bfrost-8

Having read the reviews, and agreeing with most of them, I'm a little surprised the film scores so highly. Surely it rates mid-range obscurity at best? The comments about unnecessary/unresolved sub-plots, completely unrealistic event turns, and lack of character depth are all absolutely spot on, as is the 'Ronseal' analogy. But the weak, predictable and incredibly rapid ending left us quite empty. It was more suited to an American TV series where an advert break happens just before 'Columbo gets his man'. There were also some terrible continuity gaffs, especially relating to time of day and weather (look especially before, during and at the end of the hotel to trains chase). Come on British cinema, you can do better than this!

There are enough reviews on here already, many of which rightly say this is a (a)(mostly) well made film with (b)(mostly) good acting, but suffers from a (c)(mostly) weak plot, has (d)(mostly) unnecessary digital imagery, (e)(mostly) questionable motives (f)(mostly) confused message. The film (g)(mostly)passes the time, but (h)(mostly) we have better things to do. There are many films that address this sort of thing in a much better way, even Jumper tackles the 'what if' better than this. Immediately after seeing the film I did wonder if the usual alternative endings were tested and this was chosen because it was upbeat, despite ultimately being wholly unbelievable. The problem is, just because the main character does what he does, the drug is still available to others, perhaps especially the character played by Bobby De Nero, who would be making sure those working for him used it. This would give them the edge to bring down the main character.