Curapedi 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.

Aubrey Hackett While it is a pity that the story wasn't told with more visual finesse, this is trivial compared to our real-world problems. It takes a good movie to put that into perspective.

Kirandeep Yoder The joyful confection is coated in a sparkly gloss, bright enough to gleam from the darkest, most cynical corners.

Rexanne It’s sentimental, ridiculously long and only occasionally funny

henry8-3 After Jackie Chan's daughter is killed by the so called 'authentic IRA' he sets out to track down her killer, by coercing ex IRA member and now deputy minister Pierce Brosnan to find out who did it. 2 stories essentially run in parallel here, Chan's revenge which gives us most of the standard, albeit well paced action and Brosnan working to find the killers whilst his past catches up with himNot surprisingly given Martin Campbell is at the helm this hangs together well particularly the political elements and a fine star performance from Brosnan - seeing an older more subdued turn from Chan is also interesting

Paul Magne Haakonsen This is a more mature movie from the Jackie Chan vault, and it is nice to see him branch out like this and move away from the usual slapstick comedy, although that is very lovely as well."The Foreigner" has a good story that follows a good script, although it was somewhat generic and linear.The characters in the movie were quite nicely fleshed out. Although I didn't really grasp the accent that Pierce Brosnan was using throughout the movie as it sounded a bit too forced, but then again I am not sure if some Irish people actually speak that way.While this is not your average Jackie Chan movie then there were enough action in it to make it entertaining.All in all, "The Foreigner" was an entertaining movie.

aldebaran68 Let's say one thing straight away. I'm 60+ so I grew up in England with the Troubles in Ulster. From around 1969 when the first British troops went into Ulster (that was shocking in itself, to see British troops on active service on UK territory...) to 1990s and the Good Friday agreement. 30 years of The Troubles. 30 years of IRA (Provo) bombs on the mainland. If you think Islamic terror is bad here in the UK, the IRA outdid them easily. And in those days Counter-Terrorism was nowhere near as sophisticated as today. No Internet. No mobile phones. No IT of any sort. It was Another World. And it was Nightmarish. So I'm coming at this film from that era. I've had good friends from Ulster and from the Republic. I have some understanding of The Troubles. This film is intriguing in that Pierce Brosnan does IMHO a very good job of impersonating 'a version' of Gerry Adams. Gerry Adams, head of Sinn Fein, the political wing of the IRA, was omnipresent on TV during the Troubles. Every night, on TV, there seemed to be some IRA event gong on/off in Ulster, or here on the mainland. And every night he'd be commenting. I have a lot of sympathy for the Irish and the Republican cause but not, abs. not for the violence. So this movie took me back to those days. Not sure I wanted to go there but I was intrigued. I'm a Pierce Brosnan fan, love his style, his movies. I was very impressed by his 'Ulster Light' accent and his variation on Gerry Adams. I could almost see Gerry Adams in Brosnan. It was quite astonishing really. The whole IRA side of the movie struck me as very authentic...except...that when faced with Jackie Chan's character the IRA were made to look like dunces. Now as I said I abhorred the violence of those 30 years, but, it's a fact that the IRA ran rings around the British Army and the British administration in Ulster for that time. They kept the British Army at bay for 30 years, then went into power anyhow in Ulster in the '90s. So, to portray the IRA as dunces was... 'inaccurate'. Even though the film is set in the present, the inferences/references are all to The Troubles. The IRA is still considered a potential threat. No dunces there. Now the bit I found to be flawed was the Jackie Chan aspect. I love JC, his films in his earlier years, his comedies are wonderful and wonderfully entertaining. His martial arts are acrobatic and balletic. But, at 60+, he should give it a rest now. He is a very good actor. But to have him 'win' any of his physical encounters with young men half or 2/3 his age was beyond belief. Not good. Even with his 'training', he is as old as I am. Not believable. His part of the film is terribly flawed. It's a shame. I'd watch this again for PB any day, but Chan's part leaves me cold. Sorry Jackie...not your fault. It just doesn't work for me. So 6 out of 10 seems fair.

travis36 This was a thriller that kept me engaged from the beginning to the very end with several surprising plot twists. I have seen many Jackie Chan movies and the seriousness of his character was refreshing. I swear I don't thing he ever breaks a smile during the entire the movie. There are a lot of revenge flicks that follow the same ole same ole but even though the principle was the same the story telling was a great. My only complaint was that as a 61 year old, and he looked all of it, he was pulling off some really implausible physical action and stealth scenes. I thought he played the vengeful father very well. He did not have many speaking scenes but the dramatic effect was still there. If you are looking for a Jackie Chan movie with the usual comedy/action appeal this is definitely not for you.