A24 | Release Date: April 25, 2014
7.8
USER SCORE
Generally favorable reviews based on 292 Ratings
USER RATING DISTRIBUTION
Positive:
239
Mixed:
37
Negative:
16
Watch Now
Stream On
Stream On
Review this movie
VOTE NOW
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Check box if your review contains spoilers 0 characters (5000 max)
3
NahinhasAug 16, 2014
Terrible ending, nothing happens. Tom Hardy is an excellent actor but sadly I simply can't recommend this to anyone. After watching this movie l have literally created an account to post this, just to illustrate my frustration.
3 of 4 users found this helpful31
All this user's reviews
2
pictouAug 30, 2014
So I bought into the "indy" "arty" whatever schtick on this show. I managed to stick it out for the entire thing and was amazing underwhelmed. I mean sure his acting is ok but boring boring boring. The basic plot line really doesnt evenSo I bought into the "indy" "arty" whatever schtick on this show. I managed to stick it out for the entire thing and was amazing underwhelmed. I mean sure his acting is ok but boring boring boring. The basic plot line really doesnt even have much to draw you in let alone hold you there. Not sure what the critics and high-rating users are thinking here but each to their own i guess Expand
1 of 2 users found this helpful11
All this user's reviews
0
KenazMay 31, 2014
This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. And for 90 minutes, we try to understand - why Locke is risking everything, destroying his happy existence, when he doesn't actually have to. Very frustrating to watch this. He throws everything away so that he can try to keep a promise, that he doesn't even keep. Complete fail in all areas . . family, job and love child. Expand
3 of 8 users found this helpful35
All this user's reviews
2
HypatiaAug 27, 2014
Sometimes everyone goes ape over a media product. While this is very impressive as an attempt to show a simple emotional event and development in the most minimal setting possible, (which I would applaud) it just actually highlights the formSometimes everyone goes ape over a media product. While this is very impressive as an attempt to show a simple emotional event and development in the most minimal setting possible, (which I would applaud) it just actually highlights the form of senility now affecting our culture. I'm glad people are impressed with it in one way, that shows they still have a desire to see characters and their emotional lives and be involved with that. Its just a cack-handed example of it. By the way, any actor who can fill 96 minutes like that is earning his pay, no question about it, but the problem is the story. Many are amazed by the simplicity of the elements of the film, a man, driving in his car, and talking on his in-car phone type thing. That is basically it in terms of structure. In recent years these depictions have started to really concern me. Lone figures in an electronic or mechanical landscape, with actual human contact moving further and further away. Some would also say I'm missing the point, my taste is not refined enough to appreciate the pared-down drama of it all, and that could be true. Its probably a foretaste of future 'narratives', because this is the future of human relations. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
2
sylviorosSep 16, 2014
Seriously. This movie sucks! *SPOILEEEER* 'cause nothing happens, nothing. There is no climax, no turnarounds, no new characters or actions, nothing! I liked the idea and I admire the technical part, but as entertaining, this movie isSeriously. This movie sucks! *SPOILEEEER* 'cause nothing happens, nothing. There is no climax, no turnarounds, no new characters or actions, nothing! I liked the idea and I admire the technical part, but as entertaining, this movie is horrible! I had to persuade my wife to not turn off the BD player. And I regretted that Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
2
ariel84Jul 11, 2014
i've loved tom hardy ever since he played heathcliff in a PBS adaptation of 'wuthering heights'. i thought hardy plus the unconventional setting of the movie would be compelling enough. but, no. he sounded strange-yes, i know it was filmedi've loved tom hardy ever since he played heathcliff in a PBS adaptation of 'wuthering heights'. i thought hardy plus the unconventional setting of the movie would be compelling enough. but, no. he sounded strange-yes, i know it was filmed while he had a cold-his intonation was weird. after abut 20 min i realized that this film wasn't going to get any better. would've made a great audiobook, though. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
1
jrodfilmsSep 7, 2014
i couldnt watch anymore than 20 minutes. i felt claustrophobic and car sick. this isnt taking away the talent from the actors or crew, and what they tried to achieve, because i did watch the trailer, and was intrigued enough to seek out thei couldnt watch anymore than 20 minutes. i felt claustrophobic and car sick. this isnt taking away the talent from the actors or crew, and what they tried to achieve, because i did watch the trailer, and was intrigued enough to seek out the film.. there was only so many times i could see cut away shots of the radio/bluetooth or headlights on the highway. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
2
AxeTMar 15, 2015
Drama/Thriller this site categorizes it! It is nothing, nothing whatsoever of a thriller! It is a lousy little nothing drama. Metacritic: fact check this stuff and never take the distributor or producing entity's word on anything.
Look
Drama/Thriller this site categorizes it! It is nothing, nothing whatsoever of a thriller! It is a lousy little nothing drama. Metacritic: fact check this stuff and never take the distributor or producing entity's word on anything.
Look at the idiot critics here in mostly praise for this half baked scriptless tripe. They think they're supposed to like it and there's more there than meets the eye just because it's British?
This is an example of filmmakers with no real idea for a movie but had a way to very easily make one very cheaply with no script, no locations, no cast and sell it as some kind of innovative piece of cinema. It sucks. It's not a movie at all but a scriptless (anybody can scrawl meandering, repetitive, mundane conversational dialogue with no structure onto a page, anybody at all, that doesn't make it a movie!) acting exercise for 80 minutes in a moving car. The only thing remotely interesting is the graphical movement of the lights along the motorway, but for that kind of thing you're better off going to a museum than a movie theatre.
Incredibly annoying is listening to the makers of the film go on and on about their brilliance and how original the film is in the little making-of DVD extra. Every over worked adage is bloviated over and over. Especially ridiculous is the notion that Tom Hardy was THE ONLY actor for the part. What a joke! These Brits are incredibly unoriginal as if reading from a movie marketing guide book. All come off as novices.

On another note, the idiot director here made the film in anamorphic 2:35 widescreen. A stupid choice since 1.) this film is about as small as it gets and 2.) the film's life is on video where over 30% of the screen is lost to letterbox and the intended peripheral effect is out the window anyway.
This idiotic trend now of putting out way too many movies in scope including unworthy small movies like this one not to mention dopey comedies, children's titles, etc. is the result of short sighted industry morons. All it does is diminish the effect for worthy large spectacle pictures while at the same time robbing the home video screen real estate of smaller ones.
Jackass directors, producers, distributors have to stop doing this! Think idiots. Why are you making that choice?
Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews