Surprisingly incoherent and boring

Pretty Good

Highly Overrated But Still Good

This is a small, humorous movie in some ways, but it has a huge heart. What a nice experience.

If you're looking for a big budget Hollywood thriller, this isn't it, but for what it is, Interception is not as bad as some other reviews here would lead you to believe. This is one of those films that could easily have been a much better movie, but there were two major flaws. First, too many of the bit roles were done poorly, no doubt by friends of the producers and very possibly for free. In this case, they got what they paid for. There were a lot of stilted lines and just plain poor acting. On the flip side, the lead actors overall did a decent job - not great, and not always consistent, but not horrible, either. The second, and more significant, flaw of the movie was the script. While the actors often did a creditable job of delivering their lines, the lines themselves were not very good, and there were some gaping plot holes, including to some extent the basic premise of the whole film. Amateur mistakes, such as including unnecessary dialogue and a heavy reliance on profanity (nearly 80 instances of f---/f---ing alone), took what could have been an exciting story line and turned it into a sub-par production.On the other hand, this was far from the worst movie I've ever seen, and had some redeeming qualities. The lead actors showed promise and could have been better with a better script. There were a few twists and several moments of intentional humor that help keep any thriller on track. In the end, not too bad for a low-budget film, but one that could have been much better, even at the same price.

In fact, anyone who saw this silliness, was unscrupulous cheated. Potboiler like this, can be mocked up anyone, and then they collect money for tickets... If every nitwit pay to once see this film - authors get nice cash. I agree with all comments before me - there really can see cheap, poor acting, ugly script, plot and bad directing. As I said - stupid Americans. If you have some time to waste... Yes, I agree with "Don't Bother, 17 January 2009". This is a huge disappointment for everyone, who spend his money to tickets or DVD rent... You must sue "Clay Bros. Motion Pictures" - they had You. Really. (Sorry for my grammar, I use Google translator)

Hey, give these guys a break. OK, it's not Die Hard 4.0, but if you consider that it's the first effort of a small group of independent film makers, who wrote, produced, edited, scored, and everything else, it was a truly outstanding effort.Good plot, and funny acting. Remember how stiff the acting was in the first Star Trek (TOS) movie? "Wrath of Khan" was the next one in the series, and it was maybe the best. I'm looking forward to their next effort. Remember the first time you did something? You got better the next time, right? Keep at it you all. Consider the comments here and grow with the advice.

The premise of the movie seemed interesting, so I gave it a watch. Unfortunately, the acting was so horrible that I couldn't focus on the movie. This movie will probably stay in my "worst 10" list for a while. Why? The acting is beyond bad - all of the actors exhibit delayed, awkward, or incorrect emotions in almost every scene. It seems like the director/writer couldn't figure out whether they wanted a drama, comedy, or tragedy - so they mixed it all up.It's a really awkward film with bad directing, acting, and plot. Some movies are so bad that they're funny, but this movie is just painful to watch because it's bad but tries to pretend like it's not.In short, it's the first movie we've watched where my fiancé has said "We can turn this off if you want - this is horrible." If you want to see what a movie would be like with no real plot and bad acting and directing, by all means watch this movie. If you want to be entertained, however - stay away.