SpunkySelfTwitter It’s an especially fun movie from a director and cast who are clearly having a good time allowing themselves to let loose.

Nayan Gough A great movie, one of the best of this year. There was a bit of confusion at one point in the plot, but nothing serious.

Anoushka Slater While it doesn't offer any answers, it both thrills and makes you think.

Juana what a terribly boring film. I'm sorry but this is absolutely not deserving of best picture and will be forgotten quickly. Entertaining and engaging cinema? No. Nothing performances with flat faces and mistaking silence for subtlety.

Mark Devlin This is a truly awful film, that has to be said, but somehow they've put so much energy into the special effects that it becomes sort of compelling, in the sense you want to see how bad it can get. The plot is a very basic, juvenile fantasy of good and evil. In this case evil in corrupt politicians who are run by evil forces from another dimension opposed by the good guys, a joint effort of a rebellious vigilante group, a lone wolf special ops agent and som white magic types that look like they may have escaped from a Canadian spin-off of Lord of the Rings together with the cheesy green screen backgrounds. The overall effect is rather as if you would start off with a Turkish soap opera, add some Transporter, a dash of The Matrix, some snatches from Counterstrike. It has a certain entertainment value if you don't have to pay for it.

dbborroughs Great action and wonderful effects get lost in a convoluted story about a secret group of hooded people over seeing the balance and the time shifters they use to control events... or something.It doesn't take long before you realize that there is nothing that makes sense to the plot-- or rather nothing makes sense on screen since it's clear that this made sense to someone at some time- say in the source novel. The trouble is any sense of a plot is only that a sense. The film really doesn't make any but the most basic of sense- these are the good guys and those are the bad guys and these weird things happen. It's a nice idea but ultimately it all gets very boring really fast.avoid this one.

Richard Hawes Originally known as Smersh XXI but retitled Zapreshchennaya Realnost (Forbidden Reality) and then released internationally as THE INTERCEPTOR (2009), Konstantin Maximov's film has drawn comparisons with the likes of THE MATRIX trilogy (1999, 2003, 2003) and the BOURNE trilogy (2002, 2004, 2007) and it's entirely fair. It also reminded me a little of DISPLACED (2006). A simple action movie with a convoluted plot involving layers of reality and supernatural fighting skills, it's another example of Russia's attempts to emulate Hollywood blockbusters in their own unique way. Less unique than either NIGHT WATCH (2004) or DAYWATCH (2006), INTERCEPTOR is almost incomprehensible, it's only because elements are so familiar that you're able to follow it. While it has its flaws, it's under 90 minutes (is there a longer cut?) and there's plenty of action (although I feel the intensity of these sequences would have been improved with some better sound design) and I feel inclined to watch it again to try and figure out what the hell is going on.

pontram To reprimand a movie as pathetic, foolish, boring etc. is a very (harsh) personal statement of private feelings. I for myself felt entertained although I'm not one of the three 1) under-aged 2) drunk during watching 3) a member of the cast. Maybe I was in a (too ?) good mood, but I didn't oversee many lacks in plot originality, script writing, dialogs, and so on. What I oversaw was any of the three attributes pathetic/foolish/boring, where one who is really willing can throw them at SF-giants like Bladerunner, 2001, District 9, Matrix, or even Solaris.The movie itself seems to be an interesting mixture of the common solitary fighter flick (there are soo many), a German car advertisement clip (like Transporter 2) for Russian mobster clients, Matrix (yes hate me), and Stalker (now kill me). Someone will possibly feel left alone with a certain lack of prologue, explanations, character development, and so on, either because Writer and Director weren't able to deliver those, or they simply didn't want to. I wasn't really disturbed about this. A bit of unconventionality can never harm, and I for myself get often bored by endless monologues or sad back-flashes, which are both not present in Interceptor.What I saw on the positive side were upper-class visuals, fine locations, decent actors (despite they have not so much to "act") and a kind of Russian mood, quite different from Bekmambetov's in his Day/Nighwatch hit series (which I enjoyed at a max), but still present. The production values are O.K., especially in 3d graphics, everything and everyone is serious and believable, maybe even because there are some holes where viewers can fill in their own imaginations.On the negative side is the plot, which is not exactly a brainwave, but being serious, this it have in common with, say, Avatar's plot. Further, characters are only outlined and stay colorless at a cool distance from us. Action scenes seem only to be thrown in by the god of scriptwriting to fill some minutes until the end. Relations between characters are foreseeable and mostly cliché.Nevertheless Interceptor has its qualities to entertain, primarily with CGI visuals, and a with a strange myth of alien powers, which are existing in a parallel dimension right beneath ours since thousands of years, fighting against each other, utilizing us (Russians) for their own and seemingly senseless war (Nochnoi Dozor hails).I gave an 8 to raise the unfair rating of 3.6 a bit. I think it deserves about 6.5, if you look at the IMO ridiculous Chronicles of Riddic (6.4), or Stargate Continuum (7.4 !), or The Matrix itself, which has a higher rating (8.7) than Stalker (8.1), Solaris (8.0) or 2001 (8.4) only because of wicked leather clothing ;-)