When I saw this movie, I thought to myself 'wow, this movie sucked. Why don't I write a review to let people know not to see it?'. And so I am. The beginning of the movie sets the mood for the rest of the movie: confusing. That's basically the only word I can use to describe it. I'm not going to write any spoilers, so I'll keep it simple. This action/conspiracy (or whatever you want to call it) movie is a combination of scenes having little to do with each other. Justin Rhodes adds some implausible romance to the movie to make it more enjoyable, but fails miserably. Maybe it'd be more pragmatic if it was between lovers, but I was thrown off by the lunacy of a captor-captive relationship. This, coupled with other blatant impossibilities, produced a movie that was unbearable. I really hope you choose something else for your one and a half hour movie time slot. Try Stand By Me, although it's in a different genre.
15 Reviews
Gives B Movie actors a job
refdan5 February 2009
Warning: Spoilers
This thriller stars a new face, Frida Farrell as Jane, a "contract killer" for some shadowy US intelligence organization, ostensibly the CIA.
She is framed by her handlers for killing a man (a contract)and is poisoned while dining with her husband. The husband dies, but she survives. The rest of the movie involves Jane accomplishing one remarkable feat of escape after another that would impress even James Bond.
In the era of Casino Royale, Thunderball, and License to Kill, we are accustomed to seeing our man Bond do these incredible stunts, getaways and destruction. After all, he is James Bond.
Here we have a young female whose husband has just been murdered who manages to escape multiple police and other agents while exposing a massive corruption scheme in her own organization. All this with her gun, her computer, some dorky Aussie she picks up, and another agent who she "convinces" to believe her.
The cops and and the agent are completely ineffective. A sniper misses the target not once but several times. This is the same sniper who, later, after joining forces with Jane, can hit a man in a moving helicopter 100yds away with one shot.
My beef with this movie is not the concept, but with the execution. Jane is simply too good and everyone else is too bad. The suspension of disbelief runs out about midway through the film.
I can't recommend this film highly to action buffs because the lady doesn't really know how to fight. She does a couple of quick moves but the camera doesn't really show anything.
Her opponents always stand too close so she can either kick the gun out of their hands or she can grab it and turn it on them. It's simply ludicrous to believe that trained agents would act so stupidly.
I get my hopes up every time one of these "thrillers" comes out, but each time I am disappointed. I want to see films where bad guys are not stupid and good guys are not infallible or invincible.
She is framed by her handlers for killing a man (a contract)and is poisoned while dining with her husband. The husband dies, but she survives. The rest of the movie involves Jane accomplishing one remarkable feat of escape after another that would impress even James Bond.
In the era of Casino Royale, Thunderball, and License to Kill, we are accustomed to seeing our man Bond do these incredible stunts, getaways and destruction. After all, he is James Bond.
Here we have a young female whose husband has just been murdered who manages to escape multiple police and other agents while exposing a massive corruption scheme in her own organization. All this with her gun, her computer, some dorky Aussie she picks up, and another agent who she "convinces" to believe her.
The cops and and the agent are completely ineffective. A sniper misses the target not once but several times. This is the same sniper who, later, after joining forces with Jane, can hit a man in a moving helicopter 100yds away with one shot.
My beef with this movie is not the concept, but with the execution. Jane is simply too good and everyone else is too bad. The suspension of disbelief runs out about midway through the film.
I can't recommend this film highly to action buffs because the lady doesn't really know how to fight. She does a couple of quick moves but the camera doesn't really show anything.
Her opponents always stand too close so she can either kick the gun out of their hands or she can grab it and turn it on them. It's simply ludicrous to believe that trained agents would act so stupidly.
I get my hopes up every time one of these "thrillers" comes out, but each time I am disappointed. I want to see films where bad guys are not stupid and good guys are not infallible or invincible.
Not What I Expected
bobcoughlin8 November 2008
Simply put, this film is not what I expected. There was mediocre acting, mediocre directing, and obviously a very mediocre budget.
And as far as the director rant in the comments, the comments are designed for people with an opinion ABOUT THE FILM, not about how people are watching it. Your personal bias is one that none of us are interested in.
Additionally, your logical fallacy of comparing downloading a movie over the internet to stealing a car and returning it is one of the dumbest, most less thought out comparisons I have ever heard. Not only is there no logic to that statement but I actual give you less credit as a producer and human being for having floated that comment out there in the first place.
