Steineded How sad is this?

CrawlerChunky In truth, there is barely enough story here to make a film.

TrueHello Fun premise, good actors, bad writing. This film seemed to have potential at the beginning but it quickly devolves into a trite action film. Ultimately it's very boring.

Hayden Kane There is, somehow, an interesting story here, as well as some good acting. There are also some good scenes

bheadher Chain Reaction is not an epic, by any stretch of the word...but it is an entertaining movie none the less...Don't put on your pointy science hat, unless it is tin foil of course, because the scientific aspect is quite a stretch of the imagination, at least.And don't try to figure out why 90% of the movie involves a not so covert manhunt, by a secret organization, trying to capture Keanu Reaves...who happens to be a machinist who "machined" the parts for a cold fusion apparatus. He has no secret knowledge of how this break through engery system works, but we are to believe he is crucial to the secrets that will unlock limitless energy at low cost...Ok ok, I'm done with my rant. The movie is actually entertaining, so I gave it a 7 for that alone...

Phil Hubbs I remember seeing the trailer for this film way back in 96 at the cinema. It looked really quite cool and exciting, Reeves was flying high at the time and it boasted some snazzy CGI, talk about deceptive!The whole film seemed to be centred around one sequence. That sequence being the huge explosion that occurs near the start and wipes out a vast area of Chicago, nuclear in appearance. Now this was back in the days when CGI was still a newish weapon and big flashy destructive sequences like this were looked upon as impressive and breaking the barrier.Looking back it is a nice effect but of course its dated and the cracks are showing, but I'm not gonna moan about that. The problem is the rest of the film is really quite dull, visuals are dull, action is dull and the acting is even dull despite a very good cast line up. Reeves is his usual monotone self, Weisz is a complete drip and Freeman now looks pretty clichéd in his natty Malcolm X looking 90's suit and hat. It really does feel like they wanted to show off their CGI destruction sequence so they made an entire film around that one moment. A completely by the numbers action thriller (if you can call it that) that covers every aspect you'd expect from the fugitive chase movie book. Bland boring so very very predictable and the films title is one of those totally meaningless but cool sounding types that looks even cooler with a striking font.4/10

HelenMary I found reviews for this film on IMDb confusing and wondered whether people had watched the same film as me. One reviewer said that the film doesn't mention sonoluminescence (it does, explicitly), others say that certain things aren't explained ie the explosion in the warehouse. Well d'uh! Hydrogen is not an inert gas and is highly flammable (mentioned a LOT in the film) and people complain about lack of plot then demonstrate they didn't understand it anyway! Chain Reaction is a science-heavy sci-fi chase film where two people who barely know each other are framed for something they didn't do and go on the run. Suspension of "why didn't they just go to the FBI and explain" aside, it's a ripping good fairly intelligent yarn which isn't dumbed down so it's not all spelled out, especially Shannon's character (Morgan Freeman) who throughout is ambiguous in who's side he is actually on. Aspects of the story are insidious - an environmentally friendly fuel that would revolutionise the world and a Government Agency wants to suppress it and an idealist is labelled a dreamer for wanting to make a difference. It's isn't too hard to believe that is a possible scenario. Okay some of the acting is a little cheesy but overall the performances were perfectly fine. Freeman of course is superior. Dr Alistair Barkley (Nicholas Rudall) was also a lovely actor and character, although not well known, and his monologue at the beginning is just superb and emotive - clearly the writing/screenplay was very good except for the repetition of everyone's names during conversation, that really gets on my nerves. The plot is as simple or as complex as you want. On the surface it's a simple on the run film, but the political conspiracy aspects and science-stuff make it a deeper story, which not being spelled out adds to the mystery. Reeves of course is excellent at the action, and plays resourceful convincingly and easily; I liked his dogged determination to rescue Lily and clear their names. Rachel Weisz's Physicist the "too serious Lily" is a bit weak, a bit of a drag on the survival given that everything is done for her but perhaps that is more realistic, women don't miraculously turn into gung-ho running leaping shooting and fighting survivalists, but I do expect her to do something but her emotions are very real especially regarding Chen (Tzi Ma). Whilst you see a potential romance on the cards for Eddie and Lily it's nice that the screenplay doesn't dwell on it, and the focus of the plot given the lack of time and Eddie Kasalivich being a gentleman.The SFX in the film are good, especially the explosions, and I'm betting Reeves does his own bike stunts. There are many stunts which are pretty good but they are within the bounds of realism - and this is generally why the characters are relatable and convincing. It's got a tense crescendo to how it runs out, and it's entertaining and adult without resorting to bad language and gratuitous violence - I would consider it almost a family film (older family). I'm not saying it's the best film every made, but I like all aspects of it to have seen it a number of times. I think some people try and read too much into the science, it's not supposed to be an episode of the Open University, it's just a science-fiction that isn't too far from feasible possibility. Just sit back and enjoy for some entertainment.

James Hitchcock Eddie Kasalivich is a student machinist working on a project at the University of Chicago to obtain energy from water, when he discovers the secret of a process by which low-cost energy can be obtained from burning hydrogen, leaving only water as a residue. (The exact science is not always clear, but this appears to be some sort of nuclear fusion). Someone, however, obviously wants to sabotage Eddie's discovery, and one of his colleagues is murdered and the laboratory is destroyed in a massive explosion. Eddie and another colleague, Dr. Lily Sinclair, are questioned by the police and the FBI, and quickly realise that someone is trying to frame them for both the murder and the explosion. They are forced to go on the run to try and clear their names and to expose the true culprits.It is not just the science upon which the film is based that is unclear; the plot too is often over-elaborate and difficult to fathom. We eventually learn that the real villains are agents of the Government and of Big Business, who are desperate to suppress Eddie's discovery because they fear that a new cheap, environmentally friendly source of energy would make oil obsolete, force all oil companies into bankruptcy and lead to economic depression and social chaos. In fact, capitalism is rather more adaptable than the screenwriters imagine; a new energy source of this nature, by dramatically reducing industry's energy costs, would more likely lead to an economic boom and huge profits for those companies who could exploit this lucrative new technology. Existing energy companies would probably be among them, just as many stagecoach owners made a fortune from the invention of the steam train by re-investing their money in railway shares. The only people with a vested interest in preventing such inventions reaching the market would be the governments of those countries which possess vast reservoirs of crude oil and very little else, but the film-makers doubtless thought that, in paranoid conspiracy-thrillers like this one, the United States Government makes a better villain than do foreign ones.Keanu Reeves's performance as Eddie is adequate but not outstanding. Rachel Weisz as Lily, in her first starring role in a Hollywood film, is rather muted, and gives little indication that she would later develop into a major talent. Probably the best acting comes from the generally reliable Morgan Freeman as Paul Shannon, Eddie's old mentor who may have a sinister agenda, but "Chain Reaction" is not one of the really great Freeman films like "Glory", "Unforgiven" or "The Shawshank Redemption".The film does have some better qualities. The director Andrew Davis has been praised by his visual sense, and "Chain Reaction" is visually very attractive. The action takes place in winter and there is some striking photography of a wintry, snow-bound Chicago, especially the scenes set in the grim industrial districts and around the astronomical observatory which plays an important part in the plot. The action sequences are exciting, fast-moving and well handled.Davis has a reputation for specialising in thrillers. His films tend to vary in quality, but he has at least one very good one to his credit, "The Fugitive", one of the best thrillers of the nineties. (That film also dealt with a man forced to go on the run after being falsely accused of a crime). "Chain Reaction" is not in the same class as "The Fugitive", but it is a watchable thriller with some points of interest. 6/10