[Dante3]

The Washington Times gave it a poor review, called it “humdrum” and said “even those who devoured the first four films, this critic included, will wonder what precisely is happening at regular intervals.”

[discostu]

It’s got a 77% fresh on Rotten, which is admittedly the lowest of the series but still solid.

[null and void]

The Washington Times gave it a poor review, called it “humdrum” and said “even those who devoured the first four films, this critic included, will wonder what precisely is happening at regular intervals.”

It was a bit thin. I don't think I could have done a much better job of condensing it down to two hours of screenplay, though.