Stockholm

The most interesting thing in the film is the hysterical Ethan Hawke and the fact that the term ‘Stockholm Syndrome’ was coined because of this event, but otherwise it's nothing special. It's not very suspenseful or funny, the film avoids violence and it's not downright entertaining either, so it works at best as a bedtime heist movie. 60% (06/20/2019)

Although the script wasn’t exactly impressive, it was saved by a very decent cast. Mark Strong was rocking his Prince Septimus hairstyle again and, together with Ethan Hawk, delivered a convincing acting performance. Even Noomi Rapace wasn’t bad to look at, and I could finally see Christopher Heyerdahl again, who I don’t think will ever get to play the good guy. He was on the side of the law this time, but I don’t think it helped much ... The film was slightly above average at best, and it will soon be forgotten, I'm afraid. (08/02/2019)

I didn’t get this robbery at all. It seemed horribly amateurish to me, even though it gave the name to the famous Stockholm syndrome. I would understand if it was a kidnapping where the kidnapper kept his captive in his cellar for ten years, and it’d be all brutal and sad, but this? After watching this, I find it hard to believe that this film is based on real events, even though I admit that if it could happen somewhere, it would be Stockholm in the 1970s, at the golden era of Western socialism. Let’s do everything for people and let’s do it properly. So why wouldn’t an American invade the Central Bank of Stockholm and make people do some stupid shit? (02/24/2020)

I finally know what the phrase "Stockholm Syndrome" means and what it is derived from. Maybe Stockholm didn't need to be so comedic, but then it would probably have been one of the plethora of bank robbery movies without really grabbing my attention. I wasn't bored, so I have no reason to give it a bad rating, especially since the main roles were played brilliantly by Ethan Hawke and Noomi Rapace. (75%) (08/01/2021)