Big Game

Well... When the screenwriter set the action in some particular country, IMHO, he has to get general ideas about the location he is describing... Isn't he/she? I understand that 95% of the American public has no idea where Finland is and how does it look... but... Probably, the rest 5% knows that Finish landscape is pretty flat and mostly consists of lakes and swamps

So Samuel L. Jackson is the President of the United States and is shot down in Finland where the men and real men and the 13 year old boys are out in the wilderness trying to prove that they are real men.

The President of the US of A is just a foil for this Finnish story about Oskari who, on turning 13 must go out into the wilderness to bring back some game. His grandfather killed a bear at the same age, but maybe Oskari is not up to the task?

But then the President of the US of A turns up while being hunted by terrorists and Oskari is there to prove that being strong is not about muscles but about willpower.

So finally we get a story where the US is not all powerful, but seriously doesn't Finland have an air force that could scrambled to search the area? When the US armed services get permission to operate on Finish territory and why wasn't any killed by being hit by a Nokia?

So the verdict. Every stupid moment in this film is brilliant, and most brilliant moments are also at least a little stupid. It works and is worth watching.

What the movie is about is that if you go into the forest it will give you a gift that is meant to both test and reward you.

Looking at the other reviews, there seems to be a miscommunication about what type of film this is.

So this reviewer will be crystal clear: from the moment film first went into the camera, this project was intended a family/kids film destined to appear on cable channels all over the world either on a Saturday matinée or in the after-dinner hours.

Aside from Sam Jackson (whom I have been calling in my reviews since the 1990s "the most overexposed actor in film history") everyone else is second tier B movie material.

This is not die-hard "puberty edition." This is about fathers and sons and everything else is secondary to that.

So, now that we are crystal, it is really not bad. The effects are good, the bad guys are convincing, and even the action scenes work well.

Above average kids flick.

I saw this movie with my wife, she was jiggling all the time,i had 2 dusins of good laughs, even though there are so many actual fact flaws on geography and politics. the plot is fine and the acting ok but most of all its damned good fun and impecable special effects and explotions,so dont hesitate watching this,its childish but great entertainment even for an old grumpy guy as me.

I can't understand all the haters out there hating on this one. It brings the cinema back to life the way other gratuitous movies like Armageddon, Goonies and The Rock did. It's a mix of Spielberg and Roland Emmerich. It's big, it's fun, adventurous and endearing, total adventure escapism, the way good movies should be. The cinematography is beyond astounding, and 1/2 the acting is really good. But, 1/2 the acting is really, really bad unfortunately, especially Samuel Jackson and his entourage. I kind of feel bad for Samuel Jackson in a way. It's only been recently that I haven't wished for or expected him to say some pulp fiction gangster lines in every scene. Somehow he looks depressed in this movie. Maybe because he can't say some bad-ass gangster lines? I would kill to see a pulp fiction spin off of his character, maybe roaming the world like Cain from Kung-Fu and, like the A-Team, doing good things and saving people. Or, glorious abandon, his pulp fiction character meeting up with the A-Team? Only in my dreams.