I thought it was excellent. I thought the gunfights we very well done as well as the physical confrontations. No invincible super warriors. The soundtrack was completely unobtrusive IMO.

It was a decent movie. I always love Noomi so I was effected by bias. I had no issue with the action nor music. However, it had a bit of trouble in its premise. SPOILERS BELOW The way it jumped ahead to an authoritarian system controlled seemingly by a low level politician was a bit thin. Also, in the end weren't the "bad guys" correct? They just throw open the doors of breeding freedom and everyone feels like a happy Bernie voter and yet is not the severe population problem still looming? Would have been nice to see a post credit scene in which civilization crumbles under the weight of rioting cannibals.

... Still, weaknesses aside, a cool sci-fi flick for what it is.

It was hugely entertaining movie and had very good visuals and action sequences.

If you look it as a fast-paced action movie rather than Sci-Fi/Drama, it works.

@Horus Mazinga spoiler alert

happy bernie voter? get out of here. there are other humane methods of controling population other than killing young children. Ever heard of sterilization? its quite do able in todays society, and it should be practiced so that beings who think extreme conservatism is ok are never born.

Noomi Rapace did a great job in her roles, but the movie itself was generic.

@Movie Queen41 said:

Noomi Rapace did a great job in her roles, but the movie itself was generic.

I love Noomi and yes, pretty run of the mill film based on an interesting premise.

Just give me one of those Noomi's

@chilone said:

I thought it was excellent. I thought the gunfights we very well done as well as the physical confrontations. No invincible super warriors.

Have to disagree with you there. The scene where one sister jumps through a window and lands on her back into an empty skip would have killed her, or at the very least, paralysed her. But then she gets up and starts running!

Overall I enjoyed the film though, I like Noomi. But I was confused about Monday's motives. Glenn Close's character says she (Monday) sacrificed blood her own blood to get what she wanted (implying Monday knew her siblings would get killed by her actions). Yet she then proceeds to say she's holding Tuesday as collateral. That doesn't make sense, why would Monday even care if she already knew they would die? Or did I miss something?

Yes, that would have killed her but most of it wasn't super over the top. I suppose there's always some. I think that scene was done the way it was for humor :)

@MongoLloyd said:

Very interesting premise ruined with too much hackneyed gunplay, fighting, and loud orchestra bursts. F(` )cking silly, actually.

Agree completely. An opportunity missed. It is still an interesting movie nonetheless.

@Horus Mazinga said:

It was a decent movie. I always love Noomi so I was effected by bias. I had no issue with the action nor music. However, it had a bit of trouble in its premise. SPOILERS BELOW The way it jumped ahead to an authoritarian system controlled seemingly by a low level politician was a bit thin. Also, in the end weren't the "bad guys" correct? They just throw open the doors of breeding freedom and everyone feels like a happy Bernie voter and yet is not the severe population problem still looming? Would have been nice to see a post credit scene in which civilization crumbles under the weight of rioting cannibals.

... Still, weaknesses aside, a cool sci-fi flick for what it is.

This isn't a politics forum but as a matter of accuracy this requires correction. The indigenous population in Europe is actually falling, as it is in most developed countries. This is leading to what is known as a dependency ratio crisis. Immigration from underdeveloped countries is really all that is producing population growth. Humans are unusual in that unlike most creatures that respond to abundance with higher birth rates, we respond with lower birth rates. In short, Malthus was totally wrong.

If you pay attention to the movie it is revealed that the truth of these population control measures really has little to do with ecology, but is a matter of eugenics. The intention is that the wealthy would be allowed to have multiple offspring and the poor, none.

As to the OP, while I would give this movie a pass mark, it does have a lot of faults. Very little character development; what is the point of having SEVEN characters, apart from the obvious glib reference to days of the week, if we have no back history of note to be able to separate them. The movie would have worked better from a storytelling perspective with three or even two siblings. And lots of other, mostly trivial stuff that makes no sense. But hey, that would hardly be unusual in SF. And it has a really low budget look and feel to it- surprising given the quality of the cast. Some crazy kung fu fighting and shoot outs and shit gets blown up. Is the demographics of film making really that skewed that movies need to pander to the sensibilities of young teens and manchilds?

