Brilliant on the edge of your seat film and the first time i have spent 2 hours just wanting to see someone buy some bread. Amazing acting from everyone in the film. Highly recommended

Good acting but so over the top in terms of moral dilemmas Don't want to spoil things but very unrealistic especially when military men start to challenge direct orders

You know that philosophical question - What if you could save five people in the path of a runaway train by switching the points, but this would lead to one person being killed? This film dramatizes that problem brilliantly.Terrorists are preparing to strike, and we're all ready to drop a bomb on them when a sweet little girl from Central Casting wanders into the line of fire. Cue bickering, buck passing and nail biting suspense as the protagonists try to work out what to do. And this film is brilliant at asking: What would you do? Would you drop the bomb, trade one life for eighty and accept responsibility for killing an innocent? Would you wait, let the terrorists strike and cynically win the propaganda war? The most terrifying thing about this film are the implied questions. This is just a film, it says - the protagonists are idealized Hollywood characters who genuinely want to save lives. How much worse is it in the real world, where people aren't nearly as nice? How many times has this happened this month, this week, today? And - how long before the enemy gets hold of this sort of technology?A thought provoking, disturbing film that left me with the sense that things are going to get a lot worse before they get better.

I thought I would write a post-Manchester review. In May 2017 a bomb went off killing 23 people of whom ten were under the age of 20.This film is about whether it is better to spare one child and allow a suicide bomber to go ahead or sacrifice the child and kill everyone in the bomb factoryI didn't feel there was a moral dilemma. The film is only two years old before the writing of this review. I live in Manchester and having seen the aftermath of a bomb aimed at children, the idea of sacrificing one to save more seemed a straightforward trade-off, with no element of " shall I - shan't I ?" The moral dilemma such as it was - was not discussed as such but much more shuttled around. The team couldn't decide or more likely was told by people they could not decide - so it was referred up. Past the attorney-general to the minister and possibly prime minister . Then across to more ministers of another country . The only issue was that politicians are not good moral debaters.I waited for the real moral dilemmaA few months earlier, at London Bridge men carrying knives were shot out of hand by the then armed police without warning. We live in interesting times