Hooligans 3

I'm a huge Scott Adkins fan and will watch him in pretty much anything. I always know going in that I may get a 5-6/10 movie, but the fighting scenes will be amazing. I've yet to be disappointed, until today. I've seen the original Green Street Hooligans and loved it, but knew this wasn't really related, so I went into it for Scott Adkins. Oh, boy.

Another reviewer said this was a typical martial arts movie - this is definitely NOT a martial arts movie! This movie has some training (more like boxing) and some street type fighting, but not very much at all. And don't expect to see the typical Scott Adkins moves we've grown to love. To be believable in this particular role, and I understand why, he's maybe 1/3 of the fighter he normally really is.

If you're going into this movie for the fighting or expecting typical Scott Adkins action, you will be disappointed.

This is not my Scott Adkins or why I watch his movies. :(

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

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

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

When it is being considered about the movie i can clearly point out the fact that this is not totally a bad movie. But I prefer the first movie rather than this one. But when it is being considered about the actor ( Scott Adkins) I would state the fact that it is some certain waste of talents. Actually he is one of the best martial artists that i have ever seen in my life who performed mind blowing action in Movies like Undisputed. Within this movie it does not have that much of action. When it is being considered about the movie i feel that it is better if the director is has paid some serious attention about the dialog & action sequence of the movies. Anyway I won't discourage you to watch, It's watchable.