Reviews

Robert Redford's latest film has nothing original to offer as far as the story goes. Group members of a radical organization from the 70s, living a life with new identities for the last 30 years, have to face their past crimes when one of its members surrenders to the authorities. It focuses on Robert Redford's character, Jim Grant, a single father with a 12 year old daughter who makes a run for it to clear his name from an alleged bank heist and subsequent murder, and avoid getting caught at the same time.

With some characters being introduced too late in the story, it is hard to care or give a damn about the situation in general. As far as the story goes, things just fall into place too easily without any interesting obstacles. The main character being on the run or even the reporter's investigation for that matter is just too convenient.

I would have personally liked to see more of Susan Sarandon's character, her back story, what drives her to surrender to the authorities after 30 years and why. Her character is the main catalyst that sets the events in motion but without knowing or understanding her relation to the main character (besides the bank heist) and what's really at stake, it just seems pointless.

125 minutes was too long for this movie especially considering it was just a waste of time. By the end of it, I frankly just didn't care.

A bit confused with this one. I don't know whether to love it or hate it. It does fall somewhere in between, I am sure.

Ironically funny at times, it reminded me of the little gem from a few years back, 'In Bruges'. Just some of the black humor basically.

Apart from that, this movie had a bit of an identity problem with not being clear on its main plot. Although, it started off well, it kind of diverted midway losing its main focus. At the end of the movie, you finally understand what point the filmmaker was trying to make and technically has failed to convey so far since he resorts to blatantly voice it through one of the characters.

Not my favorite by any length but not that I hated it either. Just confused!

Without the aliens, of course. I guess I don't need to explain why I think the movie is similar to The Day After tomorrow (Hell, its even by the same director). But, why War of the Worlds? The whole concept of a family trying to escape the doom and destruction and get aboard a ship that will save humanity. Sound Familiar?

Overall, the movie is laden with a lot of visual effects. Too many I think but overall not bad. Now, if you consider the physics of it, that's a whole other story. I don't think even half of those spectacular shots that are shown would happen that way in reality.

Story wise, I felt it was too weak. I just couldn't feel for the characters or anyone for that matter. I mean c'mon, humanity was about to end and I couldn't sympathize with any humans. Its mainly because the movie just didn't give enough time to develop any characters. Most of the movie is just special effects. But, there is also another reason why I couldn't sympathize. And that is due to the inherent story itself where all these important people and the protagonist's family are trying to get to this ship while millions of people out there die. They only start showing some sympathy towards the end, and that too, to those people who were chosen to be on the ship but for some reason couldn't. What about the millions who died and who were never even given a chance to save themselves?

And the end...Oh the water's receding, the tsunamis weren't as bad as we thought, Africa seems to have risen. How convenient! Just living on their arcs, sailing away around the earth hoping for things to get better would have been a realistic ending for this movie. But, then again, how realistic was the movie anyway!