TheLittleSongbird Am another person who didn't care at all for 'The Purge' from 2013. It wasn't completely unwatchable with a couple of reasonable performances and decent production values but was so tension and suspense-free and full of irritating characters, illogical character behaviours, a dull pace, a cheesy script and tired clichés.Had seen and heard numerous times people saying that 'The Purge: Anarchy' was a much better film. Will admit that due to disliking 'The Purge' so much, part of me was very unsure as to whether to watch 'The Purge: Anarchy' and very nearly didn't watch it. Seeing it, it was indeed a much better film. Decided too to see 'The Purge: Election Year' to see whether the series would continue to improve or whether it would wear thin. Having watched it, 'The Purge: Election Year' is far from great and has major flaws but it was not a bad watch, as far as 'The Purge' films go it is an easy second best, the best being 'Anarchy'.Visually, the slick and gritty look suits the film well and the effects and such are not as sloppy as before. It's ominously and not overbearingly scored and assured enough, while boasting enough, though with much room for more, fun, tension, eeriness and shocks. 'The Purge: Election Year' starts quite well and elaborates upon what happens before and approaches it from a different angle instead of being a re-hash.Frank Grillo is a fully committed lead, although his character was far better written in 'Anarchy'. Elizabeth Mitchell matches him with dignity and professionalism and their chemistry gives some urgency and heart. Mykelti Williamson is good fun. However, the story execution doesn't feel fresh, with tired clichés, very variable attempts at twists and too many parts that don't ring true and not always plausible. The character development is still wafer thin, with the villains being ciphers that are not threating and actually being pretty stupid and a few characters don't serve much point. None of the characters are quite as annoying as those in 'The Purge', but the questionable and illogical decision making and behaviours remain still. Dialogue continues to be rather weak, lacking tautness and being awkward and silly, complete with rather heavy-handed and over-emphasised political elements. Would have liked more tension and suspense, while they are here there is not enough of either, and tighter pacing would have helped, the middle act does drag.Overall, not much special but has its moments. 5/10 Bethany Cox

dlh-48964 Disappointed & way too political nothing like the first two purge movies.

anselmdaniel This review contains spoilersThe Purge: Election Year is directed by James DeMonaco and stars Frank Grillo and Elizabeth Mitchell. The movie is set after The Purge: Anarchy and Leo Barnes the Sargent is now the head of security for Senator Charlie Roan, played by Elizabeth Mitchell. The senator wishes to end the purge and seeks election as President of the United States. The political party that created the purge, the new Founding Fathers hires a mercenary group to kill the senator.The plot and the writing in this third movie is still not improved. Much of the problems are still here and not even hand waved by the universe. There are even more plot contrivances. One of these is a shop owner whose purge insurance is cancelled in order to elevate the tension. This is not the only event and the movie is filled with these plot devices.The movie is improved in some ways. The tone is not as serious as The Purge: Anarchy. Besides the plot devices, the violence is more organic here with the mercenary groups having a clear motive to hurt the main characters. More of the political system and society is explained this movie. The main cast of Frank Grillo and Elizabeth Mitchell are great here. The two leads have good chemistry. Even though the leads relation is basic, it does feel that the two characters care for one another. The villains seem more exaggerated in their silliness here. This lends to the less serious tone in the movie. The Purge: Election Year is recommended. It does better than its previous entry, but not greatly improve upon it. The action has more context on it now, and makes the movie better overall.This being the third movie in The Purge trilogy, the trilogy as a whole is inconsistent. The tone of the movies are wild with each one oscillating in its logic. The first movie sets up the world but its actually more elaborated in this movie. Overall the trilogy's concept is good, but the execution has been lackluster. The first movie is good for its simplicity. The second movie tried to expand on its setting but did not improve the writing. The third movie is a mix of the first two with a less serious tone.

kidmoe Like most Hollywood movies, The Purge: Hillary's Election Year makes no attempt to hide it's political leanings: Good "minorities", good White women, and a few token good White men vs the racist, horrible, racist, evil, racist, mean, racist White men.Towards the beginning of the movie, the idea of "murder tourists" (foreigners who travel to the U.S. to partake in the Purge) intrigued me. When introduced, the movie makes a point of showcasing murder tourists from South Africa. I didn't really think about it at the time, but later in the film, we find out why they were so specifically identified as South African (SPOILER ALERT!-its because they're bad, evil racism-fuled racists! Although when the South Africans are introduced early in the movie, they seem to have at least one Black man in their party)Other than the "murder tourists", the film follows standard issue Hollywood formula: Hillary is poised to defeat Donald and end the Purge, which her saintly minority followers all totally grok. Meanwhile, Donald's evil skinhead KKK Nazi followers don't want the Purge to end, so they haphazardly try to kill Hillary. They fail and Hillary is now in a position to overthrow evil Donald's regime. Or is she?!?!?