If you want a "seen it a million times" film, check it out.
And as far as the director rant in the comments, the comments are designed for people with an opinion ABOUT THE FILM, not about how people are watching it. Your personal bias is one that none of us are interested in.
Additionally, your logical fallacy of comparing downloading a movie over the internet to stealing a car and returning it is one of the dumbest, most less thought out comparisons I have ever heard. Not only is there no logic to that statement but I actual give you less credit as a producer and human being for having floated that comment out there in the first place.
If you want a "seen it a million times" film, check it out.
Not very good
dbborroughs27 November 2008
Warning: Spoilers
Confused and confusing low budget film film about a female CIA agent set up to take a fall and chased around ala Jason Bourne.
Formulaic and by some numbers (Its not always clear though which numbers). This is the sort of film that gets palmed off to late night cable to fill in the schedule holes. Regrettably while not really bad, its the sort of thing you'd channel surf past after watching five minutes never to return because you can't pick up what going on or you think you know where its going,so whats the point.
3 out of 10.
Take a pass
Formulaic and by some numbers (Its not always clear though which numbers). This is the sort of film that gets palmed off to late night cable to fill in the schedule holes. Regrettably while not really bad, its the sort of thing you'd channel surf past after watching five minutes never to return because you can't pick up what going on or you think you know where its going,so whats the point.
3 out of 10.
Take a pass
Julian Cane explains why this movie is NOT doing well
liza100339 November 2008
Julian Cane is SO right. After all, what you think of the quality of a movie has NO value at all unless it is bought or watched in the cinema. If you download the movie it magically turns into a horrible, horrible film that is completely different from a 'legal' version of the same film.
I'm not promoting movie piracy here, but stating that a reviewer's opinions of the movie are invalid simply because he or she watched it by some other means than BUYING it is ridiculous. Perhaps the movie's horrible performance has something to do with the intelligence of its producers.
I'm not promoting movie piracy here, but stating that a reviewer's opinions of the movie are invalid simply because he or she watched it by some other means than BUYING it is ridiculous. Perhaps the movie's horrible performance has something to do with the intelligence of its producers.
Not Bourne again.
hitechcleaning510 May 2009
I ordinarily comment about movies I like. This is an exception. Frida looks the part of of a hardened, stealthy assassin. Nevertheless, a weak script, disjointed segments and sloppy direction supplant her latent talent and place it under a thinly veiled insult to her ability.
By no means a Robert Ludlum thriller, the film is merely an inept reprise of the Bourne trilogy. Tougher, smarter and much more gutsy, Jason rarely used a firearm to execute his agenda, but that is Frida's only counter to the loosely conceived threats she faces. Her unwitting English accomplice bears little resemblance to Jason's love interests.
Always the bad guys, the C.I.A. hierarchy and subordinates lack the sophistication we have come to know in the film media. Easily duped, they are outwitted at every turn, and their "assets" are more like liabilities. Humanizing them weakens their ability to pose a serious threat to Frida as she unravels a truly ludicrous scheme that would effectively undermine the economy of the world.
The fights, the car chases, the helicopter intervention (why didn't the asset just shoot it down?) and the predictable climax made a dismal excuse for an action thriller. I hope Frida's paycheck compensates her for the what is truly a stab at her credibility as an actor.
By no means a Robert Ludlum thriller, the film is merely an inept reprise of the Bourne trilogy. Tougher, smarter and much more gutsy, Jason rarely used a firearm to execute his agenda, but that is Frida's only counter to the loosely conceived threats she faces. Her unwitting English accomplice bears little resemblance to Jason's love interests.
Always the bad guys, the C.I.A. hierarchy and subordinates lack the sophistication we have come to know in the film media. Easily duped, they are outwitted at every turn, and their "assets" are more like liabilities. Humanizing them weakens their ability to pose a serious threat to Frida as she unravels a truly ludicrous scheme that would effectively undermine the economy of the world.
The fights, the car chases, the helicopter intervention (why didn't the asset just shoot it down?) and the predictable climax made a dismal excuse for an action thriller. I hope Frida's paycheck compensates her for the what is truly a stab at her credibility as an actor.
