Wonderful character development!

Watch something else. There are very few redeeming qualities to this film.

As somebody who had not heard any of this before, it became a curious phenomenon to sit and watch a film and slowly have the realities begin to click into place.

The film may be flawed, but its message is not.

CIA operative Alice gets sidetracked from interrogation to going on the run in London in the middle of a plot to do with unleashing chemical warfare: it is uncertain who is on whose side, and why.What appears to be a fairly labyrinthine plot, in terms of uncertain loyalties, who is working for whom, what the plot actually is, and so on, turns out in the end to be relatively straightforward. Having said that, this action thriller works fairly well while it is going along. Set mainly in gloomy grey London, the closing piece in sunny Prague makes a deliberate point with its bright saturated colours. In fact, notwithstanding it working as a fairly routine thriller, there are a number of points made here, not least to do with the current American President and the media view of Islam. I think I would have preferred this film had these elements not been present: I watch films very superficially so, if I can see something like that, it must be pretty obvious. And I don't like being preached to.The cast all perform well. Noomi Rapace is good as Alice, even though I don't like the actress much.

A CIA interrogator is lured into a ruse that puts London at risk of a biological attack. Noomi Rapace fails to be believable as a CIA interrogator, Michael Douglas was there for the Cash and Orlando Bloom should stick on making POTC Movies or LOTR Prequels. Unlocked is a terrible action film from start to finish. (0/10)

This is definitely an action film, but sometimes it's difficult to see why. It would be good to see a movie with a straight story line occasionally, and this convoluted effort definitely doesn't qualify. People seem to think Ms Rapace is great here. I don't agree: her enunciation is poor and her facial expressions are wooden. Also, I confess, I find female fighters entirely unconvincing in any context, and this movie is no exception. I'm giving it four stars solely because the gunshot sound effects are better than usual.

This movie was riveting. The plot twists and double crossings were, to my mind, totally unexpected. The casting was superb, and the actors did a damn good job. Noomi Rapace, Orlando Bloom, John Malkovich, Michael Douglas - all excellent. The writing (Peter O'Brien) and direction (Michael Apted) was excellent. This brings me to my main point; are movie critics and/or audiences becoming stupider? How can this EXCELLENT movie receive a Rotten Tomatoes critics rating of 25% and an audience rating of 40%? Maybe the critical reviewers have conscious/ unconscious biases themselves; perhaps related to their own activities? Poor critical reviews by media influencers directly affects the profit margin of a movie. If we can no longer trust media influencers to provide honest assessments of movies (partially because of their own treasonous deeds), then it follows that we need Goy-only media, and Goy-only systematic rating platforms.