I’d describe this film from Ridley Scott as enjoyable, though definitely not a classic. It's true that for someone with his talent, the movie didn’t quite reach its potential—that seems to be what people are getting at. The story’s central idea was remarkable, but the script itself really let it down. I found some of the scenes impressive enough to keep me engaged until the very end. It's disappointing to see such a skilled director produce something that felt so off-target, especially given the subject matter. Essentially, the movie is about dealing with difficult circumstances, trusting your gut, and accepting the consequences. The actors were well-cast and clearly gave it their all, so I don’t think anyone can be faulted for the film's shortcomings. It seemed to me that the slow parts of the movie overshadowed any truly good moments. The attempts to build a compelling narrative and develop the characters never really gained traction. As someone who loves movies, I always consider whether a sequel would be worthwhile after watching something—either hoping for one or praying it doesn't happen. This film left me feeling that way too, wondering if a follow-up could somehow improve on what’s presented here. There are countless examples of sequels surpassing their originals. Regardless, I do respect the movie; not because of the director or actors, but because, as many have noted, it could have been better in certain areas. A dedicated fan recognizes the effort involved even if the final product isn't exceptional, while critics tend to focus solely on what’s wrong. 6/10

Source on TMDB