A movie that delivers
jennifer-kay0011 November 2008
Warning: Spoilers
I was fortunate to see Contract Killers when it opened at 20th Century Fox earlier this year. Unlike other lower-budget movies, many of which I have seen, the film didn't try to compete with typical big budget action films, nor attempt to suspend our intelligence for 90 minutes with an implausible story or impossible action sequences. Contract Killers tries to be -- successfully! -- what it is meant to be -- the story of a woman trying to return to her pre-assassin identity. It's obvious the previous IMDb reviewer missed this most central point, as well as many others that I will not spend time revealing here. When you have an intelligent film to view, sometimes it helps to watch it more than once before you rip into it. The action sequences are cut crisp and sharp, guns are used only when necessary, and crashed cars stop running, as they would in real life. That in and of itself told me this director was not here to insult his audience.
I think what gives Contract Killers the edge that you don't usually see in this genre is the seamless melding of score, cinematography, directing, and acting. You can usually sense when a producer and director are on the same page and the vision all meshes together. In this regard, Contract Killers delivers.
The quality of the film and its actors delivers mainly because they all seem real -- grounded in their unique director-created realities. When shot, they got hurt; when in a car chase they looked genuinely concerned. I feel that Lead actress Frida Farrell showed exceptional vulnerability and what some may call star quality. But this can be said for many of the other actors involved, including Nick Mancuso, who surprised me as not being over the top this time around (a break from his norm over the last several years, after his Under Siege success). But this just goes to show how important a good director is to a project; I strongly suspect that the consistently solid, reality-based performances can be accredited to director Justin Rhodes. This is a producer / director relationship to watch out for and I look forward to whatever maybe in the pipeline for this production team.
I think what gives Contract Killers the edge that you don't usually see in this genre is the seamless melding of score, cinematography, directing, and acting. You can usually sense when a producer and director are on the same page and the vision all meshes together. In this regard, Contract Killers delivers.
The quality of the film and its actors delivers mainly because they all seem real -- grounded in their unique director-created realities. When shot, they got hurt; when in a car chase they looked genuinely concerned. I feel that Lead actress Frida Farrell showed exceptional vulnerability and what some may call star quality. But this can be said for many of the other actors involved, including Nick Mancuso, who surprised me as not being over the top this time around (a break from his norm over the last several years, after his Under Siege success). But this just goes to show how important a good director is to a project; I strongly suspect that the consistently solid, reality-based performances can be accredited to director Justin Rhodes. This is a producer / director relationship to watch out for and I look forward to whatever maybe in the pipeline for this production team.
worth the time
torstensonjohn9 December 2012
Surprisingly enough this film had a solid plot even though it has been done thousands of times before. The film keeps you invested throughout its entirety and has the energy of suspense/intrigue. The action sequences were well thought out and done in a real sense rather than CGI or special effected. The film has a Bourne theme to it with the female lead. Although there are real no known actors in the film it is carried rather well with the cast.
If your film savvy lies in interest of spy films with black ops and secrecy involved and betrayal than this film will be right in your wheel house. I myself enjoyed it and would recommend it.
If your film savvy lies in interest of spy films with black ops and secrecy involved and betrayal than this film will be right in your wheel house. I myself enjoyed it and would recommend it.
There are certain things this kind of movie must have
MBunge1 February 2012
Warning: Spoilers
A mostly admirable and moderately enjoyable tale of CIA assassins and deadly intrigue, Contract Killers is kept from being even better by these little clunkers scattered throughout the script. There are these moments and story dynamics that are just not right or not right enough which prevent the film from building any dramatic momentum. On the whole, this is a nice piece of work and is certainly a lot smarter than your average action-thriller with a modest budget and a cast where the biggest star is Nick Mancuso. But while writer/director Justin Rhodes handles the filmmaking perfectly well, he really needed somebody to give his screenplay several minor rewrites. That could have vastly improved what is now only an okay movie.
Things open up with Sarah (Frida Farrell) and her husband (Jeremy Wood) drinking drugged wine. When Sarah awakes, she finds her husband dead with the name "Lisa" carved into his forehead and cops surrounding her house, obviously there to arrest her. Well, it turns out Sarah is really a CIA-employed killer named Jane. She kills several cops to make her escape and figures out she's been set up by her handler Witkoff (Nick Mancuso). To unravel the reason why, Jane flees to the island of Trinidad with two other assassins (Rhett Giles and G. Anthony Joseph) on her trail. Once there, she meets a Brit (Christian Willis) who only wants to bang her but gets caught up in Jane's dilemma and faces death himself. After one nice plot twist, Jane is left with one last chance to make sure that she makes it off the island alive.
