The special effects don't really seem very special when you consider all the truly great SciFi films of recent years.
Jeremy Renner was absolutely wasted in a role that is so underwritten as to be nonexistent.
And plot holes!!! Oh My God!!! There are so many things that make absolutely no sense...and other things that are basically insulting to any thinking human being. Again these have been detailed in many other reviews and I will not repeat them.
Cons: Story ripped off from Man in the Wilderness. No plot other than a man crawling through the snow for 2 hours. Unbelievable action (floating down an icy cold river in winter without freezing or hypothermia setting in). Starting fires without an effort in winter with everything wet or covered with snow. No plot other than a man crawling through the snow for 2 hours (did I already mention that?). CGI bear. Boring, anti-climatic predictable ending (not worth the wait). No emotional connection with the main character because there is no character development. Lots and lots of snow. Sophomoric dialogue. Cartoonish characters. Lots and lots of snow.
To sum up in one word: Pretentious (look it up like I did)
Will undoubtedly win lots and lots of Oscars...
I really enjoy watching lovely Laraine Day and bought this movie basically because she's in it.
The movie fails on two accounts: first there is no chemistry between Alan Marshall and Laraine Day therefore their 'romance' seems unbelievable, secondly, Marshall's character pursues someone else during the whole film and does not appear to have any interest in Day's character therefore the ending when they get together seems rather bizarre.
Had the two actors been more compatible and the script had him actually chasing her and her playing hard to get, the film could have been much much better.
However I still love watching Laraine Day and for that reason I am not disappointed that I bought the DVD. Just don't buy it thinking its going to be a forgotten gem. It is average at best.
The main problem is the basic plot itself.
Look, if a single disgruntled ex-employee of MI6 can cause this much havoc, destruction, and mayhem while bringing the spy organization to its symbolic knees, then what does that say about MI6? That they are pretty incompetent fools who deserve what they get? Yep! By the end of this film I was rooting for the bad guys because if they are that good at outsmarting MI6 then I want to be on their side.
The plot was stupid and insulting to every fan of the "Bond" universe.
I didn't like QoS much either but at least it was recognizable in the Bond world, which Skyfall is not.
Let me state, I have not read the graphic novel so my views are based solely on what is on the screen.
The ending is basically this: the world's smartest man, and the world's only indestructible man who can transport himself anywhere in the universe and can alter matter at will, can think of only one way to save the world from nuclear destruction...by the mass murder of some 15 million people. That's it? That's the best these two near gods can come up with? How about this....let's see, the indestructible guy tele-transports himself all over the world to wherever there are nuclear weapons, missiles, etc. and then turns them all into ice cream cones. How about that? And the world's smartest guy actually uses his brains to communicate with "the people" and convince them that Nixon and others are leading the country to the brink of destruction. How about that? I mean if I take these two characters at face value, then the ending presented is absurd.
As I said in the beginning, I love this movie. It holds my attention all the way through. I love the two main characters who "find one another" and wind up as a couple. But the ending sucks. I still give it 10 for 10 because it is so much better than most of the crap being made these days.
As for those who really really hate this movie I think I understand...the movies you like I would probably hate...people have different tastes, nothing wrong (or right) about that.
I can't put my finger quite on the reason why this film falls flat. There just isn't any sizzle or scenes that grab you. Perhaps it is because the role of Latt (the main character) is not sympathetic. He seems to change from a decent guy to a heel almost overnight, forgetting about his true friends. Then he redeems himself instantly at the end. People don't change back and forth and back again like that.
I saw the 2005 version with Keira Knightley and loved the story. It led me to read the book. I then started looking for other movie versions. I didn't think any could be better, but after watching the 1995 BBC production I changed my mind (although some of the characters and scenes in the 2005 movie are better).
I've also watched the 1942 version with Greer Garson, and as long as you approach it as a standalone movie (i.e. not faithful to the book) it too is enjoyable. I've got all four versions on DVD. The 1995 production is the best, with the 2005 version a very close second, while the 1942 movie is okay if accepted on its own terms.
However, the movie that this comment is directed at, the 1980 BBC rendition, is so bad that I can only conclude that those who have rated it so high must have ulterior motives (it is scary to contemplate that some people might actually think the acting is good). I certainly was fooled into buying the DVD.
Let me give you some good advice: DON'T PAY ANY MONEY FOR THIS MOVIE! Buy any of the other versions, but don't get conned by the favorable comments posted here. This is a terrible film with extremely poor acting.
Ray Milland looks like he's asking himself "how did my career come to this?" Hedy Lamarr in what has to be one of her final screen roles (maybe the last?) shows her age. While Hedy may have been "the most beautiful girl in the world" at one point (in the '30's), the close-ups of her show that she is middle aged and led a life that has left the years on her face. I like Ray Milland in other films, and ditto Hedy Lamarr in her earlier efforts (she didn't make many movies).
The real problem is that neither is believable in a western setting. Ray is too urbane and sophisticated, Hedy is too glamorous and chic. As a result, it just doesn't feel like a western. It seems too 'manufactured' if you know what I mean. Too phony.
The script and storyline is also not the best. I think even Stewart or Wayne would have had trouble breathing life into this one, but at least you'd have had their personality to fall back upon. Ray Milland can be a terrific 'actor' (Lost Weekend) but he does not have the personality that shines through bad or mediocre material.
Furthermore, in this instance, I agree 100% with the review done by the "Unemployed Critic" (elsewhere in these comments).
Inspite of my reasons listed above, some people will like this movie. It is very lightweight and doesn't require any real effort to follow. Women MAY like it more than men because it is somewhat of a "chick" film, however I like a good romance too and this film just doesn't fit the bill. As long as you do not expect much you won't be disappointed. This is not a film you will want to buy on DVD. Watching it once is more than enough.
I gave the film 6 of 10.
The editor keeps asking for at least 10 lines to post a comment. By my count I've got more than 12 but it still wants more. So here is a bunch of useless footnotes that don't mean squat.