Such a frustrating disappointment

Brilliant and touching

It is not only a funny movie, but it allows a great amount of joy for anyone who watches it.

The storyline feels a little thin and moth-eaten in parts but this sequel is plenty of fun.

Before watching a movie I always see who is in it and that usually weighs heavily on my decision to watch it or not. I'm a fan of Sean Faris and his acting in the movie is the only reason I gave the movie such a high rating - I can honestly saw this movie should have gotten a 1.After watching it I feel like it's a pathetic attempt to remake the 2009 movie Gamer starring Gerard Butler - which wasn't a great movie but far better than this.There are so many awful things about this movie I don't know where to star. Well, first of all, I really disliked Chelsea. Why you ask? Because the movie basically revolved around this 'beautiful' character that has virtually no personality and who we really no nothing about. In fact we don't really get to know any of the characters except the surface of Ryan.Maybe this type of movie just isn't my thing but it felt so flat and lifeless even with all the action. The concept of the movie was OK but the dialogue between the characters and their lack of personalities was pitiful.

Movies focusing on a certain martial arts or similar tend to be dull, full of clichés and predictable. Freerunner (2011) is no exception: running for life, remote destruction devices, individualism vs. teamwork, naive sportsmen vs. evil moneymakers etc have been used dozens of times before (and I am sure will be used in the future as well). The ending is also trivial, preceded by several speedily accumulative scenes, not providing any value to the movie.Acting is mediocre or even terrible, especially the blond announcer and those billionaires annoyingly appearing on screens.Well, the movie is for you if you are keen on parkour, inexpressive dudes and flickering cameras. For a decent free-running movie, watch Luc Besson's District 13 instead.

I can't believe the reviews here. Some of them have obviously never seen a truly bad film in their lives (based on their reviews giving this a 1), and others don't seem capable of recognizing a bad film (based on their reviews giving this a 9 or 10).Random thoughts: * Sean is nice to look at -- sort of Tom Cruise, without the baggage (yet). You could do a lot worse for 90 minutes.* Not knowing what the film is about makes the twist halfway through kind of interesting. (But it would have been good enough without the twist).* The wrist devices are ridiculous. Either they transmit speech, or they don't. But in this film, they transmit speech AND they don't. Depending on what the plot needs.* Too much hand-held camera. Most of the action is supposed to be recorded by cameras affixed to the sides of buildings. Not shaky. And I really don't want hand-held cam in the bedroom.* In summary, I'd place it among some of the more ridiculous Bond films. The entertainment level stays high throughout, even when you know the filmmakers have simply given up trying to make sense.

I watched this last night i had been to IMDb to check rating and it was rated at about 7.5/10.......HOW!!! today have just had to create an account to review this because i need to advise people who enjoy movies to AVOID!!!!!! also checked the review of 3/10 today is getting closer to its true score.OK the free-running itself is quite impressive but underlying a right AWFUL film..i thought skyline was bad i have not seen a film this awful since skyline and hope i don't for a long time too...ill repeat again AVOID!!!!!!!! but i know people will have to watch it just to see if I'm right or wrong anyways there are more deserving films to watch than this.