I like long movies but this was ridiculously slow or just padded out with people walking very slowly and the leading actor was like a piece of wood with hardly any expression or personality
The best actor was the mafia boss and he had it nailed
Low budget movie that could of been brilliant but the money was spent on the extra 30 minutes of film which chewed into the small budget
15 Reviews
A slow cooking espionage thriller
mallaverack29 December 2016
Unfortunately, I have to agree with the reviews so far written about this movie. It seems the budget was fairly limited; the pace of the movie was very slow in the main; acting was not of a particularly high caliber throughout. However, the pace picked up towards the end making this a watchable espionage tale. For those interested in the CIA involvement and the implications of criminal activity by a government agency, this movie should whet your appetite to perhaps seek out better movies/reading material about this period in US history. Still a worthwhile production. Two of the characters who made a creditable impression were Nathan Volgel and Charles Alexander' It seems almost ironic that the closing credits describe Trenlin as an operative whose ability to "..remain calm in stressful conditions made him a preferred 'contractee' of the CIA" In all honesty I found this character to be almost lacking emotion and maudlin in the extreme.
Worthwhile
bsns-851217 June 2019
Offers a plausible explanation for TWA 800. I enjoyed it but I'm 66 years old and remember when movies had substance. This one does, but some of the acting is poor. Not so much as to be a major problem, the story and most of the acting is fine.
Imagine being dragged backwards by your ears for 100 yards, inch by inch...
Boristhemoggy22 January 2017
...that's how I felt watching this film. At the outset I thought Bron Boier's character was insignificant as the diminutive, thin lipped, double chinned is about as menacing as Mr Tumble, has the acting ability of a Queen Anne chair, the personality of a large beach rock and the presence of the Invisible Man. His face never changed throughout the entire film: no expression, no emotion, just deadpan looks throughout from someone as threatening as the paper boy. The direction was dire, the pace of the movie going at such a snails pace that at times I had to rewind to pick up a lost plot point. I'm still unsure of what I watched even by the end. The only one who seemed to know how to act was Ben van Bergen who played Ivan. However he wasn't on screen enough to make a big difference. The tagline is "The film the CIA tried to stop." I am very sure that the CIA had no interest at all in this film and if they even knew it existed the tagline should read "The film the CIA tried to stop laughing at." Once again I'm disappointed at wasting so much of my precious time on garbage.
Horrible acting, turned off after 15 minutes
toddg-473-28981813 March 2019
The premise of this film looked interesting, but within the first 15 minutes, the main character sees his smuggling partner gunned down in front of him, then comes back home to find his woman in bed with another man. His reaction to both of these things is monotone, almost expressionless. No need to watch any more after that.
Intense, Intelligent, Intriguing
root-7679120 January 2017
Ignorant and Impatient would be the words to describe individuals who do not like this movie. Why do I say this
, because this movie is very, very slow in contrast to all the hyper-cut Hollywood horseshit that is being cranked out by the major studios. And since I am an older audience member (57 years old) I appreciate a slower paced movie that actually has very intelligent dialog and a lot of information. And this movie certainly has a lot of information, to the point that the average person is not going to have the bandwidth to keep up with it. This is simply a function of all the Hollywood movies being written at an 8th grade level, which is grooming society to be ignorant.
I read numerous reviews, many of which said the acting was bad, but I adamantly disagree. I found all the performances in this film to be very 'genuine'. But again, everyone is so accustomed to all the bad acting and over-acting in Hollywood (and TV for that matter) that people are now getting so accustomed to these sub-standard performances that they actually think it is good acting.
This film is very robust, from modern day crime figures (who act with intellect and reason) versus the 'bada-bing' Jersey type mob figures we always see, along with extremely calculating, manipulative and underhanded CIA agents, who exercise with cunning tactics, intellect and leverage against one another (versus violence) to accomplish their task. All of this is how it actually happens in real life (as a retired FED I know this) versus the guns and car explosions that Hollywood continues to use as a crutch.
There are many, many colorful characters in this film, all of whom have their own individual personalities and subtle nuances that keep them distinct from one other. And with the exception of some seriously drab, lackluster CIA offices; the other locations (many more than most indie films) are extensive and very good.