@Jacinto Cupboard said:

@Horus Mazinga said:

It was a decent movie. I always love Noomi so I was effected by bias. I had no issue with the action nor music. However, it had a bit of trouble in its premise. SPOILERS BELOW The way it jumped ahead to an authoritarian system controlled seemingly by a low level politician was a bit thin. Also, in the end weren't the "bad guys" correct? They just throw open the doors of breeding freedom and everyone feels like a happy Bernie voter and yet is not the severe population problem still looming? Would have been nice to see a post credit scene in which civilization crumbles under the weight of rioting cannibals.

... Still, weaknesses aside, a cool sci-fi flick for what it is.

This isn't a politics forum but as a matter of accuracy this requires correction. The indigenous population in Europe is actually falling, as it is in most developed countries. This is leading to what is known as a dependency ratio crisis. Immigration from underdeveloped countries is really all that is producing population growth. Humans are unusual in that unlike most creatures that respond to abundance with higher birth rates, we respond with lower birth rates. In short, Malthus was totally wrong.

If you pay attention to the movie it is revealed that the truth of these population control measures really has little to do with ecology, but is a matter of eugenics. The intention is that the wealthy would be allowed to have multiple offspring and the poor, none.

As to the OP, while I would give this movie a pass mark, it does have a lot of faults. Very little character development; what is the point of having SEVEN characters, apart from the obvious glib reference to days of the week, if we have no back history of note to be able to separate them. The movie would have worked better from a storytelling perspective with three or even two siblings. And lots of other, mostly trivial stuff that makes no sense. But hey, that would hardly be unusual in SF. And it has a really low budget look and feel to it- surprising given the quality of the cast. Some crazy kung fu fighting and shoot outs and shit gets blown up. Is the demographics of film making really that skewed that movies need to pander to the sensibilities of young teens and manchilds?

The premise is established by the movie, not your real world university style education. What you describe is true in some countries but hat does not therefore mean it can be extrapolated to apply to humanity. Abundance does not stop cultural/religious norms. Overpopulation on a global scale is on its way. The global population has ever been increasing. Not decreasing. Sorry about your toes. Never stop believing in Bernie ... and magic, etc.

@Jacinto Cupboard said:

As to the OP, while I would give this movie a pass mark, it does have a lot of faults. Very little character development; what is the point of having SEVEN characters, apart from the obvious glib reference to days of the week, if we have no back history of note to be able to separate them. The movie would have worked better from a storytelling perspective with three or even two siblings.

To be fair they were all stored away in one apartment and only let out once a week, so you couldn't really get much of a backstory. I guess what made them unique was their dress sense, so you assumed what kind of personality they already had to separate them. Also I think it did just as you said and focused on two of them (Monday and Tuesday I think).

Don't get me wrong I think this film has a lot of faults but there were bigger gripes than this.

@cpheonix said:

@Jacinto Cupboard said:

As to the OP, while I would give this movie a pass mark, it does have a lot of faults. Very little character development; what is the point of having SEVEN characters, apart from the obvious glib reference to days of the week, if we have no back history of note to be able to separate them. The movie would have worked better from a storytelling perspective with three or even two siblings.

To be fair they were all stored away in one apartment and only let out once a week, so you couldn't really get much of a backstory. I guess what made them unique was their dress sense, so you assumed what kind of personality they already had to separate them. Also I think it did just as you said and focused on two of them (Monday and Tuesday I think).

Don't get me wrong I think this film has a lot of faults but there were bigger gripes than this.

It's a form of stunt casting, and one that not only added nothing to the story but was distracting to the point of being confusing. The idea that they developed 'uniqueness', particularly in the case of Monday, is I think supposed to be core to both the plot and the 'moral message'. From a dramatic perspective, as you correctly point out, there isn't enough there to show this distinction beyond dress sense. Which is asinine because few people stick to a single 'look' anyway. Sticking a black wig on Sam's wicked sister in Bewitched worked because that was a comedy and that sort of ridiculous cheese works in a comedic, ironic way. Doing it seven times in a drama doesn't.

You can call it a 'gripe', but I see it as indicative of a lack of intelligence and inventiveness. It is fair for me to call the movie out on that.