Load of rubbish!!

When a movie has you begging for it to end not even half way through it's pure crap. We've all seen this movie and this characters millions of times, nothing new in it. Don't waste your time.

This is a small, humorous movie in some ways, but it has a huge heart. What a nice experience.

Worth seeing just to witness how winsome it is.

Ever seen "Escape From New York"? Then you've seen this movie - in its original, superior, R-rated form. Not only does this movie take its plot from Carpenter's classic (which led to "Lockout"'s makers being successfully sued) but it seems to take pride in its countless clichés and formulaic-ness. It stars Guy Pearce, who is quite a good actor - but in this film it doesn't really matter, because his character is just a facsimile of one anyone who's seen their fair share of action movies has seen many times before. The other main star is Maggie Grace, whose character Pearce's is sent into outer space to rescue. Grace is best known for playing someone who has to get rescued in the movie "Taken," also co-written by Luc Besson. She is a very generic actress. Generic acting, generic looks - just incredibly forgettable. "Lockout" is certainly an entertaining picture, has plenty of good action (though unfortunately plenty of fake-looking CGI too), and is generally what might be termed 'dumb fun.' It is also spectacularly, illegally derivative - and, like its star, absolutely unmemorable. Watch it if you're sufficiently bored or stoned or something.

its a average story in which president,s daughter is been hostage with some few others and a cocky guy is been sent to bring her back from some space jail does,nt interests at all but some good humour and some very good acting performance i consider it a bit average movie but its humour makes it interesting.

This was a good, but somewhat implausible story, and it could have been a good or even great movie except for the unbelievable and unbelievably bad, stiff & wooden acting by Guy Pearce and others. But it wasn't just Guy Pearce's stiff portrayal; the portrayal of the President was lame and unemotional, the Warden was, well, I think you get the picture. Was it the one-liner dialogue that did the movie in, or was it the bad acting that revealed the clichéd dialogue to be what it is, resulting in one-dimensional, stereotypical action-hero-movie portrayals? This movie tries way too hard to be Die Hard in space. The sane convict brother was a more likable guy than the hero, and the only decent acting was done by a few actors including Lennie James (Shaw) and Vincent Regan & Joseph Gilgun, the sane and insane brother convicts who drive the movie. Because the movie was so dismal, their acting ends up shining like diamonds in a coal bin which can only help but further their careers. I'm left wondering which came first, the chicken or the egg? Was it the bad dialogue and script that soured the acting? Or was it the acting that curdled the dialogue? It had to be a combination of both; the end result of which equals a wasted half- hearted effort of a movie.

**** Warning. This contains a lot of spoilers ****Let's start with what I liked about this film: 1) The production design (the station looks great). 2) The actors. The issue I had with this movie was not a lack of originality (I didn't really care whether or not it was original. I was more concerned about execution).First of all, Guy Pearce is one of my favorite actors. However, he just doesn't suit the wise-cracking anti-hero type of character. Actually, I think it might have worked, had his lines been adjusted a bit. A few of the lines that were supposed to be funny just didn't come off that way.Now for the REAL killer...Pacing. I'm not talking about action pacing (that was fine). I'm talking about dramatic pacing or pacing for added impact. For example, when they jump out of the station to make planet fall -- it's really rushed. Now compare that to what would happen if this was a James Bond movie. Instead you'd have them start the jump, then it would switch to a very long shot and everything would slow down. Along with that, the musical score would change to something slower and more majestic -- giving you time to absorb the action as well as what the characters are experiencing. As part of this process, the next shot would be a close-up of the two of them and the brutal buffeting they'd get from atmospheric re-entry as well as how they're literally and figuratively bonding.As others have mentioned, this film has a similar plot to Escape From New York. Note that in Escape, when Snake and Hauk are sitting across the table from each other, they establish that the two characters are decorated soldiers and that they're both total badasses. You know who you're dealing with right from the start and you get a sense of what Snake is all about. Contrast that with Lockout. There's a similar meeting, but the audience is left clueless as to who exactly Snow is. It would help to explain that he's a secret service agent at the start and really show how he's been wrongly accused. The audience needs to know something about him and be able to sympathize with him. Watching this movie, even the fact that it was Guy Pearce, it still wasn't enough for me to feel sorry for the character. I just kept asking myself, "Who the hell is this character and why should I care?"There are a few other spots in this film in which a little more meaningful character interplay would have helped. I'm not talking about radically stopping the action -- just pausing a tiny but more at the end of certain scenes, instead of cutting away so quickly. That, and more use of establishing shots. My final qualm is with the musical score. It's incredibly generic and doesn't really change much to reflect the mood of the scenes. In fact, it sounds like the music for most modern video games. Pretty uninspired and almost like something I'd expect to hear from a stock library.We know this is left open for a sequel. However, with these flaws, it may not receive funding; And even if it did -- would it be worth it?