At the end of the day this movie is only for a very mature and educated audience (over 55) who are going to appreciate a film with a real story, with very sensitive material that is handled in a professional manner, without all the gratuitous sex, violence and explosions, which seems to be the only thing Hollywood can do. For future watchers of this film, I must warn you that this film is very much an indie-flick with an ultra-low budget, so you should not expect anything 'slick'. Be prepared to sit in a quiet room and pay very close attention; otherwise you will get lost and then frustrated. This movie will not spoon-feed you information like Hollywood does to keep you engaged. Even I had to watch it, twice, to fully grasp the breadth of information. And a little on-line research, after you watch the film, will help you put the elements into perspective as well. It will be interesting to see what these filmmakers can do when they actually get a real budget to work with.
I read numerous reviews, many of which said the acting was bad, but I adamantly disagree. I found all the performances in this film to be very 'genuine'. But again, everyone is so accustomed to all the bad acting and over-acting in Hollywood (and TV for that matter) that people are now getting so accustomed to these sub-standard performances that they actually think it is good acting.
This film is very robust, from modern day crime figures (who act with intellect and reason) versus the 'bada-bing' Jersey type mob figures we always see, along with extremely calculating, manipulative and underhanded CIA agents, who exercise with cunning tactics, intellect and leverage against one another (versus violence) to accomplish their task. All of this is how it actually happens in real life (as a retired FED I know this) versus the guns and car explosions that Hollywood continues to use as a crutch.
There are many, many colorful characters in this film, all of whom have their own individual personalities and subtle nuances that keep them distinct from one other. And with the exception of some seriously drab, lackluster CIA offices; the other locations (many more than most indie films) are extensive and very good.
At the end of the day this movie is only for a very mature and educated audience (over 55) who are going to appreciate a film with a real story, with very sensitive material that is handled in a professional manner, without all the gratuitous sex, violence and explosions, which seems to be the only thing Hollywood can do. For future watchers of this film, I must warn you that this film is very much an indie-flick with an ultra-low budget, so you should not expect anything 'slick'. Be prepared to sit in a quiet room and pay very close attention; otherwise you will get lost and then frustrated. This movie will not spoon-feed you information like Hollywood does to keep you engaged. Even I had to watch it, twice, to fully grasp the breadth of information. And a little on-line research, after you watch the film, will help you put the elements into perspective as well. It will be interesting to see what these filmmakers can do when they actually get a real budget to work with.
This movie wants to be more
Hexecutioner23 December 2016
Warning: Spoilers
Where to start?
This movie should rank somewhere at the top of B-rated movies. If you have nothing else to watch at the time, or just want some background noise while cooking, this is what you put on.
To be fair, it does start off rather well with some good acting. The first 30mins are mildly entertaining, but then it just flops. It fails to follow through and deliver when it really matters. It's dull past 45mins and definitely not something you would watch on the big screen unless you into REALLY dull movies.
Switching over to the weather channel without pausing wouldn't make you feel that you've missed much.
It just wants to be more ... shame it's not
This movie should rank somewhere at the top of B-rated movies. If you have nothing else to watch at the time, or just want some background noise while cooking, this is what you put on.
To be fair, it does start off rather well with some good acting. The first 30mins are mildly entertaining, but then it just flops. It fails to follow through and deliver when it really matters. It's dull past 45mins and definitely not something you would watch on the big screen unless you into REALLY dull movies.
Switching over to the weather channel without pausing wouldn't make you feel that you've missed much.
It just wants to be more ... shame it's not
Excellent Low-Budget Film
tellyw1314 January 2017
I thought that this was an excellent movie.
Acting: The acting could have been lacking in some respects, however, I thought that the style of acting and actors used here added to the realism of the story (if I can use that word "realism"). The acting seemed, to me, to be more on the natural side of how things would go in these sorts of situations.
Camera-work: Excellent camera work. I didn't have to steady my eyes on any of the scenes because it was moving around too much. The panning was fantastic.
Music: Great music. The fit wasn't perfect, but, I could see that a great deal of effort was put into the music selection.
Ambiance: I loved it. Many areas of the movie were quiet, which I liked. I felt like it let me simply absorb the natural environment and focus more on the characters.
Visual: Great visual appeal, considering that this was what I consider to be a "low budget" film. Did some of the environments look outdated? Yeah, I thought so. But, I think that bigger question is, "does the film get its point across to the viewer"? I think that it did. So what that the office looked funny. An office is an office, no matter what it looks like. Why does there _need_ to be a "CIA-type" office? Any office will do.
