57 secondi

One of those films that's not a bad watch if you can't find anything else.

Yeah, it has a bit of a stupid plot, but if you just look at it from the point of view of a bit of innocent sci-fi fun, then it's an OK watch to pass the time.

The script could have been more solid, it definitely felt rushed and like it could have used another draft or two.

Isn't really any rewatch value there for me, it's a one and done type film.

Just don't go into it expecting an avant-garde sci-fi masterpiece and take it for what it is. People are judging way too seriously in these reviews. It's not trying to be Oscar-worthy, it's just a breezy sci-fi thriller.

I don't know how the team that made the movie managed to land Morgan Freeman on their lap. Whoever made that happen is the only genius on the team.

Everything else is absolutely dumb and/or low quality about this movie.

The main characters make the dumbest decisions possible. Their reasoning makes no sense.

From the cinematography perspective, it's just awful. Most outdoor scenes are way too contrasty with blown shadows. It's like they hired a team of first year art school students and put them in charge of lighting and the camera.

Audio is awful too. Many indoor scenes echo like crazy.

Zero attention to details.

Do not recommend.

3/10.

Sure you have the legendary Morgan Freeman sandwiched in here at the beginning and end, but even he's a lost cause in this flick. Also all the action scenes are laughable. We've all seen movies with large fireball explosion where characters have to quickly run away, or instances where guns are pointed at someone's head, and times where someone gets knocked out, drugged or kidnapped.

I think the writers missed out on the element of flashback - perhaps show some scenes of Franklin's twin sister, so that we can unravel how close the siblings were and how her passing affected his life. Franklin really is a poor character because we can't tell if his heart is in the right place. He is labeled as heroic, but most of the time he uses the ring for personal gain (to gamble) and not for the greater good.

This film is neither bold nor intrepid, and Josh Hutchinson does the bare minimum here. I don't think he's cut out for an action thriller.

While 57 Seconds had its fun moments, some cliche ideas let the movie down. It is not the best movie out there, but it is entertaining in it's own way and had the potential to have been better than what was released. Morgan Freeman is still a great actor that can make a bad movie look good with his topnotch acting. Josh Hutcherson did a great job too and I'll definitely love to see him in big budget movies. Nonetheless, 57 Seconds is a movie that contains a good dose of entertainment, a few laughing moment here and there and some solid acting. The story should have just been able to give us more.

Fooling time has a price. If not, just ask Josh Hutcherson, starring of this entertaining and fun science fiction thriller in which his character, thanks to a new ring, manages to go back 57 seconds in time, something that ends up becoming a real drug and with the participation of an enigmatic scientist Morgan Freeman as a technology guru. Blogger Franklin Fausti (Josh Hutcherson of Hunger Games) thwarts an attack against Anton Burrell (Morgan Freeman of Seven), a visionary tech guru he has been given a chance to interview. With Burrell's help, Franklin decides to use a ring to take revenge against the pharmaceutical company run by Sig Thorenson (Greg Germann) that was responsible for his sister's death. Along the way, Franklin falls in love for Jala (Lovie Simone). Rewind the past !. Avenge the future !.

An amusing film full of micro-time travels, temporal paradoxes, fantasy, impressive action scenes, unbridled ambition and dreams of grandeur. The film shows us that technological advances can be a danger if they are not in the right hands. The issue is simple and fantastic: our starring finds a ring that Burrell dropped and discovers that it gives its wearer the ability to travel 57 seconds into the past. The story follows the same premise as the much better ¨Prince of Persia: The Sands of Time¨ (2010) by Michael Apted , the latter was full of oriental adventures, swordplay and unlimited action. However, this 57 seconds is hampered by a very small budget, a number of implausible situations, and seems more like a B-movie. The only standout is the always excellent Morgan Freeman, in a minor role, which is why he is clearly wasted playing a wizard of modern technology. The real protagonist is Josh Hutcherson, who gives a mediocre performance as the determined young man who gets into a lot of trouble when he finds a powerful ring while seeking revenge for the death of his sister. Josh Hutcherson gives a so-so acting, not providing the necessary enthusiasm to carry the film. This young actor is building a good career that includes several successes and some failures. Josh Hutcherson may have gotten his big break when he was cast as Peeta Mellark in the Hunger Games franchise, but he'd actually been a staple in Hollywood since he was very young. His most recent starring role is in this Sci-fi film "57 seconds (2023)", but he's been in tons of other movies as well, dating all the way back to his days as a child actor. Among his films we can mention the following: Hunger Games saga, Journey to the Center of the Earth, Across the River and Into the Trees, Burn, The disaster artist, Escobar: Paradise Lost, and Five nights at Freddy's that's based on the video game of the same name, among others.

The motion picture was mediocrely directed by Rusty Cundieff and was shot in Lafayette, LA in April 2022. Rusty is a director and actor, known for acting and shooting, both TV and cinema, such as: Chappelle's Show (2003), Fear of a Black Hat (1993) White Water (2015), Christmas in harmony (2021) and Creepshow series. Rating: 5/10, average film. Only for die-hard Morgan Freeman fans despite his short and already hackneyed performance.