After seeing this i can define why the second movie is better than the third. The second film is lean, and it's better paced with the longer runtime. It's all content, such as it is, and no dilution. This one starts to meander after the mid-point. This is not an oscar-bait serious drama. It's better to do something, it's better to do anything, than to hold your shots, to linger on a token "emotion", and to show things not happening.
In the second film Lundgren, Munro and several other actors and their characters are good enough. Here, there is no one of interest between the actors and the characters.
In the second story Lundgren was isekaed because he is Statham's son. The whole weak story with all its flaws flowed. In the third story some random dork got a drunken tattoo designed by his drunken wife, which came in contact with a child's tsatske and isekaed him into ancient fantasy bulgaria where everyone speaks english. The whole story has no meaning and just happens, poorly.
This is still better than the high-budget first film, but it's kinda boring to watch past the mid-point.
In the second film Lundgren, Munro and several other actors and their characters are good enough. Here, there is no one of interest between the actors and the characters.
In the second story Lundgren was isekaed because he is Statham's son. The whole weak story with all its flaws flowed. In the third story some random dork got a drunken tattoo designed by his drunken wife, which came in contact with a child's tsatske and isekaed him into ancient fantasy bulgaria where everyone speaks english. The whole story has no meaning and just happens, poorly.
This is still better than the high-budget first film, but it's kinda boring to watch past the mid-point.