Green Street 3: Never Back Down

I thought the first green st was average and haven't seen the second. This matched the first and seems far fetched in places. Scott Adkins shines with his fighting style however the martial arts don't seem to suit the street brawling you would associate with hooligans

6/10,

See Accident man for Scott Adkins at his best

I enjoyed the film, a lot more than i thought i would. BUT they could have done this film with no connection to the Green Street name. I would have respected it a lot more, but none the less it was a fun film. Worth a watch. It had good acting (i was surprised by this, i always expect a load of rubbish with these types of films) The story was solid and got me engaged in the story. I really wanted to see how it all panned out even though it was predictable it was still a good story. The choreography of the fights were good, not great but it still looked and felt like a fight even with all the spinney tricks that you would not expect in a film about British football hooligans were there main HQ is a pub, My rating would be a 6 because i know many films that are better that i have rated 8's and 9's but 6 seems low so for this i rate a 7. I think it has earned that extra star for surprising me after i went in to it expecting another rubbish money grab film.

First of all, I have to say that I haven't seen the first two movies, and I don't know if I have missed anything. But if you deem this one a autonomous movie, then I can say a few points about it.

Regarding the story, it is your everyday martial arts movie story. Our hero's brother is murdered in a tournament (firm!!!), and the hero enters the tournament and avenges his brother. I don't think I can even this review as containing a spoiler, because this kind of story has been known and predictable since the good old days of Bruce Lee.

But there are many plot holes. We don't know what's the point of the fight at the beginning of the movie. We don't know why the two police officers release Scott. and some other "we don't know"s.

Scott Adkins' acting is acceptable, though not an Al Pacino. The guy who plays his kinda fat friend, though, outdoes Scott in acting. The saucy girl who is done by Scott wasn't bad either, she was, however, casted for something else as you know, not for her acting.

Regarding the fight scenes, we have almost none of them till the middle of the movie (except for the short meaningless fight at the beginning of the film). The final fight is surely the best one in the whole movie.

All in all, it's quite an average flick, but Scott can be very higher than that. I hope he gets more picky in his choice of movies and makes better ones in the future with all the talent we know of him. Good Luck everyone. my Score: 5/10

The original Green St didn't need a sequel but we got one all the same and to be fair STAND YOUR GROUND was watchable down to the fact it was unintentionally funny . After all it's not every day you watch a film entirely filmed in an American prison trying to convince its audience that it's set in Britain . To be fair this follow is probably mindful of this hence we get constant establishing shots showing us we are indeed in a cold and cloudy London . This unfortunately is the only thing the film manages to achieve

NEVER BACK DOWN is a cynical exercise in marketing a film as a sequel to another film it has absolutely no connection with . There's no reason what so ever for the words " Green " " Street " or 3 to prefix NEVER BACK DOWN and in reality could easily be a star vehicle for Jean Claude Van Damme since it revolves around martial arts rather than unsophisticated fists and boots

The need to showcase martial arts is what the film concentrates on and as other people have pointed out explanation and exposition is sacrificed to show the protagonists fighting skill . From the outset we get a dialogue free sequence that ends with a couple of heavies getting a good slapping . We also get a long sequence of ramping , ie constant fast motion followed by slow motion most famously seen in 300 . In short it's a film of style over substance that won't appeal to anyone who is after a dramatic movie

The truth is that this part of the trilogy Green Street is not like the previous movies. It's completely different from the other two parts, especially the first. This film doesn't care about the violence between the football fans and its bad consequences. The movie is just showing us some people, who are training to compete in an underground fighting tournament. Of course the leading actor is looking for revenge about his brother's murder, but the viewer doesn't really care about it.

I enjoyed a lot Scott Adkins in the movie. I prefer him with tattoos, beards and more wild style (I'm talking about Yuri Boyka in Undisputed 2, 3) but he was enough good here too. I like his style of fighting and the way he trains his team in this movie. Definitely, there is a lot of fighting scenes and that's why this is not a dull movie.

If you are looking for an action movie with people kicking some asses all the time, this film is a good choice, without thinking. Watch it. But if you want to see a drama like Green Street Hooligans 1, you won't be satisfied.