12 Rounds 3: Lockdown (2015) Reviews

• A pretty cliché action movie that really is worth watching only if you are a huge fan of Dean Ambrose.

  cosmo_tiger2015-12-12

  "He's dirty and I got the evidence." After returning to the force after a gunshot wound, officer Shaw (Ambrose) thinks he's in for a easy day back. When he discovers his former partner is involved in illegal activity he wants to do something about it. After the building is locked down It is up to him to stop them and keep the evidence safe. There really isn't too much to say about this one. The first two movies in this series were actually not too bad. A cop forced to go through a series of tests in order to save the ones he loves. The only thing this had in common with the others is the title and a wrestler is the main star. This is pretty much a generic action movie that did everything it could to be Assault on Precinct 16 but fell way short. Overall, a pretty cliché action movie that really is worth watching only if you are a huge fan of Dean Ambrose. This one strayed too far from what made the others interesting to watch. I give this a C.

  More

• Decent action sequences, but abysmally weak script

  ginocox-206-3369682015-12-16

  "12 Rounds 3: Lockdown" deserved a much better script. As a mindless action flick, it's not a bad way to spend ninety minutes. Production values are adequate and there are some decent action sequences. The unarmed combat scenes are much better than the gunfights. The somewhat gratuitous car scenes seem more like product placements than part of the script. The script makes no sense at all. Why would a police department even have a lockdown mode that prevents fire doors from opening from the inside? Why would the villains think they could hunt down and murder an officer when every corner of the building is monitored by security cameras? The villains operate as if there is no forensic evidence of anything, even the caliber of weapons. The script tries to give Shaw (Ambrose) a backstory and inner conflict with an incident that resulted in a partner's death and required an extended leave for psychiatric care. Several characters refer to the incident; however, there is never any resolution. We expect to find out that either it wasn't really his fault due to circumstances he didn't understand, as in "Mission Impossible – Ghost Protocol" or to learn that some character fault or error in judgment did result in the death and that he can overcome a similar dilemma only if he has learned from the experience. But it is never developed and his experience doesn't seem to infuse his actions. Shaw also has history with the villain, but neither seems to use any unique understanding of the other to any advantage. "12 Rounds" and "12 Rounds 2: Reloaded" have been compared to "Die Hard with a Vengeance," while "12 Rounds 3: Lockdown" has been compared to the original "Die Hard." However, where the first two 12 Rounds films had clever scripts that compared favorably with the second Die Hard, the third pales compared to the original "Die Hard." Long segments without dialogue require actors of the caliber of Bruce Willis ("Die Hard"), Robert Redford ("All is Lost") and Tom Hanks ("Castaway"). Dean Ambrose can be effective when given the material. An early scene at a stoplight is effective without dialogue. Unfortunately, he's not given much to work with. Shaw frequently ejects his magazine to count the number of bullets remaining, but never adds in one for the bullet in the chamber. The villains are able to get into the armory and equip themselves with assault rifles and bulletproof vests, but Shaw can't manage to pick up one of the weapons dropped during a fight. There is no character development and no moral. Shaw has inner demons, but seems to ignore them. He is wounded, but ignores the wounds. He has an opportunity to team up with another cop, but doesn't. The script is a largely predictable mishmash of familiar tropes. The level of gunplay is over the top. There is no way the villains could hope to argue that their use of force was justified by the circumstances or that the top brass would allow them to continue shooting up the department with wild abandon. And yet, the tone is very serious and down to earth, unlike such films as "Shoot 'Em Up" or "Smokin' Aces," which have a comic book sense of reality. While the film never really engages the viewer, neither does it bore. While the plot seems ridiculous and implausible, if one can disengage ones mental faculties, it offers some entertaining action sequences.

  More

• Engaging and interesting!

  jerandjaz2015-12-27

  One never knows what to expect from a WWE film, but they certainly seem to be moving in the right direction, and this effort is no exception. The casting was excellent, and the film is well-written and admirably played out by the stars, with enough action, intrigue and realism to keep you engaged. Roger Cross was very good, as usual, and Dean Ambrose was excellent and extremely likable as the protagonist. (Although I must confess I secretly hoped to see him pull out 'dirty deeds' during a hand-to-hand combat scene :) But as one would hope, the film showcases another side of Ambrose we don't usually see, which speaks to his versatility as an actor. I hope to see him again in future films!

  More

• Yet another Die Hard clone, but that's OK!

  kobold-232015-09-11

  Think about every possible cliché: Corrupt cops, the good guy that comes back to work, the good guy that gets framed, the good guy that has to clear up his name, the bad guys who miss the good guy even if he's way too close. This time the movie even tries to surprise you with a twist, which was also predictable. Overall, it was OK. It's short and it doesn't waste time with characters that don't belong to the movie. It's basically one hero against a group of bad guys. One of them is Colossus from X-Men movies. The camera work is annoying during the shootouts. The bodycount is not high, but it's quite fine on its own. Nothing new. You can enjoy it if you don't have anything else to do.

  More

• Good Action, bad scenario

  zecurox2015-09-20

  There are so many sins in this movie. I will not comment on the action scene because it's good enough. Not the best, but pretty good. The main problem is the scenario/script of the movie is sucks so much. 1) why the main character not send the proof to the internet at the first place? This is 2015, everybody has internet. At least copy it to your desktop so you have a backup. 2) if I were him, I'm at least show the evidence to my friends or at least I'm gonna scream and gathered everyone on my computer to see the evidence together. 3) when the main character manage to get to the roof and get his gun to the main villain, why he not at least shoot his leg or arms??? its stupid! 4) why the main character must use only one gun??? he killed the villain and their guns is falling everywhere... WHY HE DIDN'T TAKE THEIR GUNS??? I'm really confuse... 5) why the main villain hesitate so much to killing him??? he destroyed the flash drive so why he need him alive??? and when he chasing him, he shoot and tell everybody to kill him. But when he got the chance to kill him, he didn't! why?? 6) at the end, the main character recorded the voice of the main villain to make a proof. BUT THAT IS NOT A PROOF! He didn't even mention about "drugs" or anything. He just said about "THIS IS MY SHOW" and some stupid words. I can give more question. but I think you get my point. This movie is sucks. I'm not talking about the actor or the action. I'm talking about the script.

  More