WasAnnon Slow pace in the most part of the movie.

SpuffyWeb Sadly Over-hyped

SoftInloveRox Horrible, fascist and poorly acted

Memorergi good film but with many flaws

EL After watching the trailer for "Cherrybomb", I had great expectations about this one. It looked dark and raw and sexy. But I was a bit disappointed. Not that it was not interesting to watch, but it felt like something was missing, something was not enough.The storyline goes like this: Two 16-year-olds, best friends, fall for the new girl in town. She leads them both on and they compete over her, trying to impress her. The three fall into a twirl of alcohol, drugs, sex and violence.The two friends are portrayed by Rupert Grint and Robert Sheehan. They were both excellent. Sheehan is always a joy to watch, there is a great career ahead of him. And Grint was a very pleasant surprise, basically supporting most of the film with his performance. Kimberley Nixon though, the girl that pulls the strings, did not stand up to the part for me. It didn't seem believable that she could affect them that much, I couldn't see "that something" in her.Another reviewer compared this trio with the Effy/Freddie/Cook story in "Skins". I agree to the similarity and it is an excellent argument why "Cherrybomb" was not enough. Effy was a character you loved to hate. You could see why she had them crazy over her. The love/hate friendship between Freddie and Cook was very touching. And it was much more raw and violent, really leaved you with a wow/punch-in-the-stomach kind of feel. "Cherrybomb" tried for this feel too and didn't quite get there...The cinematography was interesting, I liked the dark colors and it got across the feeling of despair and confusion of adolescence. But still I expected more, it was a bit superficial, not strong enough, not daring enough perhaps, to shock you, to really get to you.Kudos for the ending and the soundtrack. Could have been better, but it's still worth watching.

The Man The Myth Maybe I'm tool old to appreciate films like this these days (I'm 33), because, for the most part, I found this film both dull and irritating in equal measures.The kid with the curly hair who looked like he fronted an indie band was a horrible little streak of p!ss. The girl too was a very unsympathetic and unpleasant character. Harry Potter's Ron was about the only character I could have cared less about, but really I couldn't have cared less (Note, I only watched this a little over 12hrs ago and can't remember any of the characters names).The depiction of them supposedly being off their heads on drugs was amateur, even the smoking didn't look convincing. The build up to the finale was poorly paced and uninteresting. The finale, whilst reasonably rousing, failed to make up for the abundant lack of worth the film had beforehand.I've read this is comparable to Skins. I've never seen Skins, but have borrowed the first 3 series. After watching Cherrybomb, however, I think I'll politely bow out of watching any. Nearly a day's worth of viewing something that's akin to Cherrybomb seems like a rather dire prospect.1/10

Matthew Harkin Ever since I saw the trailer for this, I always thought it looked interesting. I've always liked Rupert Grint as an actor, and for me, he is the only positive factor in this mess of a film. CHERRYBOMB is littered with annoying performances, and pointless characters, who sit around with no purpose. They have virtually no motivation at all, which sadly doesn't allow you to become emotionally connected to any of the characters. I couldn't care less about what happens to any of them. It's basically just a film full of smoking. Robert Sheehan is REALLY annoying. I don't know what it is about him, but his performance in this was really irritating. I won't spoil the film for those who haven't seen it, but it's meant to build up to something big. It's such a shame there's no build up at all. It's just loads of pointless scenes thrown together serving no purpose at all. At least Grint makes this film watchable, however awful it is itself. The only I actually really liked in this film, was the drunken montage near the end of the movie. I thought that was really well done. The ending I felt was well filmed as well, but like I said, I really don't care enough to be bothered by it.

Carlos Martinez Escalona The story's been revealed already. Nothing else to say, but that this is not, by a far cry, Rupert's first great dramatic achievement. Last comment's remarks on his work are a bit "off-colour". It'd be good for all of us viewers to get rid of Rupert's role in the Harry Potter's still unfinished franchise, OK. Watch him alongside Julie Walters in "Driving Lessons" and you'll see what this almost 20-year old "kid" can do... he's been a great actor for a long time! (Driving Lessons was shot while The Goblet of Fire was still rolling cameras!).So, if there's anything to say about an actor here, it would be really appropriate to watch his whole work before judging it, especially when he's so young. Driving Lessons was the door that opened him a whole new world because he did it so well. And here, again, he delivers with enormous power, literally obliterating Bob Sheehan and Kim Nixon, especially Robert, who's been in the limelight before Rupert.Oh, and BTW, is there any other actor coming from the HP films who's talented as Rupert? Just watch and let some three more years go on, and you'll see Rupert in more and more big films that really suit his capabilities.