6 Days (2017) Poster

(I) (2017)

User Reviews

Review this title
75 Reviews
Sort by:
Filter by Rating:
Really worth your time, even if some things could have been done better
shaunvanhaelewijn13 November 2017
I was somehow shocked when I saw the ratings this movie got. Sure, this movie will not win big awards, or anything like that. But I actually truly enjoyed this picture, as an interesting movie about a historical fact that I didn't really know about due to my young age.

The movie doesn't lose time on futile details. It's an honest depiction of what happened over those six days. It starts immediately with the hostage. The movie feels genuine, and not meant as a brutal action movie.

Keeping details true to the facts is of course a good thing. But somewhere on the line, they forgot about character development. There were some key characters, but without being really key characters. You could feel they were somehow important to the story, but you never really got a back story on them. The best example is the woman of the BBC. I didn't grew up in the UK, so I never heard of her. After the movie ended, they explained who she was. I think they could have done a lot more with the characters. You just didn't feel an attachment to any of the characters. Same with the terrorists and the negotiator.

To be fair, it's not easy to do all this in just 1 hour and half. I genuine feel this movie needed some more screen time. If you enjoy movies based on true stories or historical events, you won't be disappointed.
28 out of 33 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Worthwhile light historical thriller.
stephenw-3018018 August 2017
Warning: Spoilers
6 Days is the story of the Teerorist takeover of the Iranian embassy in London on April 30, 1980. Then prime minister, Margaret Thatcher, newly appointed has the difficult decision of whether or not to storm the Embassy to rescue the 26 hostages.

The story revolves around a team of SAS members and a negotiator, played by (Mark Strong) and news coverage of the event played by Edie Cornish. Both terrific actors IMO.

I would have liked to see a bit more action and tension given the circumstances of the takeover and the air of politics at the time given the rise in terrorist events around the globe as well as the Hostage situation of 52 Americans in Iran. I do believe, however, the film portrays the event honestly and with a string degree of accuracy.

The film is not a fast paced thriller nor was it intended to be. It was, as mentioned, an honest depiction of what happened during those harrowing six days and how well the planning and execution of the SAS team handled the rescue of 24 of the 26 Hostages. The two hostages that were killed happened before the raid happened.

A very well acted and worthwhile film that does not overdo or Glorify this terrible event and illustrates excellent military type tactics still used today in similar situations.

I recommend this film to anyone who enjoys nonfiction relevant historical dramas.
61 out of 79 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
grahamchalk200820 October 2017
Warning: Spoilers
(I'll take off one point for Abbie Cornishe's bizarre portrayal of Kate Adie.) This is how it's done.

If you want to see a cartoon watch "London has Fallen."

Reality is complicated and bad guys are three dimensional. Sometimes real-life operations don't involve constant gunplay. Well, not if you want the good guys to actually survive. Good movie for grown- ups.
31 out of 40 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
A good telling of real events
gerardmartin7722 October 2017
Warning: Spoilers
This isn't a dramatic blockbuster movie where Mark Wahlberg leads a crack team of special forces while combating a tricky marriage situation ! Instead this is a basic how-it-happened telling of a famous terrorist siege in the UK. It does this well but can I just make one key point ?

A couple of reviewers have commented on the rag-tag , dishevelled appearance of the SAS soldiers . There was a reason for this : the British Army and the SAS were in Northern Ireland at that time fighting IRA terrorists. SAS operatives were primarily undercover and had to blend into the local population . How did they do that ? They grew their hair and had moustaches ! Simple .

The soldiers in this Iranian Embassy siege were all highly trained and the best in the business .It was a perfect rescue of the hostages at the end of the day .
28 out of 36 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
A solid drama documentary of the Iranian Siege of 1980
azanti002929 August 2017
The Iranian embassy siege was something I remember well, played out as it was on live television and being a huge fan of the docu-drama genre I anticipated this film most eagerly. First of all it was a right mission to get to see it at all and I expected it to have a much wider UK release. There was also confusing and conflicting information over the exact cinema release date given over the internet (First the 4th of August, then the 18th, then the 4th again!) Seeing it at the cinema resulted in me having to travel half the country!