Story: fantastic story. I loved it all. I loved the pace given with the movie. I liked the main character's acting, though, I could see why some would call it "less than stellar". I especially liked the section before the credits that helped to answer some questions.
Overall, I loved this movie. I think that, for the budget these individuals had, that they did a fantastic job. I will always look forward to intense and detailed movies such as this. Fantastic job.
Acting: The acting could have been lacking in some respects, however, I thought that the style of acting and actors used here added to the realism of the story (if I can use that word "realism"). The acting seemed, to me, to be more on the natural side of how things would go in these sorts of situations.
Camera-work: Excellent camera work. I didn't have to steady my eyes on any of the scenes because it was moving around too much. The panning was fantastic.
Music: Great music. The fit wasn't perfect, but, I could see that a great deal of effort was put into the music selection.
Ambiance: I loved it. Many areas of the movie were quiet, which I liked. I felt like it let me simply absorb the natural environment and focus more on the characters.
Visual: Great visual appeal, considering that this was what I consider to be a "low budget" film. Did some of the environments look outdated? Yeah, I thought so. But, I think that bigger question is, "does the film get its point across to the viewer"? I think that it did. So what that the office looked funny. An office is an office, no matter what it looks like. Why does there _need_ to be a "CIA-type" office? Any office will do.
Story: fantastic story. I loved it all. I loved the pace given with the movie. I liked the main character's acting, though, I could see why some would call it "less than stellar". I especially liked the section before the credits that helped to answer some questions.
Overall, I loved this movie. I think that, for the budget these individuals had, that they did a fantastic job. I will always look forward to intense and detailed movies such as this. Fantastic job.
Remarkably Mediocre
davidabarak19 February 2023
Well, it started out well, with a bit of "what the heck is he doing" intrigue, but that didn't last long. My impression is that the director was trying too hard to make a good movie, if you can imagine that. I think it would have been a much better film in the hands of a different director.
I'm not the smartest guy in the world (but I'm also not stupid), but I found the story to be VERY hard to follow. I didn't get the connection between the airplane crash, the drug smuggling, or any of the other stuff. (For the record, their discussion of modifying a surface-to-air missile wouldn't have worked for their needs.)
For the most part, the acting was average. There were a few that rose above that, primarily, for me, by delivering lines realistically. This isn't the kind of film that called for emotional acting, which is a good thing because many of the actors seemed a little stilted in their performances.
Some of the editing decisions were a little strange, random very quick cuts away from the speaker with no real motivation for the cut. In some cases, there were weirdly random shots of a character not really doing anything, sort of a bridge between scenes.
There was a problem with the sound editing. When shooting a film, the location sound mixer will record "room tone," basically the sound of the location and nothing else - no dialog, no foot shuffling, nothing. That nearly blank sound is used to fix mismatches in the audio. In the case of this film, you'd see one character in a room lit by fluorescent lights, along with the minor hum the lights give off. But when cutting to the other actor, we'd hear the lights but the humming would be a little louder. The recorded (or possibly never recorded) room tone should have been used to smooth out the sound differences.
The music chosen for the film, playing almost continuously throughout, reminded me of what would have been used in a second-rate TV drama from the 2000s or 2010s. Not bad music, just used too much in the film and way too generic.
So as I started watching the film, I thought to myself, "This could be good." And it quickly went downhill.
I'm not the smartest guy in the world (but I'm also not stupid), but I found the story to be VERY hard to follow. I didn't get the connection between the airplane crash, the drug smuggling, or any of the other stuff. (For the record, their discussion of modifying a surface-to-air missile wouldn't have worked for their needs.)
For the most part, the acting was average. There were a few that rose above that, primarily, for me, by delivering lines realistically. This isn't the kind of film that called for emotional acting, which is a good thing because many of the actors seemed a little stilted in their performances.
Some of the editing decisions were a little strange, random very quick cuts away from the speaker with no real motivation for the cut. In some cases, there were weirdly random shots of a character not really doing anything, sort of a bridge between scenes.
There was a problem with the sound editing. When shooting a film, the location sound mixer will record "room tone," basically the sound of the location and nothing else - no dialog, no foot shuffling, nothing. That nearly blank sound is used to fix mismatches in the audio. In the case of this film, you'd see one character in a room lit by fluorescent lights, along with the minor hum the lights give off. But when cutting to the other actor, we'd hear the lights but the humming would be a little louder. The recorded (or possibly never recorded) room tone should have been used to smooth out the sound differences.