Contract Killers isn't flashy or particularly stylish but it is largely effective. The action scenes are cleverly done to maximize the excitement while minimizing any sign of budget limitations. There's a fine pace to how things unfold and writer/director Rhodes manages to set up and sustain several separate conflicts throughout the story. The performances are uniformly strong, though Mancuso whispers a bit too much of his dialog. He's trying to build up to his character eventually exploding, but the payoff isn't worth listening to someone who sounds like they have laryngitis. There's a lot to like about this motion picture.
The things not to like, however, are apparent and exasperating enough to take this above average effort and bring it back down to mediocre. Let me give you three examples of what I mean.
In the beginning, the movie tries to build sympathy for Jane by having her cry over her dead husband. That's supposed to humanize her and get the audience on her side. However, Jane and her husband barely say 5 sentences to each other before he winds up dead, so you can't care that much about her grief. Then, Jane almost immediately kills a few cops as part of her getaway. But murdering cops, like killing children or animals, is something to which the ordinary viewer is always going to respond negatively unless you do something to justify it. Even though she's being framed for her husband's death, when she blows away police officers who are simply doing their duty, that kind of makes her guilty anyway, doesn't it?
Then at the end, Jane teams up with one of the CIA contractors sent after her to fight the third assassin on her trail. Well, two good guys vs. one bad guy pretty much destroys any sense of danger. The good guys have the advantage and unless you build up the villain as some sort of super badass, the good guys would have to be extremely pathetic to not carry the day. When it's two against one, it's not natural to root for the two.
And in the middle of Contract Killers well, there's no polite way to put this. There's a love scene where Frida Farrell needed to get naked and she doesn't. I don't begrudge any woman who declines to be exploited in this way but if you're making a relatively low budget, R-rated action-thriller and there's a love scene with your lead actress, she has to disrobe and show off her naughty bits. It is basically a prerequisite for this sort of flick. Contract Killers isn't some esoteric bit of arty indulgence. It's a cheap addition to an already crowded genre. The bigger budget versions have bigger stars, bigger explosions and are aimed at a bigger audience, which means they can sometimes skimp on the nudity. With something like this film, you don't have the option of your lead actress keeping her clothes on.
And frankly, Farrell getting into her birthday suit wouldn't have been entirely gratuitous. The love scene is supposed to about Jane emerging from a state of emotional numbness and getting naked would have been a legitimate way of representing that. Instead, Contract Killers tries to convey Jane's emotional revival by having her boink a new guy while simultaneously having flashbacks to the husband she found dead less than 24 hours ago, which is really messed up.
This film is significantly superior to a lot of action-thrillers out there but I can't wholeheartedly recommend it. You wouldn't regret watching it, though, so give it a look if you want.
Things open up with Sarah (Frida Farrell) and her husband (Jeremy Wood) drinking drugged wine. When Sarah awakes, she finds her husband dead with the name "Lisa" carved into his forehead and cops surrounding her house, obviously there to arrest her. Well, it turns out Sarah is really a CIA-employed killer named Jane. She kills several cops to make her escape and figures out she's been set up by her handler Witkoff (Nick Mancuso). To unravel the reason why, Jane flees to the island of Trinidad with two other assassins (Rhett Giles and G. Anthony Joseph) on her trail. Once there, she meets a Brit (Christian Willis) who only wants to bang her but gets caught up in Jane's dilemma and faces death himself. After one nice plot twist, Jane is left with one last chance to make sure that she makes it off the island alive.
Contract Killers isn't flashy or particularly stylish but it is largely effective. The action scenes are cleverly done to maximize the excitement while minimizing any sign of budget limitations. There's a fine pace to how things unfold and writer/director Rhodes manages to set up and sustain several separate conflicts throughout the story. The performances are uniformly strong, though Mancuso whispers a bit too much of his dialog. He's trying to build up to his character eventually exploding, but the payoff isn't worth listening to someone who sounds like they have laryngitis. There's a lot to like about this motion picture.
The things not to like, however, are apparent and exasperating enough to take this above average effort and bring it back down to mediocre. Let me give you three examples of what I mean.
