User reviews

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 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.

Writer could have done a little better. Good acting though, particularly by Milla, Pierce, and Dylan. Overall worthwhile.

Not Fair for 5.6 Ratings, Had its Edge of Seat Movements even though it had some Flaws, But Would Definitely Recommend it to Everyone who Love's Spy & Homeland kind of Action Thrillers. Please Don't have a Second Thought of watching this one, it's Worth Your Time & Data.

This thriller is centred on Kate Abbott, a member of the Diplomatic Security Service, who has recently been posted to the US Embassy in London. Here it is her job to oversee visa applications for those wishing to visit the United States. One day she decides that a doctor hoping to attend a conference in New York warrants further attention... she doesn't know it at the time but he is a vital part of a terrorist plot. Others involved, notably an assassin known as 'The Watchmaker' decide to eliminate her. The bomb used in the murder attempt kills many of her colleagues but she survives. Unfortunately for her she is soon the chief suspect. Kate must now avoid the authorities and the killers if she is to get to the bottom of the plot and prevent the terrorist attack. She will have very few allies.

I thought this was a pretty solid thriller. The central idea of a protagonist trying to stop a crime while on the run from the villains and the authorities is hardly new but it is effective. Little time is wasted before the main action starts and once it does things remain tense till the finale. The action is nicely varied with chases, shooting, fights and explosions. Milla Jovovich is great as Kate and Pierce Brosnan is suitably menacing as The Watchmaker, without tipping into pantomime villain territory. The rest of the cast, which includes many familiar faces, is pretty good too. The film makes good use of London locations without finding a need to show the usual tourist sights. Overall I thought this was a good little thriller; it may not be a must see but it is well worth watching if you enjoy the genre.

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.

I was expecting too low from this movie because it's ratings and reviews weren't colorful. But I developed a different perception after watching the movie. It's worth the time at-least.

I dislike how countries like Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan and other Islamic countries are portrayed in cinemas. Can't Americans, Europeans Mongols or Aryans be terrorist? Big head movie makers- knowingly- unknowingly- around the globe are promoting that Islam oriented citizens are dangerous. I don't understand, are we trying to shape a culture here?

This is not just about this movie, instead, I hate it every time when one offends or accuses the other no matter in what direction it flows.

If I keep aside those feeling, I will have to state that I liked all other aspects of this movie. But maybe bonding a little more between the viewer and Abbott (Milla Jovovich) would have had made the movie even better.

It's difficult to put time into writing a review of a movie that the writer/ director didn't put time into doing basic research. My first hint that this would be incredulous was the very first scene which was a pre-dawn raid in Afghanistan at '05.02 UTC'. Well, that's actually 9:32 Afghan time and the sun has long been up. The next scene took place sometime in the morning in London and gave the 'GMT' timezone. Hmmm.. GMT and UTC are the same thing for practical purposes. OK, enough about timezones... However, the rest of the movie was full of the same type of nonsense - it would have been enjoyable if the writer/ director had at least some sort of clue about government protocols and procedures (I'm no expert, but I at least have a clue): Visa clerks are relatively low-level employees that don't warrant expert international terrorists to try to kill them because they denied a visa to someone. Senior embassy staff don't give the OK to host countries to kill their staff because of shallow and questionable evidence. Host nationals cannot demand that a US embassy gives a visa to anyone. Ah... enough already. I didn't finish the movie it was so bad.

"Survivor" is a classic "wrong man" movie – a wrongly-accused hero, generally being chased and/or shot at for most of the movie – Hitchcock made a number of them.

This particular genre of suspenser is hard to bring off successfully, as it requires the actor, director and writer(s) to develop a central character with whom ALL audience members will empathise, regardless of their individual personalities – and sexes.

In the case of "Survivor" the sex is female; Milla Jovovich. Although many release posters suggest the psychotic hit-man who spends most of the film chasing and shooting at her – Pierce Brosnan – is actually the central character. I wonder why – NOT.

