Take Down

I felt the film didn't know what it wanted to be. It's set up to be a heist film, but it spends the majority of the time detailing the experience of these billionaire kids out in the wild and their journey of enlightenment and becoming better people.

The film does a good job when it's focused on the kids, but then you're pulled out of the story with snippets of the group planning the heist and it feels disjointed. Suddenly, you remember it's a heist/ransom situation and that's almost disappointing. I could easily watch a film about this group of trust fund babies learning what it's like to be free and to want something more than their previous lives.

The dichotomy of the film is its weakness. The two parts would have been great as separate movies. However, it is still very much a watchable film.

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.

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.

It's good. Remebered watching this alone in the cinema sad it was not received well

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.