Fresh and Exciting

I cannot think of one single thing that I would change about this film. The acting is incomparable, the directing deft, and the writing poignantly brilliant.

Great example of an old-fashioned, pure-at-heart escapist event movie that doesn't pretend to be anything that it's not and has boat loads of fun being its own ludicrous self.

This is one of the best movies I’ve seen in a very long time. You have to go and see this on the big screen.

I don't suppose it's a spoiler to say that the main character acquires a stalker; this is the crucial point of the film, and of my impressions of it. The scenario is interesting: the explosion of consequences on a group of dysfunctional Londoners' lives after their involvement in a ballooning accident. But the development of the plot depends on continually unfeasible choices of actions. Nobody seems to have heard of stalker fans. Nobody except the immediate victim, Joe, seems much bothered about it, or even inclined to believe Joe about it. Joe takes none of the obvious steps for dealing with the situation - asking shop staff to remove the person pestering him, solicitor, police, restraining order - or even the dramatically likely outcome of thumping the guy and letting the situation come out in court. The film would probably make sense in a universe where a stalker was an unheard-of phenomenon. But on Planet Earth, it just doesn't work.

The opening scene of this film alone makes it worth watching - a stunningly photographed piece that sets the tone of domestic horror that will give the film its dramatic impetus. Like the serenely drifting balloon that belies the tragedy to come, the cinematography drives the film calmly yet compellingly towards its brutal climax.This is a film that has the courage of its conviction in terms of narrative pacing - there are some stiflingly slow scenes that never feel the need to speed up, instead taking pleasure in winding our nerves ever tighter round the characters' distressing situations.Daniel Craig arguably has more presence in this film with only a pair of spectacles than he would ever come to have whilst hidden behind bulging muscles and snappy cars as James Bond. Rhys Ifans works best in roles where he has the opportunity to have more of a tongue-in-cheek attitude to the character he is playing. Watching him in this film without any sense of his cutting irony, therefore, is unfortunately a slightly bland experience. At some moments, however, he does manage to display the kind of pitiable yet violent behaviour required for the role.This film's star turn is down to the people behind the character. Unfortunately, the best moments of the film are in the first five minutes - the film always struggles to live up to these chillingly enchanting opening moments.James Gill (Twitter @jg8608)

I have read a number of comments that criticised the film in light of it being a better read than it is a movie. I have not read the book nor am i likely to as i prefer visual entertainment most of the time. To compare any film to its paper bound inspiration is unhelpful and unfair. If one has heard it once then we have heard it a million times, books rarely get translated into faithful or superior films unless of course the book is about 10 pages long or pure drivel. so, do not be persuaded by any such comparisons, simply ignore such comparisons and let the pixels do the talking.If you haven't read the book the film will surprise. It is dark and morbid with just about enough realism to keep it from turning into an irrelevance. It does walk a tightrope between credible and confusion briefly but this just kept me focused on the story and the characters which perhaps did need more development however it works well enough to keep the overall feel of the film moving in a consistent direction. There are some annoyances within the direction that may cause one to ask how? why? but again they become part of the frustration and panic that maybe the director had in mind for the audience. I liked the film and more than anything it was an enjoyable experience which is what after all we watch films for.

I saw the Jed figure as existing in Joe's imagination, welling up from his unconscious mind to haunt him. Yes, Jed was at the triggering event but he haunts Joe without reference to anyone else, and challenges him on the most difficult subject for many English intellectuals: love for thy neighbour. Joe dismisses love publicly in his lectures and privately to friends: according to him it's just "biology". Naturally, this conviction makes him unaware of insulting his live-in lover. He is trapped inside his inability to love. Jed's professed love makes Joe extremely uncomfortable, and he uses all sorts of evasions to escape it. This passage of the film, roughly the first half, was rivetingly significant to me. It is dealing with a central English issue. As the plot developed and Jed emerged from the shadows into Joe's life I thought the film lost its way a little. Joe never confronted his inability to love, and Claire left him. The symbolic representation of this disaster was brilliantly theatrical, but raised some difficult issues of plot resolution that were uncertainly handled. To call this picture a stalker film is like saying Hamlet is about mental health: the more you see the stalker and the less a haunting, the less the film will entertain and challenge you.