For those who don't know the story, in April of 1980 the Iranian embassy was stormed by six armed men demanding the release of hostages in Iran over the mistreatment of their tribe by the Persians in Iran, but the UK had poor relations with Iran at the time and Iran was not going to give them anything. The UK was on it's own and for the first time in Television history, the actions of the largely anonymous Special Air Service, would be seen live for all to see.

The film is basically told from four main perspectives. An always excellent Mark Strong is hostage Negotiator, Max Vernon, a man acutely aware that lives are literally in his hands, and the emotional impact this has on him is one of the stronger aspects of the film and Strongs scenes are all appropriately gripping. Secondly is that of the SAS with Jamie Bell, in a very different role, playing Rusty Firmin, one of the soldiers leading the assault. Bell shows he has left the legacy of Billy Elliot well and truly behind him and is superb in this role. Tension notches up appropriately as he and his team ready themselves to go in. Thirdly is the insight into the upper echelons of the political discussions which went on between Billy Whitelaw (Tim Piggot-Smith in what may well have been his final role) as the options are raked over with an unseen Margaret Thatcher sending down her stance on terrorism. Ronan Vibert is noteworthy as the head of MI6 while Robert Portal plays SAS Colonel Mike Rose with the appropriate level of staunch professionalism while Martin Shaw adds gravitas to the proceedings though he is given very little to say or do.

Those inside the Embassy, both hostages and terrorists are fairly thinly drawn with the exception of the terrorist leader, Salim (A great performance from Ben Turner) and most of our insights into their interactions come via the other characters mentioned above. There is little attempt to humanise the Iranian hostages, we know nothing for example, about the one who is executed, so when this happens, we, the audience, feel little emotional loss. PC Trevor Locke stands out a little as he is given more to do, but just a few more lines of dialogue would have enabled us to emotionally connect with the hostages from the outset.

The fourth strand of the narrative is that of reporter Kate Adie and her cameraman, as they vie for the best shot over the reporter from a different rag (Either The Sun or The Mail, it wasn't clear to me) - I remember Kate Adie well from this reporting and felt Abbie Cornish was a little miscast in this role. She felt too glamorous with not a hair out of place and way too much makeup. This story line added very little to film. She spots the SAS leaving to train at one point and indicates she suspects more is afoot, but never vocalises her suspicions, so little is made of this. The interaction between her and the rival reporter could have been the cornerstone of lighter moments in this serious drama but they're lost and forgotten. This was the weakest element for me.

The siege unfolds over six days and it is the relationship between Mark Strong's character and terrorist leader Salim that is the most captivating.

Overall the film is paced well and Toa Fraser does an admirable job of handling the multiple characters and story lines, but the film starting as it does with the Embassy being taken, we have no time to get to know any of the hostages or feel a connection to them. A ten- minute sequence at the beginning of the film giving us an introduction to these characters would have made the emotional stakes a little higher for the viewer. BBC Sound Recordist Sim Harris is given little to say or do, so there is little context of who he is and the moment where he goes out onto the window ledge (An image scorched into the memory of all who saw it live on television) is not as dramatic and meaningful as it could have been.

The film side steps a few of the more controversial aspects of the raid. The terrorist who was captured was almost executed by the SAS out the back before they realised they were being filmed by the television station. I found the unobtrusive score lacked a dramatic emphasis at the appropriate moments and made it essentially underwhelming.

Overall, however, this is a solidly made drama with good performances and a suitable dour colour palette matching the setting of the 1980s and it shameful that such a drama, covering as it did, a flash point in UK history, did not receive a wider release. I would, despite my reservations, still recommend it.
33 out of 48 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
A Decent Thriller
leftbanker-118 August 2017
Warning: Spoilers
Wow! These are some pretty harsh scores for this low budget thriller. The acting is top notch all around led by Mark Strong as the police negotiator although they made him out to be a bit of a twit more concerned for the safety of the terrorists than the hostages. Perhaps this was true but probably fiction just to create a little tension between the more passive police and the gung ho SAS team.

