उपयोगकर्ता समीक्षाएं

"Whenever you find a pot of gold there's always a monster guarding it." Tom (Franco) and Anna (Hudson) are married and struggling. They are weeks away from losing their house and the job market is dry. They are cleaning up an apartment of one of their tenants who died they find a huge bag of cash. After going back and forth on what to do with the bag they decide to just take what they need to keep the house for another month. Little by little they begin to take more but then someone comes looking for the money. Keep in mind when you read this that I watch every movie we order for the store. There are at least 2 movies a month that come out with the exact idea. The only difference this one has is that big name actors are in this. People find a bag of money with like $1 million in it and think what should we do...we will only spend a little of it to help us out. Soon most of the money is gone then they act shocked when someone comes looking for it. I have always wondered if a bad movie can be made good by adding great actors. According to this movie the answer is no. This is still a b-rate overdone movie with better acting. Overall, a movie that has been done so many times that nothing can help the repetition of the plot. I give this a C+.

The creative team behind this film is definitely promising. Director Henrik Ruben Genz is the Danish film and television director, known for his film Terribly Happy (2008) and work on the series The Bridge and The Killing in the original Danish version. Kelly Masterson has signed two film scripts. Maybe I was wrong to set high expectations, because Good People is only fair, average thriller with a story seen a million of times. Tom (Franco) and Anna (Hudson) are an American couple in financial problems. They move to London to the house Tom inherited. Since their earnings are not enough for renovation so they rent a room to Ben, suspicious type. After he's gone, Tom and Anna will find the mysterious stash of more than 200,000 pounds. But as we all know big money is not without owner. And so it begins... The problem is that we have already seen that story, and Good People does not bring anything new. Even the adaptation of the novel by Marcus Sakey is kind of awkward. The dialogues are poor. Acting is not bad. Visual effects are on higher level. The pace is easy, which certainly reinforces the impression of weirdness and "suspense", although we know all too well the sequence of events. Good People is correct thriller. Watchable, but really nothing more than that.

Action packed fast moving drama with good acting young JamesFranco, Katie Hudson and Tom Wilkinson.

And what is good anyway? Who defines what actions are good? Or if good people are not capable of doing bad things? And would that make them bad people? Don't get it twisted though: This is not a philosophical look at those things. If you even remotely asks those questions, it's not because the movie intended to make you think that much. It's your own perception that goes that extra mile (or two).

The movie moves along nicely, you can see almost everything coming your way and it's decent, if you're not annoyed by the standard formula this uses. It's nice to see another french actor making the move into "mainstream" Hollywood, even if he's not in it that much. Decent or a time waster, depending on your threshold

I like James Franco a lot, however I have comes to terms with the fact that just because he is in a movie does not mean it is going to be a good movie. Fortunately with "Good People" that is not the case.

Right from the get go the movie had my attention, it starts off very well and sets the mood for the rest of the movie. From there it gets a little slow but remains interesting. Then once things pick up again it is pretty entertaining.

I find it hard to rate this movie too high since the story is generic and it doesn't really do any original or new. However it is still a very watchable and entertaining thriller.

6.5/10

My Saturday night movies are starting to develop a bad pattern. This was supposed to be an action, crime, thriller. I seem to pick boring movies. Well, the action was mostly at the end, there was a crime, and it didn't thrill me very much.

It starts out as one of those gritty dramas. Or at least tries to. The colours are muted, mostly greys, and we quickly establish that the "good people" are a couple down on their luck. They have money troubles, fertility problems, so you can really feel that these people are just in a hole. Now this is where the predictability starts to happen. Generally bad things don't seem to happen to the good people who are well-off and happy. From then on, it feels like a generic thriller. It has the drugs, the single mum, the ageing cop with a personal beef against the evil guys. It was almost like watching one of those genre comedies, like it should be titled "Thriller Movie".