But apart from a minor editing screwup in the final dénouement (which I cannot describe, as it will constitute a "spoiler") this was the only cloud over a hugely entertaining film.

Although if you read the critiques – both professional and amateur – of this piece, you could be forgiven for thinking it a major turkey. Which it certainly is not. Perhaps a diet of comic-book movies has softened the brains of said critics.

However, I must mention a CURIOUS thing about this film – its GROSS.

After more than half-an-hour of exhaustive research on the Interweb, I could NOT find the movie's "domestic" (American) or most of the Rest Of The World's BOX-OFFICE (half of which ends up as the net).

All I know is that despite most of the film being shot in London (by whom gawdnose – the film's credits gloss OVER those details) with exteriors in New York and interiors in Bulgaria, the budget was surprisingly small for such a production – just 20 million USD.

And that it took half a mill in China, a few grand elsewhere and a couple of mill from DVDs, TV and so on. In fact, I myself saw it on HBO, screened just six months after its theatrical release.

But of its all-important US and UK gross, I could find ZIP (and believe me, I tried). Those figures are being kept as secret as the formula for Coke.

The only clue came from Wiki, who said the movie had been released in both markets – but in The States, only as a LIMITED release. HOW limited? Five hundred screens? Just FIVE? We do not know.

Furthermore, after the critical mauling it received, it appears to have had NO backing from its distributors.

Which is sad, because an INVOLVING film like "Survivor" is RARE these days, in a business now geared primarily for mindless CGI blockbusters for KIDS.

Also sad is the fact that Welsh actor Roger Rees made this film while suffering from brain cancer – he died shortly after.

I am only glad that I discovered all of the above AFTER I had watched this EXCELLENT film. Catch it if you can.

The beginning of Survivior is very good. I was excited, and caught myself thinking this is gonna be one of the really good ones.. Unfortunately, it sloped downwards a little bit after a while and towards the end. Not that it was bad at the end, but it didn't keep me that entertained through-out the whole thing.

Not that it is bad in any way, really, it is pretty exciting, but for some reason the second half is just a little less entertaining than the beginning. Real shame. This could have been an 8, maybe even a 9!

Milla Jovovich is pretty good, although she does this weird thing with her mouth at times, which I can't remember her doing before. Maybe it is just more noticeable now that she is a bit older. (my eyes are drawn to peoples mouths, so that's why I see stuff like that) Anyway, she did a pretty good job. Same with Pierce Brosnan, he was convincing. A little unlikable, actually, but I think he was supposed to be.

The action is pretty good, it's not excellent, but good enough. There are some minor plot holes, er things that don't quite add up, didn't bother me though.

There are a couple of explosions, and one of them was kind of unpleasant to watch. Not that it was graphic, but it just made an impact on me. The scene really got through the raw power of an explosion. I like stuff like that, stuff that stick with you. I have seen hundreds of explosions in movies, and very seldom do they stick with me.

Survivior is a pretty solid, entertaining thriller, keeps you entertained for the most part. Also I like seeing a woman in a part like this, because we have seen it with men just about a squadrillion times.

Well, this film might give you a glance of it. We've seen Milla playing on action films like the Resident Evil saga, and how to forget Pierce Brosnan from Bond movies like GoldenEye and Die Another Day. So when it comes to choosing the cast, these guys nailed it. So all along the film, as most action movies, you may expect some chasing scenes, fights, explosions, and cops. Now you might think, "ok, so what could possibly go wrong?" no? The Story!

Don't take me wrong, the story is not bad at all, as a manner of fact I did like it. I loved watching Milla running through the streets and becoming stronger, and what could you possibly ask to Pierce? Elegance, power, class, a ridiculously good profile? Well he has it all. But there's nothing you haven't seen before, and that was the problem, nothing you haven't seen before. Come on guys, we've seen hundredths of films like this before, good locations, effects, actors, but if someone wants to make a film to remember, he must blew our minds off the earth, and this film didn't make outside the atmosphere.

So if you wan't to spend the night watching a good action film to pass the time, this might be the best option in the market at the moment. But in my personal opinion, do not expect something superb.

