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.
Add a Review
-
editor-9212 April 2005
-
ma-cortes23 December 2004The movie centers on Niemans (Jean Reno) the police of the first part who has to investigate weird murder series in isolated monasteries of Lorena (north of France) . He's helped by a tough inspector (Benoit Maginel) and join forces with a mystic theme expert (Camille Natta) , all of them investigating a series of ritual murders . They will take on Apocalypse angels , some monks with supernatural power and a villain (Christopher Lee) and his evil henchmen.
In the picture there is frenetic action , emotion , mystery , spooky sets and a little bit of gore . The movie is a crossover between the intrigue of ¨Da Vinci Code¨ , investigation means from ¨CSI¨, and ¨Seven¨ thriller . From the beginning of the film until the end , action-packed is nonstop , it is fast moving and that's why the picture results to be quite entertaining .
The final confrontation between the starring and the contenders in the ¨Maginot line¨ tunnels is spellbinding . The movie obtained a lot of success , as the previous part , featured by Jean Reno and Vincent Cassel . The motion picture will appeal to religious thriller buffs and dark atmosphere enthusiasts . Rating : 6/10 , well worth watching . -
CRIMSON RIVERS II: ANGELS OF THE APOCALYPSE (Les Rivières Pourpres II: Les Anges de l'Apocalypse)
Aspect ratio: 2.39:1
Sound formats: Dolby Digital / DTS
Whilst investigating a bizarre murder inside an ancient monastery, two detectives (Jean Reno and Benoît Magimel) stumble on a series of killings related to a mysterious cult and its charismatic leader (Christopher Lee).
Olivier Dahan's stylish sequel sacrifices the original film's emotional content for a series of intense set-pieces, which mutes the intended effect. The visceral impact is formidable, and the Gothic visuals are a treat, but it fails to work on anything but the most superficial level, and Reno seems to be coasting on auto-pilot. Magimot is one of France's sexiest and most talented young actors, and he steals the film from his high-profile co-stars, though Lee is given little to do, and his presence fails to ignite the expected sparks. Excellent makeup and visual effects.
(French dialogue) -
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 -
claudio_carvalho28 August 2005In 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") -
Luigi Di Pilla31 October 2004Rivières 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.
-
marakid21 April 2004A movie very disappointing in many points of his plots... why should Germany and France sign an agreement for enlarging the 60-years old Maginot line? How is it possible that only Jean Reno and his friend can survive the flooding of their room, when they are bonded and all the other people present have their arms free? How can a people dressed like a 10-centuries ago monk walk freely into the restricted area of an airport with a nail-firing gun under his dresses?
These are only some examples of the many questions taht does not have answer in this movie, or admit a very confused one. I don't pretend perfection but at least a decent story. -
dbborroughs8 April 2005Jean Reno's detective Niemans is back hunting the mind behind a bizarre series of murders and disappearances, all with a religious overtone. It all begins with a bleeding wall in a monastery and goes from there as twists seem to be leading us toward the end of the world.
I would like to report that this is at least the equal of the earlier film (One of the best thrillers of the past five or six years), but I can't. This is a film that has too many characters and too much plot with the result that you're hard pressed to work out whats happening. Characters such as Mary, a religious expert, or Christopher Lee's ominous business man are never more than cyphers. We get to know nothing about them. There are plot twists or points that are never fully explained. Watching this I had the sense that this was suppose to be about an hour longer but that it had been chopped up to its shortest possible running time. I'm led to believe this by the fact that whats on screen alludes to more than we're seeing, this is a film thats alive off the screen. I wish that they had taken the time to explain more.
None of it is really bad, although the acrobatics of the killer(s) in monks robes are much too far over the top for the films own good.
In the end as a rental or on cable this is okay, but but given a choice I'd watch the first one again over this.
