Very disappointing...

That was an excellent one.

People are voting emotionally.

All of these films share one commonality, that being a kind of emotional center that humanizes a cast of monsters.

With the previous two "Bad Ass" movies watched, then of course this one had to be watched as well.The story in "Bad Asses on the Bayou" was adequately entertaining, but it just felt that they should have stopped making these movies after the first one, because parts two and three don't have the same level of energy as the first movie."Bad Asses on the Bayou" was troubled by an overly predictable storyline.Danny Glover is definitely getting too old for these kind of movies. Danny Trejo carried the movie quite well, and he did make the movie bearable to watch.If you enjoy action movies, then "Bad Asses on the Bayou" is hardly the first of choices to go to. It was an adequate movie for what it turned out to a; a mediocre action movie.

I was not aware there were three of these movies so I watched this one first. I laughed at how insane and unbelievable the action and acting was. Then I went and watched Bad Ass. Now I really hate this second sequel.Danny Glover is way past his action days as Roger Murtaugh. The fight scenes are painful to watch as neither Danny Trejo or Glover are in any physical condition to pull off these stunts. The bank fight scene is a prime example. They are so slow in their movements, I could have taken a pee break in the time it took Glover to throw a punch. The plot is silly and I knew the twist almost immediately because it was so poorly disguised. Having now seen Bad Ass and how great it was and how perfect Trejo was for the character, it disappoints me so much that they tried to turn this into some kind of Lethal Weapon for geriatrics. Maybe they should have called it Geritol Weapon. I can't believe the same director did all three.Skip the sequels and just watch Bad Ass. Its so much superior to this movie. They really screwed the pooch on this one.

Hardly a surprise, this is an action comedy with a silly story, full of clichés and stereotypical characters. Given that, it can be a somewhat entertaining way of passing time. It doesn't aspire to do more and nothing more should be expected. There is really no surprises, it is too predictable and go too far in a few jokes so that they become less fun. 3/10

I thank Craig for demonstrating what precisely is bad actors' direction. Most bad movies are combining bad actors, bad directors and a low budget. In this one, most of these actors have been good actors at least a couple of times. The budget is probably not bad with most scenes outdoor and a plane crash. So, to explain these awkward silences between dialogs and this feeling of kids playing the actors, I only see one cause: bad direction. After this painful experience of 85 minutes, I conclude that badly directed actors are definitely looking like bad actors. So I'd like to express my sincere apologies to all actors I've disparaged in the past: maybe they were good actors under bad direction.