In the beginning, the movie tries to build sympathy for Jane by having her cry over her dead husband. That's supposed to humanize her and get the audience on her side. However, Jane and her husband barely say 5 sentences to each other before he winds up dead, so you can't care that much about her grief. Then, Jane almost immediately kills a few cops as part of her getaway. But murdering cops, like killing children or animals, is something to which the ordinary viewer is always going to respond negatively unless you do something to justify it. Even though she's being framed for her husband's death, when she blows away police officers who are simply doing their duty, that kind of makes her guilty anyway, doesn't it?
Then at the end, Jane teams up with one of the CIA contractors sent after her to fight the third assassin on her trail. Well, two good guys vs. one bad guy pretty much destroys any sense of danger. The good guys have the advantage and unless you build up the villain as some sort of super badass, the good guys would have to be extremely pathetic to not carry the day. When it's two against one, it's not natural to root for the two.
And in the middle of Contract Killers well, there's no polite way to put this. There's a love scene where Frida Farrell needed to get naked and she doesn't. I don't begrudge any woman who declines to be exploited in this way but if you're making a relatively low budget, R-rated action-thriller and there's a love scene with your lead actress, she has to disrobe and show off her naughty bits. It is basically a prerequisite for this sort of flick. Contract Killers isn't some esoteric bit of arty indulgence. It's a cheap addition to an already crowded genre. The bigger budget versions have bigger stars, bigger explosions and are aimed at a bigger audience, which means they can sometimes skimp on the nudity. With something like this film, you don't have the option of your lead actress keeping her clothes on.
And frankly, Farrell getting into her birthday suit wouldn't have been entirely gratuitous. The love scene is supposed to about Jane emerging from a state of emotional numbness and getting naked would have been a legitimate way of representing that. Instead, Contract Killers tries to convey Jane's emotional revival by having her boink a new guy while simultaneously having flashbacks to the husband she found dead less than 24 hours ago, which is really messed up.
This film is significantly superior to a lot of action-thrillers out there but I can't wholeheartedly recommend it. You wouldn't regret watching it, though, so give it a look if you want.
Pretty good for what it is
twopointfour5 November 2008
Warning: Spoilers
Saw this at a festival and I'm not sure what the other commenters are confused by -- the audience seemed to think it was pretty good for what it was. The plot is maybe a little on the formulaic side, but I don't see how you could feel lost by it. The CIA is using one of their people as a scapegoat for a scheme to wreck the Federal Reserve, and then tries to kill her to protect themselves. What part of that is confusing? The pacing is great, especially in the second half. A low-budget BOURNE movie with a chick is a good comparison. I guess if you come looking for a hundred-million dollar experience you won't find it here, but the budget on this was supposedly less than half a mil, so that isn't really fair. Don't listen to the other posters and check it out.
Could have been so much better
azcoppen3 November 2008
Warning: Spoilers
I picked this up as it was supposedly the director's debut, and you never want to be too harsh as its not easy breaking into a difficult and overdone genre as the new guy on the block. First thought? Jason Bourne: the chick flick, on a budget. In truth, this is what happens when you have good direction, but dreadful writing. The story is absurd and the plot is so full of holes that it just doesn't stand up to scrutiny (e.g. how does the 2nd asset find the remote rural house at exactly 2mins before the decryption finishes?). It smacks of one of those ideas that seem "cool" at first but never work when you try to commit them to film. The biggest issue is with the characters, as they aren't developed in the slightest, their backgrounds aren't plausible and you can't get attached to them. There's plenty of cut-to-CIA-headquarters scenes, but everything remains unexplained, unrelated and convoluted so it doesn't join up. You can't even enjoy those revelation moments when you think back to what you overlooked earlier in the film. When you ask yourself what each character;s motivation is or how any of it came about and/or fits together, it's empty. If you want to make a film like this, get out a page of A4 paper and write down a list of cool scenes you'd like to film, then somehow link it into a disparate "plot" somehow. The coolest thing they could have done would have been to make the love interest guy a British intelligence agent intercepting/hijacking the secret material once she'd fallen for him, and even that wouldn't have been plausible as the relationship was never developed other than for a sterile sex scene that had no real purpose (it could have reflected how cold and formulaic she is). Just a turd. Avoid.
