Very very predictable, including the post credit scene !!!

Such a frustrating disappointment

True to its essence, the characters remain on the same line and manage to entertain the viewer, each highlighting their own distinctive qualities or touches.

It's simply great fun, a winsome film and an occasionally over-the-top luxury fantasy that never flags.

First let me explain my rating-system. I consider a 5 a movie that's somewhat watchable, a 6 is already a good movie. I gave Haven a 3 because the soundtrack was good and the acting wasn't horrible. Now over to the bad stuff...I wouldn't recommend this film to anyone. Usually in my reviews I try to say something like: 'this movie isn't recommended for people who don't like slow-developing plots' or 'it's not for people who want the plot wrapped up neatly in the end'. But I can honestly and objectively say this movie was just one of poor quality. The biggest problem is the plot itself. The storyline is multi-linear, characters are being followed and they're all supposed to be connected in one way or another through an event or multiple events. Examples of brilliant use of this method is seen in Amores Perros, 21 Grams, Crash and Magnolia. In these films the story lines have similar prominent themes and the characters are all connected physically. Every character adds more elements to the story until we have a complex web of story lines, constantly crossing paths and having effects on one another. I know this sounds confusing but watch Amores Perros and Crash and you'll know exactly what I mean. Haven makes one fruitless attempt after another to be clever until all we end up with is an unsorted mess of scenes thrown together in a wanna-be movie. That's the best way to describe Haven: it wants to be a lot of things but ends up being rubbish.The thing that irritated me even more then the gimmick mentioned above was the chronologically scattered framework that was used. I feel like they realized the plot and characters of their attempted intelligent film were overly simple, and they tried to jazz it up with a chronologically scattered framework to fool people into thinking they're watching something clever. I heard the story was chronological at the premiere of the Toronto film festival and then they re-edited the whole film to create the flashbacks. That's not the way to write a story with a scrambled up chronology. You have to actually write the script like that (with chronology switching from the start of your story) or the storyline will be a mess. The storyline has to flow naturally, even if you use chronology like that. A prime example a brilliantly written script that uses the same technique is Memento. The technique used actually adds something to the suspense of the story.Nope, don't waste your time on this. I usually only write IMDb reviews for films I like but this film was just too dreadful for words, I felt it was my duty to stop another human being from seeing it. I don't see why anyone should see this movie. It's certainly not to be entertained and I hardly think anyone would be enlightened after seeing a film like this.3/10 and I'm being generous.

A truly remarkable movie in any number of ways. The cast does a great job---Bloom delivers one of his best performances so far, but there really is not a single weak act that would stand out. The writing is tight and complex---the movie introduces a fair number of very different characters that we need to care about in order for it to work, but they do pull it off, and that is quite a considerable achievement in itself.The story is told in a nonlinear way, and in fact there is a phase of the movie during which you might wonder how this whole thing fits together. But then the threads are pulled together nicely and artfully, with a lot of attention to detail that a viewer will be delighted to discover, sometimes perhaps on repeated viewing. Things fall into place, are seen to have a meaning with respect to other parts of the narrative, and quickly the film becomes complete and whole.Finally, the photography is beautiful in those places where it should be, and gritty in others.With great acts, an excellent script, and beautiful pictures, there is really not much wrong with this movie. I have never been to the Caymans, so I cannot comment on the authenticity, but judging from other comments here, they even got that one right, too.

I thought I had written a review of this travesty of a movie.There was absolutely nothing worthwhile in it . I agree with the last reviewer its too much nose candy.They use a hand held camera to the extreme, I have seen better hand held camera work on "youtube."The acting is second rate by a well known cast.I will not insult them by naming them, same for the director & writer.This was filmed on the beautiful Cayman Islands,It should have been done on the Santa Monica beach, that is how much it looked like the Caymans.Rating * (out of 4) 25 points (out of 100) IMDb 1 (out of 10)

I'm not sure why the previous reviewer felt the movie needed a "present day" title...that would have defeated the purpose of the artistry and use of the flashback. I think most people prefer not having a movie mapped out for them.This movie has a gritty quality and leaves an impression of a lack of resolution...which, to me, is the sign of a realistic movie. It was actually a story about loss of innocence in several ways. And innocence is something you can never get back, no matter how hard you try. Haven beautifully emits that feeling of futility and devastation when you realize things will never be the way they were before...when things were good...when life was beautiful.Did it have some flaws? Sure. But overall, great cinematography, nice blend of multi-linear stories, solid performances, and an impacting plot.