Survivor

I was really looking forward to this film, Director James McTeigue had made me an instant fan with "V for Vendetta".

Pierce Brosnan did an admirable job with the material that he was given, evoking the same ice cold villain persona that he had perfected in such films as "The Fourth Protocol" and "Don't Talk to Strangers".

Milla Jovovich is a decent actress but much of her role involves reacting to situations with close ups of shock/surprise. It was not a good fit.

Supporting actors including Robert Forster and Angela Basset round out the impressive cast but they are largely wasted.

I see 2 main issues with this film:

1) The storyline is very clichéd, especially the predictable 3rd act and much of the dialogue is very stilted. 2) The CGI in many parts is sub par and takes you out of your suspension of disbelief.

Having said all this, I still found it to be a competent thriller worth watching with these caveats.

boring from start to finish...........acting as good as statutes and scenes as clear and interesting as mud. This movie is an exemplar of how little imagination throws together actors ending their careers in ignominy. If you can accept and connect the beginning to the plodding plot points that follow perhaps this is the movie for poor you.

ridiculous plot points arrive one after the other (I do not say one follows the other).

The writer is identified as Philip Shelby. My bet is this is a made up name. no one involved in something as uncreative as this would allow his name on the

Watch out of the director, James McTeigue. I looked him up and found him only directing stinkers since V for Vendetta.

I rated it as high as "2" for a few nicely photographed scenes of New York City on new years eve.

It's a good thriller movie. I didn't understand the negative responses, nor the logics about the scenes many are writing. This is a movie, well, I prefer everyone to watch and judge by themselves. My verdict: I liked this film, it's one time to watch, good movie. Milla Jovovich action is always good to watch, and Pierce Brosnan can never be disappointing with his roles. This is the work of a nice script and direction. Although the film could be better in many ways if we put intense logics in every scene and action. But who cares, for a normal average viewer (i.e. not the critics or someone who looks for the flaws in any movie), this movie will be a good time pass.

Granted this movie may not be anything special and it does not deserve a great rate, but there are a lot of hater answers here which are anything but fair.

The movie is more than watchable. It's an action movie, with not that many twists, (and very few of them unexpected, if any) but has a reasonably good plot, great acting, ok special effects,...

Those rating this movie below 5 don't really know what a bad movie is. This is not. Many of the flaws some reviewers point out are actually no flaws at all.

I have to say that I feel that the reviews of this film have been a bit harsh. I've seen many movies that I've enjoyed a whole lot more and I've also seen many others that I've enjoyed a whole lot less. Perhaps our anticipation plays a big part in our assessment of a movie? Survivor has a simple plot and if taken as a simple action movie then it's an acceptable, if easily forgettable, piece of cinematic entertainment.

If you go to see this movie on the basis of its trailer or the 'starry' cast and expect a solid well-planned action movie you will be very disappointed: the scriptwriting and direction are not sub-par, they are downright abysmal and the plot can only aspire to be abysmal but I've enjoyed a lot of 'B' movies over the decades that suffered from the same issues.

Bottom Line? The movie should have been sold as a medium burger with a bit of dressing and not a six or eight course meal. Accept is as such and I don't think you'll come away feeling cheated.