About the only thing this film lacked was steady pacing which with a story like this would have been difficult as mostly they just sat around for six days before the excrement hit the fan. At least the movie didn't devolve into a soap opera by showing the "up close and personal" side to the soldiers, police, terrorists, or hostages.

Well choreographed action and training scenes sort of make up for the down time in the story. If nothing else it serves as a good reminder of this bit of history that I recall.
30 out of 44 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Not a Hollywood shoot em upper - that is a NICE change!
kenfromcanada20 August 2017
I never noticed as some here have said, that, this was a low budget movie.Not that it shows anywhere. The actors - Cornish, Bell and always delivering a GREAT performance - Mark Strong. I have never seen Strong give a bad performance on screen - most know him from the Kingsmen. Some may say the Iranian embassy situation marked the beginning of international based terrorism for England,although in the past the country had many domestic situations of a dire nature - the IRA and their campaign.. I watch closely for technical details got right - or more often - WRONG - this movie gets it right - at least for the layman like most of us are.I have a friend who was S.A.S - he pointed out more - humorously - but he gave this film a thumbs up. So, when a real life hero I am privileged to know, who has lived these types of things says the movie is good - WATCH IT!
43 out of 66 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
I was hoping for a little more from the film's climax, but still worth seeing.
Hellmant18 October 2017
'6 DAYS': Three and a Half Stars (Out of Five)

A biographical action film about the 1980 Iranian embassy siege in London, and the heroic SAS soldiers that ended it. The movie was directed by Toa Fraser, and it was written by Glenn Standring. It stars Jamie Bell, Mark Strong, Abbie Cornish and Ben Turner. The film has received mostly positive reviews from critics, and it's now available on both video and VOD. I found it to be an interesting history lesson, and somewhat thrilling at times.

On April 30th, 1980 six armed Iranians raided the Iranian Embassy, in Princess Gate, London, and took 25 hostages. The world watched the intense drama on TV, for six days, while BBC reporter Kate Adie (Cornish) boldly covered it. Chief Inspector Max Vernon (Strong) handled the negotiations over the phone, with the terrorists' leader, Salim (Turner). While an SAS unit, including Rusty Firmin (Bell), prepared to regain control of the Embassy by force.

The movie is definitely interesting, and it has an especially insightful (somewhat sympathetic) view of the Iranian gunmen, especially their leader Salim. The Max Vernon character is also pretty sympathetic, and well played by Strong (who's always good). Ben Turner is also really good in his role. I was hoping for a little more from the film's climax though, I have to admit, but it is a well made and somewhat educational film.

Watch an episode of our movie review show 'MOVIE TALK' at: https://youtu.be/oV2G3RUT234
11 out of 15 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Interesting - not action packed but different from the usual thriller
phd_travel20 August 2017
Warning: Spoilers
People looking for an action packed thriller with a high body count won't find that here. This is a true story so things are realistic not full of bravado and death defying heroism. The siege lasted 6 days so a lot of the story is about planning by the rescue by the SAS and the role of the negotiator (Mark Strong) and the government policy behind the rescue. Unlike action movies where one guy would take down all the terrorists it's refreshing to see the planning and the uncertainty about planning a rescue mission. Jamie Bell despite being small sized plays an SAS person quite convincingly. From the negotiators point of view the lack of knowledge and being caught between the different interests is quite interesting too. A rather round looking Abbie Cornish plays a reporter for the BBC although her role is not pivotal. Couple of faults. Not that much was shown about the cause of the terrorists to understand their motives better. The point of view of the hostages is also insufficiently shown. Worth a watch.
20 out of 31 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Poorly Executed
goodwin-p420 October 2017
What should have been a tense exciting retelling of the Iranian Embassy Siege is instead a slow moving turgid non event which is not worth the effort. A massive disappointment and every time Abbie Cornish appeared on screen as the BBCs Kate Adie I had to look away it was that embarrassing.
37 out of 64 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Realistic coverage of a real situation
blrnani11 February 2018
Warning: Spoilers
My first point of reference for this film was the excellent "Who Dares Wins", with Lewis Collins, which was inspired by the Iranian embassy rescue and shows the SAS at work, culminating in a very similar (fictional) hostage event. But having watched "6 Days" I see it more in the light of the very good "Eye In The Sky", showing just how much thinking and planning goes on behind the scenes of real life military action and crisis response, including the unexpected details that can derail even meticulous planning. The political situation was highly complex as this was the embassy of the awful Khomeini regime and the invaders were protesting the crimes of that regime back in Iran. Nevertheless, they took terrorist action and violated the diplomatic privilege that embassies around the world enjoy. And in responding to it the UK would have to violate the diplomatic immunity all foreign embassies are entitled to. In that respect, violating the immunity of the US embassy in Iran had set a precedent (as did GDubya's later invasion of Iraq), so it's a useful reminder of the potential consequences of trashing the norms of civilized behaviour. A hostage situation is always tense, but especially so when dealing with a heavily armed group that is not afaid to die (indeed many fanatics welcome it) and insist on all their demands being met or they will kill their hostages. There was also the disastrous precedent of the German attempt to free the Munich Olympic hostages, which further constrained the UK action. And of course the ticking clock is always a key factor. And so the film offers us insights into what went on, in the negotiations, behind the scenes and in the eventual rescue - where the odds were clearly stacked in the terrorists' favour and yet was conducted without loss. That's an achievement that is worth preserving on film!
7 out of 9 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Gordon-1130 August 2017
This film tells the story of the terrorist siege of the Iranian embassy back in 1980. The British government does everything they can to resolve the situation in six days.

