Er, I'm confused by the content of this review. It bears a lot of internal one hand, the reviewer says the movie will be studied years from now for its action scenes, which he states are categorically better than anything else in recent memory. On the other hand, he says its an okay movie. Dude, make up your mind. which is it: a movie with outstanding action scenes or an okay movie. The two statements are mutually contradictory. Also, the assertion that the movie's characters and plot aren't very sophisticated is entirely subjective, since the reviewer does not substantiate these assertions with proof drawn from the movie itself. Why did the reviewer think the characters were shallow? On the contrary, the five main characters were complex (that is, displaying a set of distinct qualities. For instance, the first of the five main characters, the hero and protagonist, Tyler Rake, begins act one as a self-centered, money-loving, drunkard. However, during act two, he displays a definite change in his basic principles, arising from his personal experience of the immediate circumstances of life. This leads him to a new level of self-understanding with new (or rediscovered) principles as the third act unfolds. That is the epitome of a complex character: a change of perspective, practices, or basic principles. I'm not sure how this character arc can be mistaken for simplistic? Rake is fundamentally different by the end of the movie, and the narrative shows us how this transformation takes place. it's as he interacts with the second main character, the subject of the extraction, Ovi, who, again, is complex. He seems one way at the beginning of act one but undergoes a transformation (through a personal revelation) as the movie progresses. Huh, development of character through new insight or action. huh, just like Aristotle outlined all those years ago! The reviewer says the plot is simplistic, too. Again, I'm not sure what his definition of simplistic is, since it seems to con