Greenes Please don't spend money on this.

Protraph Lack of good storyline.

ScoobyMint Disappointment for a huge fan!

ChampDavSlim The acting is good, and the firecracker script has some excellent ideas.

sanjsrik You know when you see big actors in a bad movie? When they haven't done anything recently and the bills are due. There's really no other explanation for this movie's existence. It's unbelievable, implausible, improbable, boring, stupid, vapid, idiotic, and any other adjective you could use for a C movie posing as an A movie.This was just bad. Bad. Bad. Bad. There's no interest while the movie is going on. The acting is just bad. The cameras need to stay the hell still (someone else noted this whole, shaky camera thing, STOP SHAKING THE CAMERA LIKE A TODDLER WAS DOING THE FILMING ON A CELLPHONE). It's distracting and stupid. The plot is laughable. The acting bad. I'm in agreement with others who have written that it was painful to watch this until the end. I did in the hopes that this would get better. Spoiler. It got worse.Save your 82 minutes and do something else.

Bennies Nachos After trawling through a splurge of "awful" "didn't finish it" "they ate my brain" reviews.. i was wondering if i wasn't "on a different moral compass" but possibly in a different mindset.. I thought (and this is why i bothered looking) somebody might have speculated on a little suggestion. Perhaps the film wasn't great so my thinking picked upon character representation.. wouldn't get to deep here.. but sometimes it seemed as though the reasons for these obscure character traits were on a deeper level with characters representing the government, federal reserve, the public... the choppy sea as the big scary world etcetera..... Might have made/maybe was a wonderful novel but the Hardyesque qualities have been lost in Hollywoods vision... (because that never happens)

Boristhemoggy Even the lovely Dianna Agron wasn't enough to make me continue watching this utter load of rubbish to the end. Why was it so bad? Well there's one main reason and that's the continued use of shaky cameras. I have no idea which photographer first thought they'd make their name from this style of photography, and not a clue which director first though it added to their film. However all it does to me apart from making me feel dizzy is think that they don't care if their movie is enjoyed, only that they do something they want to do with it for an undisclosed reason. Let me tell you, never in human history have we had shaky vision. Nor do we enjoy shaky vision. There is no artistic merit in this and it stops people enjoying a film. The plot itself is ridiculous. Now because it's a film and needs a bit of licence, I'd have forgiven it but due to the awful photography that made me grump so I looked at the plot with more dislike than I should. Anyone with half a brain knows the situation as was presented has not and will not ever happen that way so B movie shaking combined with TV B movie plot makes for a crap movie. I have not seen the other 2 films that Rappaport has directed so I don't know if this is his own style or if it's just this one film that is awful. I got to 17 minutes in and that's as much as I could possibly manage before I turned it off in disgust.

Aditya I don't understand how they expect to make money of these kind of movies. Are these C Flicks a method to launder money?The movie tried to appear real slick but ends up delivering motion sickness inducing camera work. Headache inducing soundtrack and Corny Computer Hardware clichés. Last times like Schwab and Diebold...seriously? I'm trying to think of something positive and it's quite difficult.I kept hoping to hear the Purge Siren go off, and the main character to start killing everyone to end the movie quickly. It would have been a much more redeemable ending.