User Reviews (109)

Add a Review

  • Warning: Spoilers
    6 Days is the story of the Teerorist takeover of the Iranian embassy in London on April 30, 1980. Then prime minister, Margaret Thatcher, newly appointed has the difficult decision of whether or not to storm the Embassy to rescue the 26 hostages.

    The story revolves around a team of SAS members and a negotiator, played by (Mark Strong) and news coverage of the event played by Edie Cornish. Both terrific actors IMO.

    I would have liked to see a bit more action and tension given the circumstances of the takeover and the air of politics at the time given the rise in terrorist events around the globe as well as the Hostage situation of 52 Americans in Iran. I do believe, however, the film portrays the event honestly and with a string degree of accuracy.

    The film is not a fast paced thriller nor was it intended to be. It was, as mentioned, an honest depiction of what happened during those harrowing six days and how well the planning and execution of the SAS team handled the rescue of 24 of the 26 Hostages. The two hostages that were killed happened before the raid happened.

    A very well acted and worthwhile film that does not overdo or Glorify this terrible event and illustrates excellent military type tactics still used today in similar situations.

    I recommend this film to anyone who enjoys nonfiction relevant historical dramas.
  • Warning: Spoilers
    This isn't a dramatic blockbuster movie where Mark Wahlberg leads a crack team of special forces while combating a tricky marriage situation ! Instead this is a basic how-it-happened telling of a famous terrorist siege in the UK. It does this well but can I just make one key point ?

    A couple of reviewers have commented on the rag-tag , dishevelled appearance of the SAS soldiers . There was a reason for this : the British Army and the SAS were in Northern Ireland at that time fighting IRA terrorists. SAS operatives were primarily undercover and had to blend into the local population . How did they do that ? They grew their hair and had moustaches ! Simple .

    The soldiers in this Iranian Embassy siege were all highly trained and the best in the business .It was a perfect rescue of the hostages at the end of the day .
  • The film had lots of potential but in the end was not perfect. There were strong characters in the real life drama. In most cases the actors were excellent and very convincing. One of the important characters is the award winning BBC journalist Kate Adie. Unfortunately Abbie Cornish did not have a convincing accent and did not portray Adie in the correct standing. It was a chance to highlight Kate Adie's groundbreaking journalist work for British TV. Unfortunately Abbie Cornish's casting spoiled the film for me.
  • The Iranian embassy siege was something I remember well, played out as it was on live television and being a huge fan of the docu-drama genre I anticipated this film most eagerly. First of all it was a right mission to get to see it at all and I expected it to have a much wider UK release. There was also confusing and conflicting information over the exact cinema release date given over the internet (First the 4th of August, then the 18th, then the 4th again!) Seeing it at the cinema resulted in me having to travel half the country!

    For those who don't know the story, in April of 1980 the Iranian embassy was stormed by six armed men demanding the release of hostages in Iran over the mistreatment of their tribe by the Persians in Iran, but the UK had poor relations with Iran at the time and Iran was not going to give them anything. The UK was on it's own and for the first time in Television history, the actions of the largely anonymous Special Air Service, would be seen live for all to see.

    The film is basically told from four main perspectives. An always excellent Mark Strong is hostage Negotiator, Max Vernon, a man acutely aware that lives are literally in his hands, and the emotional impact this has on him is one of the stronger aspects of the film and Strongs scenes are all appropriately gripping. Secondly is that of the SAS with Jamie Bell, in a very different role, playing Rusty Firmin, one of the soldiers leading the assault. Bell shows he has left the legacy of Billy Elliot well and truly behind him and is superb in this role. Tension notches up appropriately as he and his team ready themselves to go in. Thirdly is the insight into the upper echelons of the political discussions which went on between Billy Whitelaw (Tim Piggot-Smith in what may well have been his final role) as the options are raked over with an unseen Margaret Thatcher sending down her stance on terrorism. Ronan Vibert is noteworthy as the head of MI6 while Robert Portal plays SAS Colonel Mike Rose with the appropriate level of staunch professionalism while Martin Shaw adds gravitas to the proceedings though he is given very little to say or do.

    Those inside the Embassy, both hostages and terrorists are fairly thinly drawn with the exception of the terrorist leader, Salim (A great performance from Ben Turner) and most of our insights into their interactions come via the other characters mentioned above. There is little attempt to humanise the Iranian hostages, we know nothing for example, about the one who is executed, so when this happens, we, the audience, feel little emotional loss. PC Trevor Locke stands out a little as he is given more to do, but just a few more lines of dialogue would have enabled us to emotionally connect with the hostages from the outset.

