User Score
7.3

Generally favorable reviews- based on 174 Ratings

User score distribution:
  1. Negative: 23 out of 174

Review this movie

  1. Your Score
    0 out of 10
    Rate this:
    • 10
    • 9
    • 8
    • 7
    • 6
    • 5
    • 4
    • 3
    • 2
    • 1
    • 0
    • 0
  1. Submit
  2. Check Spelling
  1. Lyn
    Aug 22, 2010
    2
    I'm very surprised at the critics' adoration for this film, and can only assume it's because of their admiration for the director. Despite the excellent actors, there's virtually no suspense, and a twist at the end is one that you can see coming from 90 minutes away. And Kim Cattrall does perhaps the worst put-on British accent in film history!
  2. Nov 1, 2010
    0
    Yikes. Couldn't wait for this mess of a movie to end, to say nothing of my indifference as to how it would, after a great deal of tedium, end. The idea is paper (ha ha ha) thin, and certainly didn't warrant the 2+ hours worth of bad writing it took to complete this exercise in... I need a adjective for god awful crossed with paralytic boredom. Anyway, a hell of a lot of talent got wasted on this film. If there was a conspiracy it was on the part of the script writer, editor, and Polanski, to create wooden characters who people a sterile 2 dimensional world it is impossible to care about. The twist, when it finally does come, is paltry, and irrelevant, precisely because so little effort was put into creating a background against which the revelation might matter. And then the very end, when the car speeds by, and the papers come floating past the camera. All I could think is, "are you fuc*ing serious?" I think it's safe to say Mr. Polanski's best work was finished long long ago. Expand
  3. Mar 18, 2011
    0
    This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. I fell asleep several times during the movie, but so did the main character. What exactly was the plot ? I don't remember. If you have something to hide, why would you let someone into your house, and actually hire someone to sniff out your past ? Investigative journalism must have taken a turn for the worse when an amateur can simply use Google search to uncover the most secretive things of your past. Quite embarrassing, especially if you are the British Prime Minister. It's all right there, on the Internet.
    Things moved along, yes, but they moved along at the speed of sound in a vacuum. At one point, the main character shakes a tail, where did these guys learn to follow someone ?
    The ending was probably the most ridiculous one in movie history. I was in DC recently, and you can see the sniper on the roof of the White House from about 5 miles away. Security for the British PM must have forgotten that a guy in full camouflage, carrying a rifle and climbing onto the roof of the airport building might not be hunting for ducks.
    Wait, that was not really the end. The end was that the main character got hit by what, a car, a bus ? After surviving all sorts of dangerous situations, he simply gets run over in the middle of a big city ?
    In summary, this movie is just god awful. What is the purpose of making these films ?
    Expand
  4. Jun 7, 2011
    2
    I've always believed that movie reviewers are desperate to be seen as cultured, intelligent, "I'm more insightful than you" types. Therefore, when they come across a movie like this - a movie that SEEMS like it should be good, has the look of something that should grab your attention, and, most important, sounds intelligent - they rave about it because their hubris prevents them from saying, "I don't get it!" This is not a great movie. I'll be honest in saying that I don't quite get the ending. I mean, I do, but was the "secret" really that significant? If you didn't figure this all out in the private jet scene, then perhaps you are a movie critic. It's sad too, because the cast should have been excellent. Pierce Brosnan generally has his moments, Ewan McGregor is often quite good, Olivia Williams has had a few brilliant roles, and Tom Wilkinson is, in my opinion, one of the great, under appreciated actors, ever. Conversely Kim Catrall may be one of the worst actors ever and this role only solidifies her in that position. But in this movie they were all as flat and dull as Catrall's "accent". IMO the only really good acting in this movie was that of Wilkinson and Eli Wallach. Regrettably, these two roles are little more than bit parts. The rest was so ho hum that I needed two nights to watch it. Expand
Metascore
77

Generally favorable reviews - based on 35 Critics

Critic score distribution:
  1. Positive: 30 out of 35
  2. Negative: 0 out of 35
  1. This is a slicker, shallower exercise. It's hypnotic as it unfolds, but once the credit roll frees you from its grip, it doesn't bear close scrutiny.
  2. Reviewed by: Derek Elley
    50
    What the picture most needed was a complete cinematic rethink and, yes, even some action to move it along.
  3. 70
    If it is possible to watch this work as a movie rather than using it as a referendum on its maker’s guilt or innocence, the audience that craves mature, sophisticated and grown-up entertainment will find much to admire here.