The film wastes no time and begins with the siege. It maintains tension and urgency throughout the film, and time flies quickly. It is not easy to be the negotiator in this intense and fragile situation, and Mark Strong portrays the tough challenges very well. It is sad that he has to tell lies at the end. The ending is very intense. I enjoyed watching "6 Days".
22 out of 37 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Abbie Cornish let the film down.
levinson13 October 2017
The film had lots of potential but in the end was not perfect. There were strong characters in the real life drama. In most cases the actors were excellent and very convincing. One of the important characters is the award winning BBC journalist Kate Adie. Unfortunately Abbie Cornish did not have a convincing accent and did not portray Adie in the correct standing. It was a chance to highlight Kate Adie's groundbreaking journalist work for British TV. Unfortunately Abbie Cornish's casting spoiled the film for me.
10 out of 16 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
michaelrthomson15 September 2017
I didn't have entirely high hopes for this, despite Mark Strong who in the main delivers great work, and Jamie Bell, who despite reminding me overtime of Billy Elliot has also done quite well in his roles in my opinion, but I thought it could be an interesting tale of this historical event.

In the main it wasn't terrible, Mark and Jamie act well enough, and the tell of the story is accurate enough based on what I remember of these events and subsequent stories written thereafter. Its not really an action movie, there is little to none of that... it's more about the thriller (perhaps) relationship between Mark Strong and the Hostage takers.... which was adequate, though not enough to stop me from wandering off and looking up twitter and Facebook midway through the app.

The worst element for me however is Abbie Cornish. The fake British accent was simply awful, clearly she is no better at doing an accent than she is at actually acting, it was bad, just awful. I was surprised to see that this movie was funded or in some way involved the New Zealand Film Commission (who clearly couldn't find a NZ script worth funding?), so maybe that explains the random appearances of kiwi and Aussie actors and accents popping up. It was simply distracting and irritating to me.

Overall, it was a meh film, as I say, it didn't keep my attention and the annoying accents, fake accents and terrible acting just added to the woe.
28 out of 58 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Quite realistic...
harald-hofer-19715 October 2017
Why do I give it a 9 out of 10? There are several reasons: a) It's quite realistic. b) It's very close to what really happens (as far as the public knows today) c) It's in general well made. Why not a 10 out of 10? We know that the SAS trains with live rounds, as it was shown in the movie. But their targets wouldn't stop the projectiles. During their practicing in the bus the bullets would hit the target, go through, hit something else and from there on they would be unpredictable. No one would sit behind those targets and just watch the training. Same applies for the "house" made of wooden frames and fabric. bullets go through, nobody in the hanger would be safe.
16 out of 31 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
functional retelling
SnoopyStyle10 November 2019
It's 1980 London. After the Iranian revolution, armed men invade the Iranian embassy. They demand for their Arab comrades' release. Max Vernon (Mark Strong) is the lead police negotiator. Kate Adie (Abbie Cornish) is the BBC reporter. Rusty Firmin (Jamie Bell) leads a team of SAS soldiers on a rescue mission.

