I like it.

I don’t have (thankfully!!!) first hand experience, but I always though (from articles, interviews of people that actually fought in wars etc.) that bullets do much more serious damage compared to what we see on screen, and I think most modern military assault rifles guns can mutilate with great ease if someone is shot in the arms or legs.

It seems that it was not in their intentions to deliver a “serious” Punisher film (like e.g. the “serious”, and pretentious, Dark Knight), so I think it’s not a case of a movie that fails to deliver what it sets out to do – this is the definition of a lame movie.

It’s a Bad Movie (with capitals in both words), yeah, but a lame movie, it’s not!

It seems like a corny homage to ’80s action movies with bucketloads of excessive and fairly unrealistic gore. Yeah, I know gunshot wounds are much uglier in real life compared with what we see in normal actionfests, but in Punisher :War Zone the gore-level seemed to be intentionally raised to ludicrous points – like a video game.

Combined with the weird Batman Fornever-like purple and green neon lights in the set design (the cathedral looked very comic-bookish) and the whole simplistic, comic book-like mentality (in the derogatory use of the word) as well as Ray Stevenson’s totally straight face no matter how ridiculous things happened, I think this is a “masterpiece” of modern 80’s homage.

I’d love to write something better, but with English being a second language and my limited time here… This movie is great entertainment, as long as you know what you’re in for, and you accept it for what it is and what it wants to be.

Well I knew that people would disagree with me on this one – maybe I was just in the right mood that day.

I’ve only seen the first Punisher once and it was many years ago, so I don’t remember it.

Vic

I guess most people that loved it never got a chance to watch the first Punisher movie-by Dolph Lundgren. Crucify me if you will but that still remains to me the best Punisher movie yet! Dolph was the best. This new fellow, no matter how stern he wanted to appear still looked comical: right from his ‘Rome’ days.

Let’s face it, there’s nothing quite unique about a vigilante, with a chip on his shoulder, toting a gun: we’ve seen that before right from the ol’ Westerns down to Rambo. No biggie. But the first Punisher had a unique character portrayal that distanced him from all others: he had a rather nonchalant, devoid-of-feelings, almost sedated disposition. This was visible from his interaction with others. There was a clear psychosis. This was sorely missed in the last two Punishers- who were very passionate and Ramboesque. I preferred the Thespian drunk character with his poetic humour (which sharply contrasted Castle’s lack of it) to Microchip.

Anybody who has watched both the first and last depictions would know that the latter borrowed heavily from the former. The introductory TV news report on an evasive mafia boss; the violent Punisher grand entrance; Castle’s request that FBI Agent Nick’s widow pull the trigger was analogous to the closing scenes in the first; there’s another bald ‘Louis Gossett Jr.’ in this movie; the final stand-off is also in a storey building.

Let’s face it: Golan Globus got it right the first time but for poor marketing. I still remember the opening and closing lines to that movie.’Come on, God. Answer me…where is justice?where is punishment?..Or have You already said to the world: here is justice, here is punishment.. here ..in me’.

This last movie focussed more on gore and profanity than a good script and memorable dialogue. I recommend Lundgren’s Punisher.

But seriously, in my opinion Jane was a HORRIBLE punisher. This movie was pretty bad in terms of directing and production but Ray Stevenson was right for the role, it’s just too bad he did it for such a poorly made film.

I want another one…