    The fourth strand of the narrative is that of reporter Kate Adie and her cameraman, as they vie for the best shot over the reporter from a different rag (Either The Sun or The Mail, it wasn't clear to me) - I remember Kate Adie well from this reporting and felt Abbie Cornish was a little miscast in this role. She felt too glamorous with not a hair out of place and way too much makeup. This story line added very little to film. She spots the SAS leaving to train at one point and indicates she suspects more is afoot, but never vocalises her suspicions, so little is made of this. The interaction between her and the rival reporter could have been the cornerstone of lighter moments in this serious drama but they're lost and forgotten. This was the weakest element for me.

    The siege unfolds over six days and it is the relationship between Mark Strong's character and terrorist leader Salim that is the most captivating.

    Overall the film is paced well and Toa Fraser does an admirable job of handling the multiple characters and story lines, but the film starting as it does with the Embassy being taken, we have no time to get to know any of the hostages or feel a connection to them. A ten- minute sequence at the beginning of the film giving us an introduction to these characters would have made the emotional stakes a little higher for the viewer. BBC Sound Recordist Sim Harris is given little to say or do, so there is little context of who he is and the moment where he goes out onto the window ledge (An image scorched into the memory of all who saw it live on television) is not as dramatic and meaningful as it could have been.

    The film side steps a few of the more controversial aspects of the raid. The terrorist who was captured was almost executed by the SAS out the back before they realised they were being filmed by the television station. I found the unobtrusive score lacked a dramatic emphasis at the appropriate moments and made it essentially underwhelming.

    Overall, however, this is a solidly made drama with good performances and a suitable dour colour palette matching the setting of the 1980s and it shameful that such a drama, covering as it did, a flash point in UK history, did not receive a wider release. I would, despite my reservations, still recommend it.
  • '6 DAYS': Three and a Half Stars (Out of Five)

    A biographical action film about the 1980 Iranian embassy siege in London, and the heroic SAS soldiers that ended it. The movie was directed by Toa Fraser, and it was written by Glenn Standring. It stars Jamie Bell, Mark Strong, Abbie Cornish and Ben Turner. The film has received mostly positive reviews from critics, and it's now available on both video and VOD. I found it to be an interesting history lesson, and somewhat thrilling at times.

    On April 30th, 1980 six armed Iranians raided the Iranian Embassy, in Princess Gate, London, and took 25 hostages. The world watched the intense drama on TV, for six days, while BBC reporter Kate Adie (Cornish) boldly covered it. Chief Inspector Max Vernon (Strong) handled the negotiations over the phone, with the terrorists' leader, Salim (Turner). While an SAS unit, including Rusty Firmin (Bell), prepared to regain control of the Embassy by force.

    The movie is definitely interesting, and it has an especially insightful (somewhat sympathetic) view of the Iranian gunmen, especially their leader Salim. The Max Vernon character is also pretty sympathetic, and well played by Strong (who's always good). Ben Turner is also really good in his role. I was hoping for a little more from the film's climax though, I have to admit, but it is a well made and somewhat educational film.

    Watch an episode of our movie review show 'MOVIE TALK' at: https://youtu.be/oV2G3RUT234
  • Warning: Spoilers
    People looking for an action packed thriller with a high body count won't find that here. This is a true story so things are realistic not full of bravado and death defying heroism. The siege lasted 6 days so a lot of the story is about planning by the rescue by the SAS and the role of the negotiator (Mark Strong) and the government policy behind the rescue. Unlike action movies where one guy would take down all the terrorists it's refreshing to see the planning and the uncertainty about planning a rescue mission. Jamie Bell despite being small sized plays an SAS person quite convincingly. From the negotiators point of view the lack of knowledge and being caught between the different interests is quite interesting too. A rather round looking Abbie Cornish plays a reporter for the BBC although her role is not pivotal. Couple of faults. Not that much was shown about the cause of the terrorists to understand their motives better. The point of view of the hostages is also insufficiently shown. Worth a watch.
  • contactsmp26 February 2021
    I cannot for the life of me understand why the silly accent of Abbie Cornish was not edited out, anything would have been less of a killer during moments of tension than that silly forced accent. The film makers couldn't get a british actress apparently?