It's a fine retelling of the true events. I sorta remember the incident. Mostly, I remember the outside with masked men breaking in during the rescue. This lays out the sequence of events. It's not overly-dramatic. The most exciting section is the rescue with all of its problems. The acting is strong. The plot is straight forward and the title leaves nothing to chance. There are no surprises. Six stars for six days.
2 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Who he dares
Prismark105 October 2017
My wife exclaimed: Is that supposed to be Kate Adie? It certainly took me out of the movie as the actress playing her was too posh and pretty. Worse was still to come.

In the film 'Who Dares Wins' Lewis Collins played the SAS soldier, here we have Jamie Bell playing real life SAS hero, Rusty Firmin. Collins was one of the stars of the television series, The Professionals. Collins was in the Territorial Army and did marathon walks to raise money for charity such as a sponsored walk with ex boxing world champion, John Conteh. Bell is the lad from Billy Elliot and did not convince me as a crack SAS officer.

I watched the SAS storming the Iranian Embassy live on television in 1980, I was a kid at the time. I was not entirely sure for the reasons why the staff in the embassy were being held hostage but by the end of the evening I certainly knew what the SAS were capable of.

I just felt the film was rather workmanlike, a glorified television movie which told its story efficiently but lacked the excitement I felt of the events I saw on TV all those years ago.
13 out of 25 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Deflated the SAS myth considerably
Pigeon_down28 December 2017
Warning: Spoilers
Not a bad movie. Not a strong story that keeps you hanging on but that isn't the films fault since it is telling a story so many of us in the UK will already know relatively well.

What it does highlight is how poorly thought out our idea of responding to terrorism was back then, and also how much pure luck the SAS had since the operation to assault the embassy is a complete shambles in this movie - i mean seriously (spoilers) once you've detonated the roof explosive, if the terrorists were even half ready the hostages would already be dead by the time the SAS had gotten in to the building. I just hope they improved a heck of a lot since this event as all this did was make me lose all confidence they could rescue anyone with todays terrorists around.

Mark Strong, he's always good. He's the kind of reliable actor that might not own the show but gives a performance every time that helps bring stability. Jamie is good too. I'm not persuaded he looks the part at all in this, but he does the job even if he's not quite right in terms of casting.

The actress playing Kate Aide was a casting disaster though.

So, overall a story most of us know, the SAS mystique debunked (they were bloody lucky) no cliff hangers, it carries you through, reasonable bit of theatre. 5 is a fair score imo.
8 out of 14 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Brilliantly good TV-era historical drama
shoobe01-127 August 2017
Excellent movie. Perhaps the best historical re-enactment/dramatization, at least in the TV era, I have seen. Very well paced, adding tension by showing with the SAS practices, and the negotiations, how things can go badly to very effectively fill the space between the initial raid and the final hostage rescue situation.

On second viewing, this is an extremely well made film, with much deliberate use of different camera angles and lenses for different scenes, solid color grading so we get solid blacks in the right places, and really outstanding sound design; e.g. the COBRA room has a subtle but disconcerting tone, they do an exceptional job with reporting sounding authentic, and bringing the two locations on the phone together without it being obvious.

Very well filmed, surprisingly so I'd say as they recreated the famous shots of the coverage impossibly well, kept atmospheric shots of the negotiation, claustrophobic shots of the SAS preparing for assault, and managed to make the action entirely clear and obvious.

Very well acted as well. Some may seem odd to us now, but it is spot on for 1980s London. The news crews especially may seem like caricatures, but ring very true. And I'll watch Mark Strong order a pizza for two hours. His pauses during the early negotiation scenes cannot be pulled off by most actors at all.