It's not the cast, really. They were fine. It's the story. Kate Hudson was a good female lead. I don't remember seeing her in any action before, but there was a line; "Guns are for pussies" that she looked really bad-ass saying. She had a good mix of regular woman caught in a bad situation, but kicking butt. James Franco blended in well with the look of the movie. He had the dirty, grey visage that was perfect. I felt he was a bit overshadowed by Kate, but he was a good, supporting husband. Tom Wilkinson was a fine British cop. He was so generic though, it could have been anyone of the many actors who generally play British cops on TV.

Overall, a lacklustre movie, and there really isn't all that much to say about it. You can watch it, if you have low expectations. Or if you really have some time to kill. Or you're doing something, and want some background noise and gunfire doesn't bother you. Otherwise, give this one a miss.

I liked this movie. It was realistic fiction that was entertaining to watch. There is excellent acting among all the main characters, and the story line is so believable. The only reason I can not rate it a 10 is that this movie was oh so predictable. As usual, there is no honesty among thieves, which is the premise of this movie. Then, of course, the underdog always wins. The climax of the movie was very reminiscent of "Home Alone," so I knew what was coming the moment that I saw the set towards the end. The predictability is the only reason I can think of the movie having such a low overall rating. However, when watching realistic fiction, extravagant happenings would convert the realistic to ridiculous. It stayed true to it's genre. I would recommend this movie to all movie-lovers, but I would be shocked if it got an Oscar.

Watching the trailer, the movie seems very promising, it had a lot of potential. However I evaluate it as so-so. The cast was good and there were some well done and imaginative killings particularly at the middle to the end of the movie. But the whole movie was kind of complicated. Some facts weren't clear to understand and some absurd scenes were just to serve the plot. At last, there wasn't anything new and it had nothing to offer, except of so little action as to justify the classification of the movie to an action-thriller movie. Unfortunately, I think that the time I spent to watch the film was a waste of time and I wouldn't recommend it.

I don't understand people these days. This is well directed, well acted thriller worth seeing. Intense, dramatic and with great cast, both good and villians.

If you have watched your share of thrillers, more likely than not the premise of "Good People" - ordinary people stumbling across a large amount of cash belonging to criminals - will be somewhat familiar to you. It certainly seemed familiar to me. But it's not just the premise that's familiar, but also how the movie plays out, with its various characters and supposed plot twists and turns. The climax comes as no surprise, since it's telegraphed very early in the movie as to what will happen and where it will happen.

Still, I must give credit where credit is due. The acting by all the participants is professional and effective; the bad guys do come across as acceptably nasty pieces of work. The movie also has reasonable production values for a movie that didn't have a megabudget. And the story, though very familiar and predictable, does go from scene to scene at a fairly brisk pace and leaves no lulls. So if you don't mind seeing the same story and characters all over again, you'll probably find this movie a fairly well crafted retread.

I'm surprised this movie got so little stars! It kept you thinking who will die and I just want to put it out there if I found a bag of money I'd NEVER give it to the police. That'll be the stupidest thing a wallet yes a bag of money hell no! That being said it's a good movie and I'm glad I watched it.

The movie isn't that bad as some want make us to believe. Okay it might be a story that we already have seen before but it has the merit that the acting is not bad at all and the filming is also good. You might get the feeling of been there, done that but I'm also sure that you already saw the same kind of movie but a worse version. You can't really fault the actors because they did their job making the whole scenario believable. It's not a movie that will make history but it's enough to keep you entertained for an evening. It's not really a thriller, it's just a crime movie, with the good people and the bad guys. Okay it's predictable, but is that not every movie with bad & good people? The good always win, and the villains always lose. Nothing new but watchable.

Too bad because what a great cast! Kate Hudson and James Franco are always interesting to watch, and their chemistry together was really nice in this film. Totally believable. And then there's the awesome Tom Wilkinson, terrific in just about everything he's in, and a new favorite, Omar Sy (loved him in the French film,The Untouchables.) When I put the movie in and watched the first 30 minutes, I was enjoying it. Then convenient writing starting seeping in and I lost all interest. I won't go into detail...I'm too tired right now honestly. But it just pisses me off when writers are lazy and good actors go to waste (and allow themselves to be in films like this!) There are just too many dumb decisions the characters make about 2/3's the way into the film to stay hooked. You are just like, "wow, they let this film get made???" Pisses me off again! Hell, I have 2 screenplays that would kick this one's ass. Mainly because I'm anal about not being convenient. Biggest pet peeve of all, because it's so easy to do. Not sure if it was the novelist or the screenplay writer but come on! You can do better than this - either of you or both of you! Damn. I'm disappointed :(

Much better film than I expected. Looks kind of a French thriller, but based on the novel of the same name. It revolves around a young American couple who moved to London, where they're on the verge to lose the inherited house after the severe debt. Luckily they find bundles of money from their dead renter. Since it was a bad money they wait for the right time to spend it, but what follows is their nightmare who ends up running away from the most dangerous men.

This is really a good story and a well made film, but I don't understand how it was so underrated. Obviously the critics did their job like usual, but the film fanatics turning it down as well which is a very sad. I know it feels so familiar, but very entertaining with lots of edgy moments. Especially the final battle between all the group at one place was very good, yet they kept it so simple. Both the lead actors were fantastic, including a small contribution by Tom Wilkinson.

It is a small story, that mostly takes place in a week. But the pace was excellent and it comes to the point without making any delay in the form of development. Yet there remains some mystery like how the guy died in the couple's rented apartment. Excluding those which only brings cliché if it goes deeper, the film definitely worth watching and I feel happy for watching a good thriller after a long time. So I recommended it.

7/10

Long story short - the movie definitely deserves a solid 5 in my opinion, I have no reason to go lower and to go higher neither, to be honest I would have given it a 4, if not for the graphic and well done killings on a few occasions, which I haven't seen being done in that manner for a while on the screen, but otherwise the plot was just too generic and there is no point of producing movies of this kind anymore, unless it's based on facts, or biography... Honestly how much more innovation can you bring to this particular genre, just swapping actors and changing titles endlessly only to attract dumb masses to the cinemas? I guess that's the whole point...

Not sure why people review or have opinions about things they know nothing about. It would be similar to myself reviewing a Korean movie and saying it was bad. It could have been bad, but since I haven't got a frame of reference of knowing Korean culture, it might be arrogant and presumptuous to postulate? It's a well acted movie, well paced and completely in line with something British. Not the slick superficial production of an American movie but a dyed in the wool type English gangster movie. Not Guy Ritchie clever, but something that could happen and exactly how it might happen. The villains were believable and so to was Franco and Hudson. Wilkerson delvers his usual excellent performance and the set was superb. Exactly the kind of motors that a contractor or villain might have. The right flat and in the right neighborhood. Only complaint would be having Anna Friel act so little. Totally excellent actress and such lovely crumpet as well. Needed to see more of her. Excellent movie with brilliant understated acting. And Hudson's bum to booth!

A couple of Americans (Kate Hudson, James Franco) experiencing hard financial times head over to jolly old England to make a go of it. I'm pretty sure that makes no sense but we'll pretend in this fictional world that it does. So the couple are renting a room to a drug addict criminal who dies. They find a stash of money in the ceiling and, like everybody in every movie that has used this plot before, they throw common sense out the window and decide to start spending the money. Of course, some bad dudes come looking for the loot. Now the couple is in trouble and the only person who can help them is the dogged detective (Tom Wilkinson) who won't let the case go. Which is pretty much every movie detective ever. As you can see this thing is riddled with clichés and a formulaic plot. To compensate for the lack of originality we have ample doses of violence and a nice ass shot from Kate Hudson.

It's all put together adequately but it's as stale as month-old bread. Stupid people doing stupid things is the backbone of this movie. The best part is the last thirty minutes. Kate Hudson says "Guns are for pussies" because they have rigged their house Home Alone-style to fight the baddies, which is too ridiculous to miss. I love when the one criminal sees the other one impaled and asks "Are you alright?" Priceless. It's worth watching once, I suppose, if you're bored. But most people will have seen this done before and better many times over the years. There are some unintentionally funny moments, which bumps it up a notch.