Ransom Games

Although, I enjoyed Take Down for what it presents itself, without having too much expectation, I do believe that when you invest a budget of over 11 million USD in a movie, it needs to have a smooth script and storyline first, then you have the means to put the acting on top of that.

The matter and fact are not new to me and failure to do so, I saw in countless movies and series, leading to minor to big disasters in respect to the budget invested and the efforts put in.

As some reviewers correctly hinted, the movie feels like 2 to 3 movie parts put together.

First, you have the young actors and their issues - acceptable development for some, but no background and their overall stories feel disjointed. Aside from some, the others didn't feel spoiled (a mistake). Also, the drama factor between all of them was low. Should have shown that in more problematic ways. No depth shown.

Second, you have the parents or basically some of them. Again, aside from basically two (not enough), viewers don't get to know about the others. They are shown together, that's it, they say that a specific place has no electricity but then miraculously stuff happen to be there, working and set up. No depth shown in that section too.

Third, You have the hostage takers. Seriously!, their number IMO wasn't enough in the first place, let alone with some (unbelievable) casualties. Basically what happened down there, most of that was because of their low numbers. Their subsequent plans and going after the kids as they did in the movie, wasn't well thought out too leading to how it all ended. Let alone their carelessness.

So, why I rated it the way I did? That's because of its cinematography, scenery, some good acting and entertainment value.

What the writers and producers failed to understand is what you want to do with your movie in the first place, if there is the slightest feel that the story, expenditures and budget do not match, there are potentially big plot holes and the whole picture will probably be seen as weak, disjointed or lacking solid logic throughout, then it's a mistake to even begin with. Not film it and then hope for the best.

Look what happened, the movie was not bad and above average, but because of the mentioned and some other things that more experienced persons will see, it failed miserably at the theaters and almost no one felt like promoting it.

Cutting my tales short, I just would like to recommend this movie to pass a nice time, watch some beautiful scenery and have the story unfold before your eyes, without having too much expectation, while at the same enjoying some good and fierce acting, among others, Phoebe Tonkin's one.

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.

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.

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.