    Totally ruins the tension with her plumby narration at intense parts. Poorly conceived. The films' quite good, and I know Cornish is an excellent actress, but shoot the director please (in a non-violent way)..
  • Warning: Spoilers
    My first point of reference for this film was the excellent "Who Dares Wins", with Lewis Collins, which was inspired by the Iranian embassy rescue and shows the SAS at work, culminating in a very similar (fictional) hostage event. But having watched "6 Days" I see it more in the light of the very good "Eye In The Sky", showing just how much thinking and planning goes on behind the scenes of real life military action and crisis response, including the unexpected details that can derail even meticulous planning. The political situation was highly complex as this was the embassy of the awful Khomeini regime and the invaders were protesting the crimes of that regime back in Iran. Nevertheless, they took terrorist action and violated the diplomatic privilege that embassies around the world enjoy. And in responding to it the UK would have to violate the diplomatic immunity all foreign embassies are entitled to. In that respect, violating the immunity of the US embassy in Iran had set a precedent (as did GDubya's later invasion of Iraq), so it's a useful reminder of the potential consequences of trashing the norms of civilized behaviour. A hostage situation is always tense, but especially so when dealing with a heavily armed group that is not afaid to die (indeed many fanatics welcome it) and insist on all their demands being met or they will kill their hostages. There was also the disastrous precedent of the German attempt to free the Munich Olympic hostages, which further constrained the UK action. And of course the ticking clock is always a key factor. And so the film offers us insights into what went on, in the negotiations, behind the scenes and in the eventual rescue - where the odds were clearly stacked in the terrorists' favour and yet was conducted without loss. That's an achievement that is worth preserving on film!
  • SnoopyStyle10 November 2019
    It's 1980 London. After the Iranian revolution, armed men invade the Iranian embassy. They demand for their Arab comrades' release. Max Vernon (Mark Strong) is the lead police negotiator. Kate Adie (Abbie Cornish) is the BBC reporter. Rusty Firmin (Jamie Bell) leads a team of SAS soldiers on a rescue mission.

    It's a fine retelling of the true events. I sorta remember the incident. Mostly, I remember the outside with masked men breaking in during the rescue. This lays out the sequence of events. It's not overly-dramatic. The most exciting section is the rescue with all of its problems. The acting is strong. The plot is straight forward and the title leaves nothing to chance. There are no surprises. Six stars for six days.
  • goodwin-p420 October 2017
    What should have been a tense exciting retelling of the Iranian Embassy Siege is instead a slow moving turgid non event which is not worth the effort. A massive disappointment and every time Abbie Cornish appeared on screen as the BBCs Kate Adie I had to look away it was that embarrassing.
  • I was somehow shocked when I saw the ratings this movie got. Sure, this movie will not win big awards, or anything like that. But I actually truly enjoyed this picture, as an interesting movie about a historical fact that I didn't really know about due to my young age.

    The movie doesn't lose time on futile details. It's an honest depiction of what happened over those six days. It starts immediately with the hostage. The movie feels genuine, and not meant as a brutal action movie.

    Keeping details true to the facts is of course a good thing. But somewhere on the line, they forgot about character development. There were some key characters, but without being really key characters. You could feel they were somehow important to the story, but you never really got a back story on them. The best example is the woman of the BBC. I didn't grew up in the UK, so I never heard of her. After the movie ended, they explained who she was. I think they could have done a lot more with the characters. You just didn't feel an attachment to any of the characters. Same with the terrorists and the negotiator.

    To be fair, it's not easy to do all this in just 1 hour and half. I genuine feel this movie needed some more screen time. If you enjoy movies based on true stories or historical events, you won't be disappointed.
  • Warning: Spoilers
    Apart from the realistic take on the military operation itself, especially liked the Cobra meeting room dialogues and Mark Strong's presence and dialogue's (add real color).

    The humble take with all the mistakes before, during and after the operation shows how hard it is to really perfectly apply what you practice and especially how lucky you should be to have this successful and ending.

    The steady stand about how to deal with terrorists originating from Iron Lady herself is quite a bit emphasized, of course it is applauded but the factor of luck mentioned above should have been included somewhere in at least one post operational dialogue. After all 17 minutes is quite a long time and it was hectic enough for the terrorists to kill most if not all of the hostages. 6 days gained by the negotiators probably tested their resolve.

    However, the positive impact on Margaret Thatcher's political career and also probably giving her the leverage to act as she did in the Falkland's conflict short while later (if this was an operation with 21 dead hostages she might have acted differently later on) and making her last long as she did as a political outsider trying really hard to be the 'iron lady' is something the film makes you think of.