Should Luc Besson read this: Please do another-and better- film with Reno's character. He's too good a creation to die after only two outings. -
dromasca21 February 2006Olivier Dahan tries to build on the success of the first 'Rivieres pourpres' and brings back Jean Reno in a second series which has little in common with the first film, unfortunately.
The story is one of a series of murders on persons that emulate the disciples of Christ. What could have been the promising premises of a religious mystery story is combined with a quick pace filming and fights inspired from the Far East Ninja movies. All these are mixed with a post World War II story, and the result looks like a strange pot with differently colored and flavored potions that do not really mix or combine well together.
Jean Reno is a wonderful actor, but he cannot save the film alone. It's a quite a weak film by all scales, like the director did not decide what genre it would belong and took a little but of everything. Disappointeing. -
RichardKleiner20 February 2011The original Crimson Rivers is a great thriller, and I loved it. The sequel on the other hand, is a little difficult to appreciate.
With only Jean Reno returning from the original film, it's a telling sign that the movie will loose some of its artistic merit and give you a nagging feeling that it was made just for the money.
A screenplay written by Luc Besson might sound like a great starting place. Now, I prefer that sequels stay as different as possible to their predecessors while attaining some consistency with character and other technical details, but still, telling a different story. And Besson did that. Unfortunately, he managed to write an entirely different movie with no connection whatsoever to The Crimson Rivers that would make you consider it a sequel.
The story itself is a mess. It combines a "DaVinci code" type of semi-religious conspiracy with some urban action scenes, some of the gritty and gory murders that made the original movie so memorable, and, not kidding, Indiana Jones styled treasure hunting.
The director's weird composition doesn't help the cause, nor does the jumpy editing. The cinematography is a nightmare. With some sort of filter used for the lenses, whenever there are indoor sequences with light coming out of the windows, they get blurred so badly that you feel your glasses got smudged. The camera goes all over the place. All this combined with a convoluted script make this a movie which is extremely difficult to follow.
The characters themselves are thin. There are no introductions to any of the investigators, nor do they have time to interact. They're just thrown in, starting to figure out clues, running to places and solving puzzles right on the spot. Now, it's understandable that you don't want to waste time on pleasantries and go straight for the plot right away, but this pacing is TOO fast. You can't even think for yourself what's going one when the Marie character already tells the answer.
Jean Reno once again plays Niemans, and he does pretty much the same performance he did with the original. Some continuity is made by making him wear a black leather jacket, which is a nice touch, though quite irrelevant, except for maybe giving the movie an even darker tone and helping viewers with short attention spans to identify him quickly. (again, irrelevant, since they can't follow any of the plot). Benoit Magimel, on the other hand, just doesn't have a chance. No matter how much he tries, he can't shake off the notion that he is a replacement for Vincent Cassel. Christopher Lee is perfect, and he nails his character, but, it's nothing he hasn't done before. Didn't know he could speak both French and German, though.
Colin Towns' score, particularly the dissonant horror-like action cues, is not that anonymous as I hoped, though considering Bruno Coulais' surprisingly effective work for the first movie, you kinda miss him here.
The action scenes are exciting, if you manage to make anything out of them. Unfortunately for Besson and the producers, you can't really expect that the hooded monks actually have supernatural powers when the first movie was set in a non-fantastic scenario. While it is eventually revealed (in a very lame way, honestly) that they are enhanced by amphetamines, the plot is supposed to be made exciting by the mystery of their powers.
But at the end you can start seeing some of the flaws in the script making this entire conspiracy rather dumb. The supermarket scene, while quite entertaining, can loose all of the thrill once you notice that monks in hoods are walking freely and suspiciously (read: insultingly obvious) on the aisles and kill a guy in plain sight of everyone. And no one saw it coming?
The conclusion to the story is quite frustrating. All of these killings and conspiracies were just to find an old rare book, but it doesn't matter what it contains, since a mechanism floods the entire place and destroys the book, and killing everyone except, not surprisingly, Reno and Magimel. So basically, all of the plot was for nothing.