After reading some of the negative reviews i felt that this particular movie deserves a more positive rating. Although some events depicted here are a bit over the top but isnt that what these movies are about? This isnt supposed to be real life otherwise it would be as boring as bat shi!t. This particular viewer was entertained and at the end of the day thats all i ask when watching a film such as this. I rate this movie for what it is. The story is easy to follow, has some good action scenes and doesnt go to far overboard with the plot twists like some other movies.

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.

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.

In the intro, two US chopper pilots are taken captive in Afghanistan. Presumably both are burned alive.

Kate is a star in the intelligence community. She ends up getting a post at the American embassy in London. Because there was some event at an airport involving a scientist, she wants all visa-applicants who have a science background to be flagged. That day, one such scientist shows up for a visa. She wants to check his background further. Another agent, Bill, who runs that section at the embassy is willing to give this guy the visa. Sure enough, the scientist is up to no good. He meets with a bad guy and tells him about Kate. The bad guy offers to take care of her. There's a trouble at the embassy because the scientist also has connections at the English government and they talk to the US ambassador. But Kate sticks to her guns.

Next day, when the embassy staff goes to a restaurant a bomb explodes killing all of them. Luckily Kate went to buy a gift across the street and survives. When she stumbles onto the scene she runs into another bad guy, the one who build the bomb. He is ready to kill her, but she manages to escape. The British authorities are now also after her, thinking she's responsible--diplomatic immunity be damned. But so is Sam, her mentor, who is looking to help her. She goes to a safe extraction zone and runs into Bill who is ready to kill her but in the scuffle he ends up dead. Now the bombmaker, Sam, and the Brits are after her.

We learn more about the plans of the bombmaker and the scientist which will involve an operation in New York. So not only does Kate have to escape from all the bad guys, she has to stop this terrorist attack at the same time. She works with a friend inside the embassy and manages to make it to New York in time for New Year's when the bad guys plan to carry out their attack. And eventually we do learn what the intro has to do with anything.

Survivor has a great cast and a good story even though it's not entirely believable. It's fast-paced and has plenty of action. The poor score and negative reviews here make no sense. As mentioned, things are less than believable, but so what? It's not a documentary and the purpose is to advance an exciting story. There's a bit of political intrigue which is always interesting and provocative. What if a bad guy who knows someone who knows someone in high places had some bad intentions? Could the entire system designed to cater to the rich, powerful, and famous, the VIPs, allow for something like this to happen?

Similar to another recent action film "Everly", Survivor gets by thanks to an utterly convincing, magnetic and devoted performance from lead star Milla Jovovich, I'm a big fan of hers and it's great to see her take on an action role. That being said, there isn't an awful lot of action or thrills. The first explosion in the restaurant is actually well shot, intense and very dramatic. Jovovich' character Kate runs around London fleeing a hit-man played by a charismatic Pierce Brosnan. There are a few well staged yet short-lived shootouts, but nothing to get your heart racing.

The real issue with Survivor is the hammy and sometimes unusual dialogue, as well as a rather bland story that focuses on betrayal and the ripples of 9/11. I was in it for performances and the impressive all-star cast who do what they can. 5 stars go towards Milla Jovovich, the other star goes towards the film being able to hold my attention despite it being a rather generic action vehicle, so I award a 6/10 rating.

Don't understand the reviews on here. I put off watching this one for ages because of them. I'm a huge fan of the wrongly accused/ spy/ revenge/ vigilante genre so I was happy to watch. Milla is a dream of an actress and the rest of the cast are good too. What's not to like? It was stylish, well acted with some good action scenes. A bit of romance would have made it even better for me but it was kind of hinted at with her coworker. Pierce Brosnan made a good villain. An enjoyable movie to sit and watch. Not every movie of this ilk is going to break the mould like the Bourne franchise or The Fugitive (two of my favs). But this is a wrongly accused exemplary government agent narrative, that works for a reason. It was enjoyable IMHO.