    Also reading about the impact of this operation in launching SAS as a viable alternative and as a world famous regiment that can be relied on is another point the film makes you think of. Especially considering this operation came only a few days after the colossal failure of American Army, Navy and Air Force (particularly the Delta Force) in Iran.
  • Lack of execution. Could have been so much better if The reporter played by someone else and not Abbie Cornish, she successfully did a pathetic job (would be an understatement) with absolutely no acting skills whatsoever. while you wait for a dramatic scene you get to hear her reporting which totally spoils the mood to watch further.
  • 3/19/18. A docudrama of the 1980 Siege of London's Iranian Embassy by terrorists, taking everyone inside as hostages. When the frustrated terrorists felt like they weren't getting the response they wanted from the British government, they made the mistake of killing a hostage and tossing the body out of the embassy. The British government brought in the SAS (Special Air Service) to extract the rest of the hostages. And, SAS did just that will minimal collateral damage. This set the tone for Britain's response to any terrorist attack since then. A suspenseful movie worth watching and cathartic for anyone who has ever felt terrorists have taken away the peace of mind we expect in a civilized world.
  • jandobrodumow4 November 2017
    Warning: Spoilers
    It's not a bad film, but there are some gaping holes in the narrative that really don't do it any favors. For example, there was no real fine detail of character painted, I didn't get any sense of connection to the characters, even inner motivation, OK we know the terrorists were motivated by social injustice in their homeland, but who were they as people? It was all a bit superficially portrayed, and there was virtually no sense of how the terrorists interacted with their captives, over 6 days it seems that there should at least have been some interactions between terrorists and hostages. As it stands in this movie, the hostages appeared only as devices to drive the story forward, we didn't know hardly anything about any of them, what they went through, how they felt, whether they tried to do something to help themselves. Same goes for most of the characters, sas too, it was all a bit looking from the outside without any real sense of the human elements of the tragic events...even the hostage who was shot..he was always shown from a safe distance, we knew some facts about his political beliefs but we didn't understand anything about him because it wasn't shown. And the ending, what were the terrorists doing during that 5 minute long entry sequence when the soldiers were coming in? There was nothing at all from their perspective, were they threatening hostages? Trying to kill them? Running scared? There was a gaping hole here as everything focused only on the sas raid. Overall a quite entertaining but very thinly drawn sketch of the situation, which feels like a missed opportunity to show some compelling human drama.
  • The 1980 London terror attack. Those days are just the beginning of this new terrorism culture of middle-east. By the way, why should the world care about if one terror seeking just from another. That's the platform of this film. All about middle-east shit, dragged into the west.

    Based on the real. The film was slow, though a decent film. Obviously predictable, but worth a watch. When the iranese embassy was taken hostage by a terror group with demands placed the England government to fulfil, how they have tackled the situation was told from multiple people's angle who were involved in it.

    One thing it's missing was the some aspect of the tale from the hostages. I don't know why they did emotionalised this tale. Especially from the negative side. The actors were nice, the production too. Other than that it was not a most expected film of the year. Maybe not many have heard of it. Except it's more like a television film, I think once watchable.

    6/10
  • Unlike the droopy moustaches favoured by the Hereford artists, this film doesn't feel that 'dated' - despite it being set in 1980.

    Modern cinematic techniques and a fresh cast brought a much-needed coat of varnish to this historical piece. Time is split equally between 3 main antagonists: the SAS corporal heading up the Embassy team, the lead terrorist and the head of the negotiating team. It bring different aspects to a story that most UK citizens of a certain age know only too well. The youth will certainly find this 'old school' tale, one to remember.

    The original score was simplistic, helping to aid the rise in tension and atmosphere. Unhurried and often a single note, it allows the viewer some thinking time and to put themselves in the same situation as the characters. The cast were (on the whole) believable with the exception of the Kate Adie impersonation which brought the thriller its only sour note.

    In such a film, you don't need character development: this is a factual document where getting on with the story is far more important.
  • Warning: Spoilers
    The film interwove drama with some news clips from the time to very good narrative effect and I learned about the motives of the hostage takers which I was not fully aware of before.

    As other reviewers have mentioned the depiction of journalist Kate Adie by Abbie Cornish did not come across well. This may have been down to direction as it seemed to me that there may have been an attempt to impersonate the delivery of Kate Adie and with a focus on this often the meaning and emotion of the words was lost. The SAS also seemed rather like the Sweeney from the U.K. TV series.. Perhaps the SAS are/were like the Sweeney,, I have no personal knowledge of the SAS.

    However, the film is worth watching, particularly for the performances of Mark Strong as a negotiating police chief and Ben Turner who plays Salim representing the hostage takers.
  • Warning: Spoilers
    Let me start off by saying the film as a whole was decent and watchable. However it left a sour taste in the mouth at how amateurish they portrayed the SAS.

