Shaun Hennessy

Preachy, worthy, far too earnest and poorly written. It's a frequent malaise in films about shocking events that, instead of telling a straight truth and allowing an educated audience their own, instinctive reactions; the pain and woe is laid on so thick and so gratuitously with dialogue, soundtrack and close-ups of (I imagine) inner turmoil, that the audience's role as purveyor, reactor and judge to what they are watching is rendered instantly redundant. What Weinstein (and those who covered for him) did is repugnant in the extreme. But it needed a much better film - in every way - than this, to shed a spotlight on how creepingly, nefariously awful it all was. Carey Mulligan - perhaps intending to play a more subtle take than her angsty co-star - comes across as uninterested; as if, some way in to filming, she realised this wasn't the 'grab the bastard by the balls' film she hoped she was making. Zoe Kazan is just awful. Initially (and disbelievingly) I thought she was playing a character called Jodi Cancer, as that's how she appeared to pronounce it! Fortunately, that mistake was soon resolved. Unfortunately, Kazan's condescending, patronising approach to the witnesses she pursued wasn't. Gwyneth Paltrow - the A-Lister the producers were hoping would appear - is mentioned only by name. However, Ashley Judd - star of many fine thrillers of the 1990's - does decide to appear in the film as a Weinstein whistle blower. This, for film fans anyway, is a big deal as Judd is a fine actor and was a big name. The pivotal scene for Judd has her calling Kanter whilst out on a run. It's obvious that Judd is anxious about the situation as Weinstein has already been painted as a powerful adversary, not used to things going against him. Kanter takes the call in the newsroom. Realising it's Judd and potentially someone who can be a game changer, she asks Judd how she is. Judd says she's just been running. Kanter replies - to the famous actor they've been pursuing for a long time in their fight against Weinstein: "Oh, that's good. Running's good." No shit! I gave it three stars because I don't know any other films about powerful men abusing their power to such an extent in the film industry and thus, as very flawed as it is, it's existence is admirable. But it's a bloody poor film.

It's definitely funny and occasionally moving but it can't decide what kind of film it is (or wants to be) at the halfway point and slowly but surely disappears up its own f*#"#ng a*#*#*le with some s*#t choices, lots of mugged comedy and some w*#ky nods to superior light comedies of the 50s & 60s. Watch with a few beers when fed up with life - it'll work then.

Gripping first half. Tosh second half. Beautifully filmed - but, so what?

There's suspension of disbelief and then there's bollocks. This is actually beyond that - this is utter bollocks. There was something to invest in the first film: a vulnerability about Rake that had him more human than super-hero and believable, well-written relationships. Here it's just silly. Very silly. He survives a train crash unscathed! And don't get me started on how the Austrian authorities - in an extremely advanced Western nation, let's not forget - didn't have the wherewithal to put road blocks up around an under siege, luxury hotel tower! Please, I'm begging you, NO Extraction 3! Not for me - for Hemsworth. He can still find acting redemption if you let him...

I really admire Surrane Jones as an actor. I'm a huge fan of Patterson Joseph. The submarine, sub-genre is one of my all time favourites... But - my oh my - the amount of disbelief one has to suspend to keep this hokum afloat... I managed until episode 4 (not bad considering), but when the civilian police officer is somehow allowed to run the length of the ship, unchallenged, to almost scupper a nuclear launch drill... Really... I mean, REALLY!

An unfortunate mess from start to finish. Didn't know what it wanted to say or, more regrettably, how it wanted to say it. Stone's performance fluctuates with her accent. Thompson is hilarious at first but after half a dozen scenes playing the Baroness with the same, predictable, hammy lick, she becomes tiresome, shortly followed by aggravating. The 'plot'(!?!) is so predictable, my children were guessing conclusions of scenes and dénouements with weary ease. The highlight of the film is some stunning costume set pieces (though, in a film about fashion, that should be expected) and an endless soundtrack of classic rock and pop, which acts as both filler or plaster, depending on the tedium of the scene involved. Small children will probably love it. Anyone seeking anything remotely progressive about women (or film) should avoid...

The negative reviews are redolent of middle-aged 'critics' thinking they know what makes a great film for 9 to 15 year olds. Basically, the kind of arrogant, anal gazing that shames them. Rim of the World was lapped up by my 9 year old son because it had the right mix of fear; cheese; slapstick; hubris and bravado to keep him involved. People over the age of 30: stop patronising kids by thinking that you know what's best for them. They'll decide - like it or not...