Crimson Rivers 2: Angels of the Apocalypse

In Lorraine, close to the border of Germany, the Chief Inspector Pierre Niemans (Jean Reno) is investigating the death of a man behind of a wall of an isolated abbey. Meanwhile, the efficient detective Reda (Benoît Magimel) is investigating the attempt of murder of a man called Jesus. They come to the same point along their investigations, join forces with the detective Marie (Camille Natta), a specialist in religious matter, and fight against Heinrich von Garten (Chritopher Lee), a German Minister of Culture and Religion, and a group of powerful monks.

What a mess is this "Les Rivières Pourpres II - Les Anges de l'Apocalypse"! Using the same character of Niemans from the good "Rivières Pourpres", this movie has some good moments, such as the dark atmosphere and Reda pursuing a monk through roofs, houses, sheds and streets. But the plot is totally confused and quite silly, wasting what could be a good movie. I expected much more, and in the end I was completely disappointed with this movie. My vote is six.

Title (Brazil): "Rio Vermelhos 2 – Anjos do Apocalipse" ("Red Rivers 2 – Apocalypse Angels")

Rivières Pourpres 1 was better than 2 because in the first there were much more suspense elements. Here we come quick to the action and so surprises were limited in this average story. It's no doubt a fast paced mystery thriller with lots of special and sound effects. There is a scene that is better than Spiderman. The soundtrack is very strong. The setting places of the monastery or the Ligne Maginot were nice shot. Jean Reno made a solid job in his part as the cop Niemans and cool role of the horror legend Christopher Lee. Don't expect a top thriller but if you want to spend an entertaining evening this one works. Fortunately it's not too long. Will they decide to make part 3? I have some doubts. For these reasons our vote is 6/10.

...like in the first part. Only the location is different. Like the basic "Les rivieres pourpres", unconvincing story, too much in different forms. As virtues - presence of Magimel and Christopher Lee. As weak part- the less performances, the not the most inspired explanations and plot. The unrealism in too huge doses. And the childish simplicity of details. Not the worst movie, but one who you see only for the effort of actors to save a bad script.

The original novel was awesome,and so was Mathieu Kassovitz's movie adaptation,starring Jean Reno and Vincent Cassel.Pity the same can't be said for this disappointing,insipid,useless sequel.

Reno returns as Pierre Niemans,having to investigate on a couple of murders perpetrated by superhuman monks.Yes,the concept IS that bad,and yes,the writer IS Luc Besson,who probably should retire considering his most recent works.Instead of Vincent Cassel and Nadia Fares,we get Benoit Magimel and Camille Natta,whose on screen presence is as interesting as that of an insect.

The main title sequence and the opening murders are visually great,but the rest of the film sucks.Reno and Magimel try to compensate the whole thing with some bad jokes,but when even Christopher Lee's portrayal of the Nazi villain seems to be saying "This time they should have typecast someone else",you realize something has gone incredibly wrong.

One of the worst follow-ups ever,and let's hope the third chapter stays in development hell forever.

I loved Les Rivieres Pourpres. I thought it was atmospheric, dark and a bit sinister. But then how can you go wrong with Kassovitz as the director? Well, this sequel is just as atmospheric, but the story is complete crap. It has to do with an ancient order of monks, a member of the German ministry (Christopher Lee speaking flawless French), and a lot of running around. Benoit Magimel is great to watch. He has a lot of pent up hunky angst, which makes for great cinema, and man can he run! Jean Reno is fabulous - as always. The problem with this film is it is so obtuse. It's as if the writer - Luc Besson, need I say more - thought "hmmm I'll add in some ritual killings, some religious references, some fight sequences but leave out logic and any semblance of meaning." I finished watching the film and just scratched my head. WHAT THE F***? The first film makes you scratch your head in a GOOD way. This one just defies purpose. It's as if a chunk of the script was left out. Watch it if you like pseudo-religious thrillers - there's a lot to choose from these days - but if you really need something deeper; something Oh I don't know sensible, forget this stinker. It looks good. It just doesn't make a lot of sense.