The music chosen for the film, playing almost continuously throughout, reminded me of what would have been used in a second-rate TV drama from the 2000s or 2010s. Not bad music, just used too much in the film and way too generic.
So as I started watching the film, I thought to myself, "This could be good." And it quickly went downhill.
Somewhat slow paced but very good
wrobert110 February 2017
This movie provides a view of the underbelly of our government in no shy terms. It is not for folks who need the pacing and eye-candy of a big Hollywood production. But it is very persuasive in and of itself. Very disillusioning to any idealistic American. But the subject-matter would not be served by a more polished presentation. It is a good demonstration of Arendt's concept of "the banality of evil". A very slow unfolding low boil thriller -- much more satisfying than the dramatizations of your run of the mill spy or espionage movie. Closely connected with actual historical event of recent American history. Close to a dramatic documentary. I did not have a problem with the actors. I can't imagine CIA and such sorts as being very histrionic. Again: The banality of evil.
Very very Realistic
yasirwasti524 February 2018
It's Better If you Lived Thru It.
palainausa6 April 2018
I'm old enough to remember this stuff very well (MSNBC was about three days old when TWA 800 took place. The new network was suppoosed to combine NBC news withcutting edge MicroSoft technology. Full capacity was not up and running and Brian Williams had to hold up a Rand McNally Road Atlas to show where the crash occurred). My trophy wife is younger and didn't pay as much attention, so I had to spend a lot of time stopping to explain the Stasi, the drugs, the false (at the time) Alzheimers charge, etc. Nevertheless, I liked this film a lot. Of course I never believed the TWA 800 story from the start (Please note that Deputy FBI Director James Kallstrom is often charged with the coverup, but today is cited by some as a good guy, proving Comey's corruption). Some of the actors were sort of Ricky Nelson awkward, but some were quite good, especially Nathan. The sets were sub-par in many cases. But I agree wholeheartedly with the reviews who would choose these limitations over CGI and superpowers. I'm not taking the storyline as gospel, but it makes you think a bit. Two final thoughts: Did the CIA Director remind you of John Deutsch? Didn't you always suspect "the toothy thing?" (said that way to avoid spoiler alert. Good film, worth a watch any day.
Popular History
meoforcongress16 February 2017
This movie makes a raft of sensational charges against the CIA, a statement which I don't think needs to be considered a spoiler, given the advertising line, "The movie the CIA didn't want you to see."
Both of the charges it levels against the Agency are now in the distant past, as far as the national news media are concerned, and are in the course of being forgotten altogether, say, like the civil war in Lebanon, which used to be headline news. These charges are definitely in the realm of conspiracy theory, since the Agency is depicted as consisting of a bunch of amoral killers who have no qualms about wiping out innocent people. They don't even grieve when their coworkers are assassinated.
Thus we have, thanks to the virtually one-man efforts of Thomas Gulamerian, an effort at popular history, a fictionalized dramatization of an episode in our history that may have happened the way it was shown here, and deserves to be remembered as part of the crimes the government commits against its own people.
The extraordinary control shown by the "courier" was a life-saving trait. The acting reflected that. The most gripping part of the movie were the claims made at the very end, where the characters are revealed as real people whose stories have been dramatized; if any of that is even close to true, this is indeed a sensational claim of malfeasance by our Deep State.
Alas, the reviewers want to groan that the Internet speeds are too fast for the 1990s, and the offices shown in the CIA building are too small and crowded.
Both of the charges it levels against the Agency are now in the distant past, as far as the national news media are concerned, and are in the course of being forgotten altogether, say, like the civil war in Lebanon, which used to be headline news. These charges are definitely in the realm of conspiracy theory, since the Agency is depicted as consisting of a bunch of amoral killers who have no qualms about wiping out innocent people. They don't even grieve when their coworkers are assassinated.
Thus we have, thanks to the virtually one-man efforts of Thomas Gulamerian, an effort at popular history, a fictionalized dramatization of an episode in our history that may have happened the way it was shown here, and deserves to be remembered as part of the crimes the government commits against its own people.
The extraordinary control shown by the "courier" was a life-saving trait. The acting reflected that. The most gripping part of the movie were the claims made at the very end, where the characters are revealed as real people whose stories have been dramatized; if any of that is even close to true, this is indeed a sensational claim of malfeasance by our Deep State.