I liked it.
geneita23 April 2010
Sorry guys, but I liked this film. I liked the characters and I especially liked the action scenes, they were believable. Unlike the current spate of action films where the car, if not the hero is defying gravity, jumping through buildings, knowing exactly where to go, without any planning and in total defiance of the law of gravity. Our heroine escapes using plausible means. When trapped in the parking garage, she doesn't suddenly go airborne, jump three cars, fly into the next door office building, into the elevator, down to the 3rd floor, out the other window, landing on conveniently passing semi-trailer. She knows there is no way out, so she surrenders. While it may not be plausible that the FBI guy, Targonsky, would give her opportunity to escape by taking her out of the car, it's at least possible. While in Hollywood terms all the combatants are lousy shots, but when you think of it that's real too, in combat, most shots miss.
It's an action film, but the director kept it real throughout the film and I, for one, thank him for it as I gave up Saturday morning cartoons a long time ago.
It's an action film, but the director kept it real throughout the film and I, for one, thank him for it as I gave up Saturday morning cartoons a long time ago.
Not bad at all for a low-budget production
jonniecomet-1420921 February 2021
Exciting action, with almost-realistic fight and vehicle-chase scenes, excellent use of locations, and reasonably believable plot. Story could have used a bit more polishing - really just in the details. The characters possess a good sense of humanity, especially those who are revealed to have been either duplicitous or straight all along.
In all it's a fun movie to watch, having a former ballerina turned action heroine whom you really want to cheer on. The ironic ending puts paid to her revenge.
In all it's a fun movie to watch, having a former ballerina turned action heroine whom you really want to cheer on. The ironic ending puts paid to her revenge.
Mildly Interesting
bemyfriend-4018422 September 2021
It held my interest. I cheered for the heroine and her helpers. I booed the villains and their minions. But the movie was only MILDLY interesting. It was mostly the same old same-o. And a reviewer on this site said that unless one buys a movie, or pays to see it in a theater, then their opinion is invalid. Uh... why? I saw this film on Tubi, the free streaming site; who presumably paid any fees and royalties due. Duly, they showed me commercials. So, any financial obligations are thusly met. As if that even made a difference. A good movie is good, even if you didn't PAY money to see it. Similarly, a bad movie is bad, and a mediocre movie is... paid for.
Low budget female Bourne action flick. Worth a rental.
maxhauser2 July 2011
A contract killer for the CIA is framed for a crime. While being pursued by the police and other "contractors", the killer searches for a McGuffin to clear their name.
Sound like the Bourne Identity/Supremacy/Ultimatum? It's actually the plot to this film. Instead of Matt Damon, we have Swedish model Frida Farrell. Nick Mancuso is her former boss who may not be the father figure he once was.
The movie has several action scenes that are well played, with Trinidad filling in as an exotic location. Not a lot of explosions but very realistic compact action with a few gunfights. If this movie was truly made for $500k, then I tip my cap to the movie makers. For one-hundredth the budget of a Bourne film, you get a very good copy.
Rhett Giles steals his screen time as a fellow contractor in pursuit of our heroine.
On the downside, the movie tries to get the action started in the first three minutes and does a poor job of setting up the premise. The use of jump cuts to speed up the second unit footage during the first half of the film gets old in a hurry. But these are minor issues. I have seen major studio releases that have a fraction of the energy this one contains.
By the way, I hope government offices are not as cramped as the ones shown on this film. Frank Mancuso probably filmed all his scenes in one day.
Definitely worth a rental or a slot in your Netflix queue.
Sound like the Bourne Identity/Supremacy/Ultimatum? It's actually the plot to this film. Instead of Matt Damon, we have Swedish model Frida Farrell. Nick Mancuso is her former boss who may not be the father figure he once was.
The movie has several action scenes that are well played, with Trinidad filling in as an exotic location. Not a lot of explosions but very realistic compact action with a few gunfights. If this movie was truly made for $500k, then I tip my cap to the movie makers. For one-hundredth the budget of a Bourne film, you get a very good copy.
Rhett Giles steals his screen time as a fellow contractor in pursuit of our heroine.
On the downside, the movie tries to get the action started in the first three minutes and does a poor job of setting up the premise. The use of jump cuts to speed up the second unit footage during the first half of the film gets old in a hurry. But these are minor issues. I have seen major studio releases that have a fraction of the energy this one contains.
By the way, I hope government offices are not as cramped as the ones shown on this film. Frank Mancuso probably filmed all his scenes in one day.
Definitely worth a rental or a slot in your Netflix queue.
See also
Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews
