John Doe: Vigilante

hi, i don't usually right reviews, but this movie compelled me to, trust me guys , just watch this movie , and rate for yourself.... we need people's verdict here, Is John Doe right ???? i s this movie right, does it make sense, my verdict it does !!!! with a good direction, plot, story and good acting by lead actor jamie, i am not his fan as said by an earlier reviewer, " fco sumthing sumthing !!!!, i don't know did he watch the same movie i watched, but i can tell you for a fact its a good movie indeed, on a hot topic, if you like watching movie with may be not all answers, if you like thriller, documentary, crime movie, or any good movie, you can spend easily your 90mins in this movie, its interesting, you can watch repeatedly and trust me you will not get bored, its a decent movie give it a go.... recommended for any viewer with nice taste of movies.... watch it and decide for yourself and do give your honest verdict......

First of all , I must say that at first look this movie looks like some low budget Australian garbage , The big surprise is that it has some descent actors that delivered the messege very nicely and a very good story . I started watching the movie with low expectations and got hooked up with the story-line .I can gladly say that the storyline is packed with some nice twists . I would gladly give this movie a solid 10 if it wasn't for the Directing job and some flucks that i found while watching it ,i guess there is no perfect movie anyway.. In conclusion i would strongly recommend this movie to every grown up out there, And i hope it will get a little bigger recognition in the future.

Movies with a message are by their nature problematic.

David Schwimmer for example did a film about teenage girls and the internet. It was more message than movie and for that reason it may well be already lost to time.

On the other hand Paddy Chayefsky's NETWORK was both a message and a film opus. Fantastic movie and it will live forever on the "top 10" lists of viewers all over the globe.

This Aussie effort, featuring a FANTASTIC performance by Bamber, who, to dig out the old cliché, does silent dialog using only his eyes, gives you a nice slow start and then builds and builds and builds.

The best thing about it is that it keeps the viewer off-balance right to the end, achieved by some of the best editing of "flashbacks" I have seen since the days of Sergio Leone.

There is a particular scene at the 1:19 mark involving a small child who "thanks" Bamber that is likely the highlight. True to form, not even this scene ends the way we might expect.

Recommended.

After reading the plot and seeing the few good actors in the movie I felt it was something I could give a shot, it might be good. Well after 90 minutes of my life I don't feel disappointed. In fact it has made me sit in silence (for a solid 15 minutes) just thinking more and more of the meaning.

It surely doesn't have the effect as say "Her", in a thought provoking sense, though it is a solid movie.

What honestly can be done to forgive someone for such heinous crimes, if you know they will commit them again? This movie asks that question and more.

Over all the movie had some shaky shots, little over the top acting conversely not enough acting, some shots were not needed and could have added a bit more background to the story in a few places but I still ended up questioning myself after. Which I always find as a good sign.

Whats a good movie without a good afterthought?

I liked this movie, read the other positive reviews, which is most of them.

They also have the highest helpful ratios, as in of the people who voted whether a review was helpful or not, my experience with IMDb indicates that one of them would be on the main page.

Yet this is not the case. When I first came to this movie's page, the main review was one of only 2 negative ones out of 7, and 2 of 6 people voted that they found it helpful. So I voted it as not helpful with the other negative review.

Now minutes later (like 2) that review is not on the main page, but the other even more negative review is with a 12 out of 45 helpful rating... (all my numbers are off by 1 as my votes are not counted yet - even though they've already effected change)

There is a 10/10 review with 25 of 38 finding it helpful, there's a 13 of 16 positive review, and a 1 of 1, a 3 of 4...

Clearly something fishy is going on here, are they afraid of a vigilante uprising? Or maybe Bamber punched some Hollywood fatcat(s) in the face instead of granting the sexual favour(s) requested. Maybe both, as Bamber's work get's a disproportionate amount of flak. He's no Hopkins, but he is without a doubt a capable actor at the VERY least.

I wonder if anyone will even see this review... in preview the only spelling mistake highlighted is "fatcat" yet in typing this I show Bamber's name and the Canadian spelling of "favour" underlined squiggly red as well...