Either way, you might think this movie could have been better, but considering that The Crimson Rivers is perfect the way it is, there was absolutely no need for a sequel. At least, maybe one where we knew something else about Niemans, other than he named a dog after his partner. This is the ending line of the movie, by the way, and it could have stolen a chuckle if the movie had let some room for humor earlier!
As a sequel, it's terrible. As a standalone film, it's quite flawed. In the end, this movie should be moved up to the ranks of the Hall of Unnecessary Sequels. It's somewhat decent entertainment, but not even by taking out any references to The Crimson Rivers could you really think highly of it.
And people think everything European is high art? -
Vogler7 January 2006This sequel is just disappointing. It starts with the great Vincent "Dobermann" Cassel not being in the second part anymore, but he wouldn't save that stupid story anyway. There are many interesting ideas, but when it comes to tie them all together, the end is mostly stolen from "Raiders of the Lost Arch". But there's even more fun in that flick: Nazi monks on 60 year old steroids, which make them invulnerable to bullets... Gimme a break! I wonder if Besson will ever learn that world war 2 is over (remember those evil German villains in "Taxi"?). Part 1 was far better, the story, and especially the appearance of Vincent Cassel. I really wonder how Besson/Reno can make masterpieces like "Leon" on the one hand, and junk like that movie on the other hand.
-
arktisk_spetakkel10 February 2013Really? A 5.8 average? That makes no sense. I really don't understand the bad reviews.
I thought this was really entertaining, and was glued to my chair all through the film. Some say I doesn't make sense, but it doesn't make less sense than the Da Vinci code, Stigmata or Rosemary's baby for that matter.
Enjoy it for what it is...a suspenseful thriller with occult/religious overtones. The people who doesn't like this must be into a different kind of genre.
The story was original, and mysterious. The casting for this film was excellent. And extra fun with a small appearance by the ever awesome Christopher Lee. Enjoy! -
pumaye11 April 2004Not totally convincing, but not worst that the previous movie with the same name (and one of the characters, Jean Reno), this French late addition to the plethora of similar movies on the Apocalypse (well, even with the new millennium it seems that the screenwriters still grip on the myth of the destruction of our race) is a mixed bag of interesting cinematographic ideas (the almost invincible friars that run and fight for the better part of the movie are nice to see) and a wretched script (that, like in the previous Rivieres Pourpres, starts titillating the audience - this time with a Christ like figure and the killing of his Apostoles - but in the end fails to deliver). However, the movie is good enough to be seen at least once.
-
gridoon14 July 2005Looking back at my one-line summary for the first "Crimson Rivers", I wrote "stunningly well-directed film...if only it made sense!". For "Crimson Rivers 2", the same description can be used...except for the "stunningly well-directed" part. The script of this movie is hopelessly muddled and hole-filled (as others have mentioned, since when does taking amphetamines make you immortal?), and the direction relies on clichéd, tired imagery to build atmosphere (crucifixes, blood, heavy rain, underlit rooms, religious symbols, etc.). Occasional use of MTV-style over-editing does not help, either. Apparently not learning anything from the mistakes of the original, the filmmakers also included yet another totally gratuitous martial-arts fight. Are there any good points to this film? Well, there is an entertaining gravity-defying foot chase, Reno is always a dependable lead, Magimel has a physical enough presence, Natta is pretty...and you get the rare opportunity to hear Christopher Lee speak only in French! (**)
-
Nicolas Chazottes20 February 2004Just saw this movie last night and i have just one comment... What have the heroes (Nemans and Reda) done in the movie ? They try for most of the time to save people from being killed by a sect of super monks and fail all the time (apart from Jesus that they save... but he should be dead if the monks had really tried to kill him as much as they succesfully eliminated all the others apostles). The movie ends with the bad guy (Lee) killing himself and his henchmen while Nemans and Reda are his prisonners and doing nothing but saving their life...