Alas, the reviewers want to groan that the Internet speeds are too fast for the 1990s, and the offices shown in the CIA building are too small and crowded.
Good stories don't need all that Hollywood flair
lan-7799925 February 2018
I was browsing through Amazon Prime and came across this title. I noticed that it revolved around Flight 800 and it touched a chord because I am not far from Long Island where that flight crashed. I read the info and I noticed it was a longer movie. I am a 48 year old female and am used to good stories/movies being on the longer side. If I see a really short movie, I assume it's all special effects with little substance.
The beginning of the film really got my attention because you don't usually see the human side of drug trafficking. At first the main character (Courier X) just seems to be some typical drug smuggler. But his character is developed and you see him in a different light.
There is so much to this movie that honestly I think it may take a second viewing. Is any real life story so simple- of course not. So why should a movie be? I honestly will probably watch this movie again just to understand all the twists and turns this movie has to offer.
Nowadays, people are impatient and want quick and short with lots of special effects and sexuality. But a good story doesn't need to rely on those things.
Kudos to the writer of this film for telling a great story instead of relying on theatrics.
The beginning of the film really got my attention because you don't usually see the human side of drug trafficking. At first the main character (Courier X) just seems to be some typical drug smuggler. But his character is developed and you see him in a different light.
There is so much to this movie that honestly I think it may take a second viewing. Is any real life story so simple- of course not. So why should a movie be? I honestly will probably watch this movie again just to understand all the twists and turns this movie has to offer.
Nowadays, people are impatient and want quick and short with lots of special effects and sexuality. But a good story doesn't need to rely on those things.
Kudos to the writer of this film for telling a great story instead of relying on theatrics.
This is actually a quite watchable film
MovieIQTest24 December 2016
with cloak-and-dagger suspense, betrayal and backstabbing, political conspiring, shyster-mobster and intertwined human relationship all woven and fabricated together, allowing you to know some truth and facts behind Iran-Contra scandal during Reagon administration.
The movie could be much much better, if 1) The script could be more condensed, the tempo from scene to scene, setting to setting, locality to locality much much faster, 2) with more production budget, 3) a better director, 4) more appropriate casting 5) better post-production editing.
But in real world, this film just turned out to be snail-crawling slow, loosely relayed sequence, and boring acting. A film produced in 2016 couldn't even catch up the tensed paces like what we saw in "Three Days of the Condor (1975)". Lot of scenes showed the shortage of limited budget. The CIA headquarters just looked like some small company's office, only with several key characters, all worked in tight small offices, the CIA director's office got a staircase that made his office looked very funny. The journalist's scenes, simply looked primitive and unrealistic...There are lot of segments that should be paced 300% faster, yet simply turned to be like the speed of the locomotive when we pioneered from the east to the west coast.
There's only one thing that I have to point out: The dialog sometimes quite strong and top-notched with depth and cynicism, but due to the loose script, the mediocre directing and extremely low budget, making this film looked more like adapted from John Le-Carre's deadbeat boring espionage novels. A 2016 movie's tempo is 1000 times slower than a 1975 one, an absolutely shame!
The movie could be much much better, if 1) The script could be more condensed, the tempo from scene to scene, setting to setting, locality to locality much much faster, 2) with more production budget, 3) a better director, 4) more appropriate casting 5) better post-production editing.
But in real world, this film just turned out to be snail-crawling slow, loosely relayed sequence, and boring acting. A film produced in 2016 couldn't even catch up the tensed paces like what we saw in "Three Days of the Condor (1975)". Lot of scenes showed the shortage of limited budget. The CIA headquarters just looked like some small company's office, only with several key characters, all worked in tight small offices, the CIA director's office got a staircase that made his office looked very funny. The journalist's scenes, simply looked primitive and unrealistic...There are lot of segments that should be paced 300% faster, yet simply turned to be like the speed of the locomotive when we pioneered from the east to the west coast.
There's only one thing that I have to point out: The dialog sometimes quite strong and top-notched with depth and cynicism, but due to the loose script, the mediocre directing and extremely low budget, making this film looked more like adapted from John Le-Carre's deadbeat boring espionage novels. A 2016 movie's tempo is 1000 times slower than a 1975 one, an absolutely shame!
See also
Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews
