Part 1 was the best but part 2 failed big time now we got a sequel in name only but a worthy reboot in any sense. scot is great in those roles and u even get a love story in the mix which u love it as scot and that chick had a great chemistry. the fights were plenty and if u are in to films like "undisputed" franchise and "never back down" movies then this is for you especially if u love scot. scot is more known for his supporting roles in van damme and stallone films but he has a bunch solo decent films of his own like this one and the undisputed films and "close range" get also to see his latest gem "the accident man" which is one of his best.

I enjoyed the film, a lot more than i thought i would. BUT they could have done this film with no connection to the Green Street name. I would have respected it a lot more, but none the less it was a fun film. Worth a watch. It had good acting (i was surprised by this, i always expect a load of rubbish with these types of films) The story was solid and got me engaged in the story. I really wanted to see how it all panned out even though it was predictable it was still a good story. The choreography of the fights were good, not great but it still looked and felt like a fight even with all the spinney tricks that you would not expect in a film about British football hooligans were there main HQ is a pub, My rating would be a 6 because i know many films that are better that i have rated 8's and 9's but 6 seems low so for this i rate a 7. I think it has earned that extra star for surprising me after i went in to it expecting another rubbish money grab film.

The original Green St didn't need a sequel but we got one all the same and to be fair STAND YOUR GROUND was watchable down to the fact it was unintentionally funny . After all it's not every day you watch a film entirely filmed in an American prison trying to convince its audience that it's set in Britain . To be fair this follow is probably mindful of this hence we get constant establishing shots showing us we are indeed in a cold and cloudy London . This unfortunately is the only thing the film manages to achieve NEVER BACK DOWN is a cynical exercise in marketing a film as a sequel to another film it has absolutely no connection with . There's no reason what so ever for the words " Green " " Street " or 3 to prefix NEVER BACK DOWN and in reality could easily be a star vehicle for Jean Claude Van Damme since it revolves around martial arts rather than unsophisticated fists and boots The need to showcase martial arts is what the film concentrates on and as other people have pointed out explanation and exposition is sacrificed to show the protagonists fighting skill . From the outset we get a dialogue free sequence that ends with a couple of heavies getting a good slapping . We also get a long sequence of ramping , ie constant fast motion followed by slow motion most famously seen in 300 . In short it's a film of style over substance that won't appeal to anyone who is after a dramatic movie

This was even worse than Green Street 2 and that was pretty bad. I did however enjoy Scott Adkins in this movie. The man has some incredible skills. I did prefer him as Yuri Boyka (The most complete fighter in the world) and this was nowhere near that performance however a few nifty moves but him at-least a little watchable in the movie.The football is just a tiny background on this movie which was what Green Street was all about. You don't even see a player kick a ball and there's only one tiny scene with the GSE at a game. They should of left Green Street out of this movie and just made one of those low budget fighting movies we see every year.