At the end... Nemans and Reda are pleased but why ?? they have done nothing... resolved nothing and saved nobody... if they had not been there the story would have been exactly the same.... If i was their superior i would fire them...
One last thing, it seems Lee is the big boss of a pan european organisation of Nazi lovers but it's nearly not used in the movie... -
I rate this a SEVEN because the film is highly entertaining.
The apartment fight scene with Reda is fantastic, and the mood of the film is somber. One feels drawn into the mystery of where it is going.
But the reviewer on the main page has truly nailed the flaws of this film. What is this demonizing of religion all about? The Catholic Church has a far greater role in French society than in the US, and therefore appears more prominently in this film than in say an American flavor of it. In America, the hooded priest hooligans/angels of death would have been laughable. The attention paid to the Jesus-look-alike in the direction of the film is clearly reverential, to add to the legend of the "last days" theme. But this handling truly reveals a deep divide between American and French audiences.
Then appears the sinister German relic in Christopher Lee, survivor of WWII, and even the Maginot line must echo they echo of German/French antipathy. He holds a secret in the mysterious order; so, subliminal message, the Catholic Church is co-opted by Nazis--the Vatican could NOT have been pleased. As the reviewer on the main page notes, the ending is outright theft of concept from Indiana Jones.
The first Crimson Rivers ends in a muddled pool of pre-sentient Christian/Catholic dogma; Empire of the Wolves, while very good, refuses to take on the real Turkish threat, but instead pursues "right wing Turks" who trade in women, drugs, and train terrorists--right and left wing Turks? Hello, Islamists, which are they? The only French Reno film I have seen that is devoid of this French PC/Religious fear/animus is WASABI. Wasabi is a wonderfully funny film, and well worth seeing.
Angels of the Apolcalypse is very entertaining, but comes whimpering to fin. -
technimac10 April 2005This flick is full of unrelenting action - some of it so disjointed at the beginning I thought it could be a Hong Kong kung fu production. But the pieces came together in a "Dan Brownish" sort of way about half way through.
Reno is strong throughout, and I couldn't help but chuckle at the "veteran cop/young hot-shot cop" pairing-up that predictably occurred.
Having visited the Maginot line, I could recognize many of the elements used in the film. The pop-up machine gun turret is a real feature of the line, in fact some of the "retractable turrets" house twin 75mm cannon. It was also kind of creepy to tour the underground bunkers which housed thousands of men prior to WWII - even in summer it was dark, cool and damp place. The story makes good use of this dank atmosphere.
The super market scene though will have me looking over my shoulder whenever I enter a Carrefour or E. Leclerc hypermarche in the future.
The ending was the weak part however, and could have been done so much better - it was a little too cheezy for my tastes. -
thibaut_7825 February 2004The original movie was not the best movie ever but it was a solid blockbuster ... but the sequel is a so disappointing : - the script is weak, too much incoherence, so many goofs... - a lot of cliché, another film where the bad guys are german and Nazi from the WWII, too easy - Reno's character has lost all is charisma, he seems not to be the same "Niemans" - only Magimel does a good job
No, sorry a bad movie maybe written by a 7 years old kid ? -
Les Riviéres Pourpres 2. Directed by Olivier Dahan. **
Luc Besson will be remembered among French filmmakers as the one who brought Hollywood to the French mainstream... in a ridicule and absurd way. Fortunately,he has given himself a break from directing, but he still threatens us with turkeys produced by him.
"Les Riviéres..." is just a stupid, mediocre, incoherent film, with characters that I don't give a damn, a mystery too dull to care about solving it, and an awful script. French superstar Jean Reno lacks so much strength in his performance, and hunk Benoit Magimel acts like his hormones are out of control and wants to jump under the pants of every other female police/nurse in the movie.
My girlfriend has this crush on Benoit Magimel. If you feel like her, go and watch it. Otherwise, avoid this boring turkey.
