Entrusted with the task of spotting any potential terrorists and chemical specialists who try to get a visa, Kate Abbott, the genius newly-recruited security officer at the U.S. Embassy in London, senses there's something off with the Romanian doctor, Emil Balan; however, her concerns are dismissed by her boss. But, then, after a devastating bombing attack in the heart of the city, Kate will surprisingly find herself in the spotlight and on the wrong side of the law, while at the same time, targeted by the international assassin known only as the Watchmaker. Can Kate unearth the conspiracy and make it in one piece before a new act of terrorism strikes the metropolis? A State Department employee newly posted to the American embassy in London is charged with stopping terrorists from getting into the U.S. That puts her right in the line of fire and she is targeted for death and framed for crimes. Discredited, she is forced to go on the run while she tries to clear her name and stop a large-scale terrorist attack set for New Year's Eve in Times Square. Suspecting a potential terrorist attack in USA a highly recognized security expert in the USA embassy in London; is pretty much ignored by her superiors and become a suspect and target of the police and the terrorist. Let's add that the security expert, called Abbot is played by Milla Jovovich (Resident Evil), the ruthless terrorist is played by Pierce Brosnan (former 007 and recently The November Man) and is directed by James McTeigue (V for Vendetta, Ninja Assassin, The Raven). Sounds interesting ? Well; not really. There are too many inconsistencies in the script like: *****SPOILERS AHEAD***** An American Ambassador; rejects her security expert advice granting a visa to a potential terrorist (an expert in chemical gas); and even order "shoot to kill" of her expert based on suspicions A security controller; grants access to a potential terrorist, even disconnect cameras but nothing happens to her. British Police try to kill an American officer under diplomatic protection; and even stop a higher American office to keep investigating Witness and cameras only see what is necessary to blame Abbot and nothing else. And many many more… ***END OF SPOILERS If you suspend your disbelief of most of these things; you end up with a decent thriller, with a couple of spectacular scenes and acceptable acting (Brosnan does what he cans with an one dimensional villain and Jovovich is able to get some sympathy about Abbots; a character we end up knowing almost nothing about. The beginning of Survivior is very good. I was excited, and caught myself thinking this is gonna be one of the really good ones.. Unfortunately, it sloped downwards a little bit after a while and towards the end. Not that it was bad at the end, but it didn't keep me that entertained through-out the whole thing.<br/><br/>Not that it is bad in any way, really, it is pretty exciting, but for some reason the second half is just a little less entertaining than the beginning. Real shame. This could have been an 8, maybe even a 9!<br/><br/>Milla Jovovich is pretty good, although she does this weird thing with her mouth at times, which I can't remember her doing before. Maybe it is just more noticeable now that she is a bit older. (my eyes are drawn to peoples mouths, so that's why I see stuff like that) Anyway, she did a pretty good job. Same with Pierce Brosnan, he was convincing. A little unlikable, actually, but I think he was supposed to be.<br/><br/>The action is pretty good, it's not excellent, but good enough. There are some minor plot holes, er things that don't quite add up, didn't bother me though. <br/><br/>There are a couple of explosions, and one of them was kind of unpleasant to watch. Not that it was graphic, but it just made an impact on me. The scene really got through the raw power of an explosion. I like stuff like that, stuff that stick with you. I have seen hundreds of explosions in movies, and very seldom do they stick with me.<br/><br/>Survivior is a pretty solid, entertaining thriller, keeps you entertained for the most part. Also I like seeing a woman in a part like this, because we have seen it with men just about a squadrillion times. This is the kind of filmmaking that gets touted as "workmanlike" when it's really straight-laced to the point of tepidness.
Kerstale replied
365 weeks ago