (Gianni Capaldi) and his older, Quinn Giraldi (Billy Zane) expected to take over the family business with his living girlfriend, Loryn. (Jelly Howie). At the same time, Sergio wants to retire the family business of illegal gambling, identity theft and producing counterfeit money to pass it along to his partner business partner, Hayden (Robert Davi). And as a result of his retirement, Hayden wants to call and involve his nephew/ son Campbell (Vinnie Jones) into the racket.

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