Take Down

Very interesting story although not all that original. Phoebe Tonkin is very good. This is somewhat of a suspense movie but on a low scale. Some might say that it's a bit predictable but it's a fun watch even so.

I wasn't sure what to expect from this movie and I don't usually post up reviews but having checked out its current score on IMDb I feel that this film has been really underrated. I think people expect every film unless it's Disney to have some life affirming moral tale or have to have some deep purpose but if you want to be entertained for an hour and a half, this is really worth a watch. The actors are fairly unknown but that makes the film more interesting for me as they're all very charismatic and watchable. The cinematography, the beautiful Scottish island setting and the soaring music readily take you through the story of these spoilt kids finding themselves at the hands of Ed Westwick's band of gun wielding baddies. It's not not a horror so don't expect to be hiding behind the sofa and don't expect it to change the world but it's an enjoyable film and a lovely surprise find. I'd recommend it to anyone.

Despite the contrived situation and "Survivors" production style, the story, the acting and the scenery keep things moving along ... until the last section when it all falls in a big heap, as if they ran out of time, money or inspiration.

Little and not-so-little inconsistencies in the plot accumulate steadily, gradually becoming more noticeable. I'm happy to suspend reality for a creative tale, well told, so long as whatever takes place is reasonably credible within the context of the story. Take things too far, though, and those inconsistencies become distracting. Reality reasserts itself and the moment is lost.

FWIW I suggest you stop watching when the FBI becomes involved and imagine your own conclusion.

Once again I am shocked at the low 5.3 average score for this movie.

I'm hoping once people read my review, they will rate this movie appropriately.

I gave this one a 9. Why? Because you can't compare apples to oranges. What I mean by that is a movie needs to be rated on the investment/production value as well as entertainment.

Let me explain; Let's take Barber Shop 2 as an example (that has a 5.9 average). It has how many top rated actors (how many DON'T you know?) as well as a 20 million budget (which went where exactly?). Yet it was boring, biased, stupid, NOT funny etc...

Now take this movie... I didn't recognize any actors, budget was clearly low as it wasn't even disclosed, yet the story line was great, acting was good, the scenery was amazing, and I was pleasantly entertained!

If a movie has a high budget with A-list actors and top directors/producers and is terrible, it deserves a low score.

But going into a movie that is a B type movie with no name actors (of which the acting was not bad at all) and is made well and is entertaining, it needs to be rated appropriately!

So hopefully everyone else who sees this enjoys it as much as I did and rates it accordingly.

In my experience when a movie changes its title - it is a sign of bad things to come. so approaching viewing this one, I had no high hopes. Being on the older side of many members here, I admit I didn't really recognize the actors by name - as I started to watch I did know a few. The story line is not new, SLIGHT SPOILER ALERT, when the location changes from the U.S. to where the majority of the movies takes place, it gets better. The setting is beautiful, the plot takes time to get to the 'action', but, it does, and it doesn't stink! I am an easy reviewer, I just like to be entertained, and having no great expectations, this was a very entertaining movie.