सरवाईवर

It is certainly not as bad as the ratings and majority of the reviews suggest. Yes, there are lots of plot holes to find, but I believe a movie should be judged by its entertainment quotient rather than its bullet-proof plot. This one keeps you interested. Brosnan, I felt, was pretty sharp in his role as the assassin and Mila does what she does best, run for cover and retaliate. As I always keep stating, a movie is half as good as its climax, this one though left much to be desired on that front, pretty low key to say the least. I go with a 6/10 for this one.

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.

I am pretty sure that if you have seen your share of thrillers, you will have a great feeling of deja vu while watching "Survivor". The same basic plot has been done many times before. To be fair, there are a few fresh touches, like the fact that the heroine of the movie is not a superwoman, just very smart. And Milla Jovovich does do pretty well in this role. And for what was just reportedly just a $20 million budget, the movie generally looks pretty good. Anyway, I wouldn't have minded that fairly predictable script had the main problem I had with the movie not existed, and that problem is that the movie isn't very exciting or tense enough. There's almost a matter-of-fact feeling throughout. We don't sense that the heroine is in real danger or that something very bad is brewing that could bring a major disaster. Maybe had the budget been higher, the production could have not only put in a few more action sequences, but made them more elaborate, which might have gotten the blood really pumping. This movie really isn't bad, but it's without much needed bite. By the way, fans of Angela Bassett and/or Robert Forster should be warned that they are given precious little to do.

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.

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.