    Instead of the in and out factual event that took place in 1980 they decided to portray the SAS looking like a bunch of mates on a paint balling stag do, getting stuck on ropes, accidentally breaking windows, setting themselves on fire and hesitating to shoot a terrorist pinning a police officer to the ground at 5 yards.

    Some of the acting was great, Jamie Bell did a great job however the BBC female journalists accent was incredibly cringe.

    I feel the film could have and probably should have scored higher, but it is what it is.
  • Warning: Spoilers
    6 DAYS is a taut and realistic thriller depicting the Iranian Embassy siege which took place in London in 1980. A lot of the action is told in real time, with the recreation of news crews on the street outside contrasted with the tense hostage drama inside to build tension and realism. Jamie Bell is he unlikely SAS hero tasked with taking down the bad guys and does pretty well, although Mark Strong gives the best turn as the mild-mannered hostage negotiator. The one wrong step is Abbie Cornish, absolutely dreadful in her attempt to be Kate Adie. The film is relatively low key and not all-out exciting, but the final scenes are as suspenseful as they come and it keeps you watching overall.
  • You know when a team fails at something despite the top efforts of one star achiever that everyone expects will lead them to victory? Yeah that.

    Mark Strong did well in this. Sadly he was the most watchable thing in it. The rest was unfortunately marred significantly by poor accents and over-acting. Also, if you've seen (even just a couple of) the very good documentaries out there, you'll know that some of the elements of the assault were significantly altered. WHY??? When reality is as high-octane as that event was, what on earth is the benefit of altering it???

    Anyway. In my opinion there are several documentaries out there that are more worth watching than this, unless you are a Mark Strong fan - who actually did well. Just a shame everything else didn't match his performance.
  • grahamchalk200820 October 2017
    Warning: Spoilers
    (I'll take off one point for Abbie Cornishe's bizarre portrayal of Kate Adie.) This is how it's done.

    If you want to see a cartoon watch "London has Fallen."

    Reality is complicated and bad guys are three dimensional. Sometimes real-life operations don't involve constant gunplay. Well, not if you want the good guys to actually survive. Good movie for grown- ups.
  • kosmasp2 April 2018
    6/10
    Siege
    This is a tough watch especially if you keep in mind, that this really happened. Why do people do stuff and what do they expect will happen? And while this is just a movie one can only imagine/fill in the blanks of the rest of the time ... spent in that building. The acting is really good and you can see the struggle of all the characters. Inner and outer struggle.

    Mark Strong is a terrific actor and we knew that, but even with limited time he conveys so much emotion, you really feel what he's going through. But there are also the people inside, which cannot all be singled out or get a backstory, especially because it's more about the "bad guys" in this. But even in the group of bad guys, there are factions and frictions ... and stuff happens. A template of how to deal with a situation like this? Someone thinks/thought so
  • michaelrthomson15 September 2017
    3/10
    Meh
    I didn't have entirely high hopes for this, despite Mark Strong who in the main delivers great work, and Jamie Bell, who despite reminding me overtime of Billy Elliot has also done quite well in his roles in my opinion, but I thought it could be an interesting tale of this historical event.

    In the main it wasn't terrible, Mark and Jamie act well enough, and the tell of the story is accurate enough based on what I remember of these events and subsequent stories written thereafter. Its not really an action movie, there is little to none of that... it's more about the thriller (perhaps) relationship between Mark Strong and the Hostage takers.... which was adequate, though not enough to stop me from wandering off and looking up twitter and Facebook midway through the app.

    The worst element for me however is Abbie Cornish. The fake British accent was simply awful, clearly she is no better at doing an accent than she is at actually acting, it was bad, just awful. I was surprised to see that this movie was funded or in some way involved the New Zealand Film Commission (who clearly couldn't find a NZ script worth funding?), so maybe that explains the random appearances of kiwi and Aussie actors and accents popping up. It was simply distracting and irritating to me.

    Overall, it was a meh film, as I say, it didn't keep my attention and the annoying accents, fake accents and terrible acting just added to the woe.
  • Gordon-1130 August 2017
    This film tells the story of the terrorist siege of the Iranian embassy back in 1980. The British government does everything they can to resolve the situation in six days.

    The film wastes no time and begins with the siege. It maintains tension and urgency throughout the film, and time flies quickly. It is not easy to be the negotiator in this intense and fragile situation, and Mark Strong portrays the tough challenges very well. It is sad that he has to tell lies at the end. The ending is very intense. I enjoyed watching "6 Days".
An error has occured. Please try again.