6/10 -
jfseignol29 February 2004This movie is a shame. How can Besson dare propose such a silly scenario? Besson concatenates clichés of fantastic-techno thriller (religious themes focused on spectacular parts of the Bible, classic former nazi who wants to conquer the world, new-age evangelists, so-called dark-ages secret history,...). The global story is full of incoherences, scenes are illogical between each others, a lot of scenaristic "effects" are ridiculous (the chase with the monk in the hospital, the ambush against Reno with an old german machine-gun turret...). The end of the movie is totally stupid. It is a very bad cameo of Indiana Jones. The dialogues are bad, always cliché. The shooting style is very "clipesque", camera is always moving, lights are totally artificial, very nervous, but it doesn't succeed in hiding the drawbacks of the scenario.
-
PatrynXX15 September 2005Wish the movie was more fleshed out. Loved a lot of the cinematography in this movie. Was a rare treat for that. The story is unique in most parts of the film. But the loose ends aren't tied up. The first movie was a smart movie. Very rare indeed. This one has taken on a more supernatural movie. The belief system has completely failed here. But as far as movies go, it's better than a lot of crap out there. Didn't like the score as much as the original. But the suspense is still in the sequel. Perhaps more so. The creators here though continue to go to great locations. I ought to find a ticket and read some books over there. :)
One thing I found interesting, a lot of the movie played like a video game. Not sure why. Although the French website for this movie has a section that looks like it's promoting a Myst like game.
6/10
Quality: 6/10 Entertainment: 9/10 Replayable: 7/10 -
mohit_aron17 October 2005The movie starts in an interesting way and builds up some excitement with the strange murders and reasonably good action sequences. It is poor in offering explanations for why there were people in the modern world that looked so much like Jesus and his disciples and why they believed in the apocalypse.
Towards the end, you find that the overall story was after all quite weak. Specially, the ending is really sub-par. In fact, if Jean Reno and his team hadn't done anything, the bad guys would have killed themselves anyway in the end. I wish the movie ending had been such that Jean Reno and his team somehow helped kill the bad guys or prevent the doom from happening, but unfortunately it was not so. -
petede19 August 2021Not quite as good as the first - there is no substitute for Vincent Cassell, which is part of the reason this isn't quite as good. Also, the story isn't as unique - that being said, I very much enjoyed this Dark Thriller.
Good fight scene like Vince's in the first. Good chase scenes. If you like films like Se7en (a popular one), I'd suggest you give these films a shot. -
lastliberal11 August 2007I have a thing for Jean Reno. Ever since I saw him in Godzilla, I have been searching for his films. This is the completion of Crimson Rivers, and it is great.
No, it won't win any awards, but it's enough to see Reno as Commissionar Niemans again, strongly supported by Benoît Magimel (The Piano Player, The Child of the Night), Camille Natta, and the ever evil Christopher Lee (Wicker Man, Lord of the Rings).
Lots of blood and a weird story based on end times and a book supposed written in God's hand. Heads roll, people are nailed, and monks fly through the sir. Fantasy? Oui. Reno est magnifique. C'est tout ce des sujets à moi. -
ariakos26 January 2005First Crimson Rivers was a great movie. A bit like French vision of David Fincher's Seven. This sequel, though, does not deliver as well. It lacks the depth, atmosphere and character development of the first Crimson Rivers. The plot in this sequel is quite silly: monks, apocalypse and Nazis... quite original. Not.
Christopher Lee was awesome, but in my opinion he would have deserved more screen time. Now his motivations and character personality were left way too vague. Jean Reno is always a pleasure to see on screen, but this time he gave a routine-like performance. I wonder if he realized this was to be a below-average suspense flick and nothing more? I bet he did. Benoit Magimel was a new face to me, and I think he did quite well. Although his character Reda was practically exactly same kind of young tough cop as Cassel's Kerkerian on the first Crimson Rivers.
This sequel offers nothing new or interesting compared to it's predecessor. It's still passable fun for a one time rent, though.