Some reviews /seem/ to take offense at some political aspect or another but I thought it did a very good job of presenting all sides, and plenty of people on screen were disappointed it all ended in bloodshed, while others were pleased they got do their job and shoot the bad guys (and so on for the UK politics, for ME politics etc). Seeing all points of view unusually well presented.

Lastly and for those who care: mostly crazy accurate. People I know who do this work, and/or have talked to the (actual, not poseur) participants only point out very minor inconsistencies, and many of those may be deliberate.

On further viewing, in a few years as I re-evaluate, I may bump it to 10. Really good, maybe great.
16 out of 33 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Good retelling of the events
apjc2 September 2017
It's a realistic portrayal of the events that happened, so don't expect action packed Hollywood style heroics. It reflects the growing tension of all participants over the 6 days until the climax of events. As others mention the Kate Adie character seems pointless other than filling out time. Overall well worth watching.
9 out of 19 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Real fact, Thatcher time
RodrigAndrisan21 October 2017
"The Prime Minister wants the world to see how this country deals with terrorism" And the world saw it. The film is not bad, it has some tension but we know in advance everything that will happen so we can not talk about suspense, everything is predictable. Personally, I would have liked to be more dynamic, more spectacular. No acting performance out of the ordinary, all actors just do their job to get their pay.
9 out of 21 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Overall a good re-enactment, better than shoot-em-all American ones anyway
ozgur-altan10 February 2018
Warning: Spoilers
Apart from the realistic take on the military operation itself, especially liked the Cobra meeting room dialogues and Mark Strong's presence and dialogue's (add real color).

The humble take with all the mistakes before, during and after the operation shows how hard it is to really perfectly apply what you practice and especially how lucky you should be to have this successful and ending.

The steady stand about how to deal with terrorists originating from Iron Lady herself is quite a bit emphasized, of course it is applauded but the factor of luck mentioned above should have been included somewhere in at least one post operational dialogue. After all 17 minutes is quite a long time and it was hectic enough for the terrorists to kill most if not all of the hostages. 6 days gained by the negotiators probably tested their resolve.

However, the positive impact on Margaret Thatcher's political career and also probably giving her the leverage to act as she did in the Falkland's conflict short while later (if this was an operation with 21 dead hostages she might have acted differently later on) and making her last long as she did as a political outsider trying really hard to be the 'iron lady' is something the film makes you think of.

Also reading about the impact of this operation in launching SAS as a viable alternative and as a world famous regiment that can be relied on is another point the film makes you think of. Especially considering this operation came only a few days after the colossal failure of American Army, Navy and Air Force (particularly the Delta Force) in Iran.
3 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
A watchable hostage drama based on real events
calorne4 November 2017
Warning: Spoilers
The film interwove drama with some news clips from the time to very good narrative effect and I learned about the motives of the hostage takers which I was not fully aware of before.

As other reviewers have mentioned the depiction of journalist Kate Adie by Abbie Cornish did not come across well. This may have been down to direction as it seemed to me that there may have been an attempt to impersonate the delivery of Kate Adie and with a focus on this often the meaning and emotion of the words was lost. The SAS also seemed rather like the Sweeney from the U.K. TV series.. Perhaps the SAS are/were like the Sweeney,, I have no personal knowledge of the SAS.

However, the film is worth watching, particularly for the performances of Mark Strong as a negotiating police chief and Ben Turner who plays Salim representing the hostage takers.
3 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Historically inaccurate
sixbells9910 October 2017
A bland paint by numbers thriller with just one good scene, it tries not to be too flashy but ends up being boring. The characters are straight out of the stereotype box. Disowned by many of the SAS men who were actually there as inaccurate. An important moment in modern history tarnished by this film but not destroyed. If you know nothing about princess gate it might be a reasonable late night film when there is nothing else to watch.
4 out of 8 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Shame about the stupidly exaggerated accents and the terrible acting by Abbie Cornish aka Corny.
zippydjh4 February 2019
A reasonable interpretation but a shame about the stupidly exaggerated accents and the terrible acting by Abbie Cornish aka Corny. She was great in Jack Ryan, don't know what happened here.
2 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
An error has occured. Please try again.

See also

Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews

Recently Viewed