I'd been meaning to watch this movie for ages, and I finally got around to it yesterday. Honestly, I didn’t think it was that bad. It isn’t a classic film by any stretch, but it’s a pretty good action/revenge story. Dylan O’Brien doesn’t really stand out as the lead; his performance felt underwhelming. Michael Keaton, however, did a commendable job with his role. There's a fair amount of action throughout, and I appreciated that they didn't try to soften it down for a younger audience. It can be quite violent at times. The plot is acceptable; it functions adequately. Some viewers might complain about its lack of originality, but frankly, I don’t care. It has a solid premise, so why mess with it? I enjoy revenge movies, and while this one isn't the greatest ever made, it's certainly not terrible. I do wonder what motivates some people to call this movie awful, giving it ratings like one out of ten. Perhaps it’s because it addresses the topic of Islamist extremists killing innocent people? Or maybe they dislike that it doesn’t attempt to excuse these violent individuals or deflect blame onto Iran? It's possible some are upset it avoids pointing fingers at a political scapegoat. I haven't read the book, so I can understand if someone dislikes the film because it doesn't do the source material justice. But for me, it was two hours of enjoyable entertainment—nothing amazing, but decent enough. The action was good, the pacing was solid, and (aside from O’Brien) the acting was pretty good too.

Source on TMDB