Crimson Rivers 2: Angels of the Apocalypse

While many new writers search for bizarre story material as subject for action thrillers, few have looked to the scariest source of all - St John's Book of Revelation from the Bible. So it is from the pen of Luc Besson ('The Messenger: The Story of Joan of Arc', 'The Transporter', 'La Femme Nikita') adapting a screenplay from the novel 'Les Rivières pourpres' by Jean-Christophe Grangé that we gain some visualization of the predictions of the Apocalyptic end of the world. And it is as scary as you remember from reading the Bible as a child! Commissioner Niemans (Jean Reno) partners with Reda (Benoît Magimel - the hunky fine actor from 'The Piano Teacher' and 'The Flower of Evil') to investigate a series of crucifixions linked to a near secret abbey. Because of the ecclesiastic nature of the murders a church scholar Marie (Camille Natta) is called in to advise and it is with her skills as an expert on Revelation that she teaches Niemans and Reda the meanings of the breaking of the various Seals, the four horsemen, the events leading up to the prophesied end of the world, and provides the intellectual backup to the thriller chase sequences attempting to apprehend the monks posing as Angels of the Apocalypse provided by Niemans and Reda. Add to this mix the fact that the Abbey is connected to the Maginot Line from WW II and that a German entrepreneur Heinrich von Garten (Christopher Lee) has for some odd reason purchased the Abbey for this own secret agenda and all of the ingredients for a edge of the seat suspense movie are in place.

Reno and Magimel make a terrific screen team with just the right amount of humanism and humor to allow some tension relief for he story. The special effects are excellent as is the cinematography and musical score. Yes, there is considerable blood and guts as each of the 'surrogate apostles' is murdered, but the camera doesn't linger longer than necessary to make the point.

The problem with the film is that it runs out of steam in the end and gives the feeling that someone called "Cut" making story end far too abruptly. But other than that this is a fairly interesting enactment of the Biblical prophecy of the Apocalypse, updated (?) for the audiences of today! Grady Harp, May 05

...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.

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.

I love it when the French turn out enetrtaining blockbusters: Crimson Rivers and Vidoq spring to mind as examples of very good populist entertainment.

This sequel, though, failed for me at almost every level: thee greeat Jean Reno sleepwalks here, not that he has anything to do anyway, and he even seems to be playing a character with a comp`letely different personality to the one he had in the first film.

The direction and editing both suffer from the dreaded diseases of modern action films: lack of narrative clarity and far far far too many quick cuts that simply leave the viewer confused as to what is going on.

The script is weak, but what can we expect from Luc Besson who has not been involved in any even passable film since "Leon" (itself rather over-rated, but with several excellent features)?

Vincent Cassell is sorely missed. The great Christopher Lee is wasted.

The only thing I liked about the film was the use of the Maginot Line (once considered as a possible secret base for Blofeld in "On Her Majesty's Secret Service), but even then the visual atmospherics potentially available were not effectively exploited.

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.