Un contrabbandiere di merce del mercato nero viene sollecitato dalla CIA per un coinvolgimento deleterio con il volo TWA 800 e per coprire un tentativo di ricatto nicaraguense nei confronti ... Leggi tuttoUn contrabbandiere di merce del mercato nero viene sollecitato dalla CIA per un coinvolgimento deleterio con il volo TWA 800 e per coprire un tentativo di ricatto nicaraguense nei confronti dell'agenzia.Un contrabbandiere di merce del mercato nero viene sollecitato dalla CIA per un coinvolgimento deleterio con il volo TWA 800 e per coprire un tentativo di ricatto nicaraguense nei confronti dell'agenzia.
- Regia
- Sceneggiatura
- Star
- Premi
- 3 vittorie e 8 candidature totali
Michael Dennis Hill
- Ifo Newsman
- (as Michael D. Hill)
Recensioni in evidenza
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
Lo sapevi?
- BlooperIn scene where Trenlin pays of second loan, the calendar behind Dominic's desk is dated August 2015. An anachronism (but not too obvious), since the film takes place in 1996.
I più visti
Accedi per valutare e creare un elenco di titoli salvati per ottenere consigli personalizzati
- How long is Courier X?Powered by Alexa
Dettagli
- Data di uscita
- Paese di origine
- Sito ufficiale
- Lingua
- Celebre anche come
- The Client
- Luoghi delle riprese
- Manhattan, New York, New York, Stati Uniti(Trenlin's residence)
- Vedi altri crediti dell’azienda su IMDbPro
- Tempo di esecuzione
- 2h 18min(138 min)
- Colore
- Proporzioni
- 1.85 : 1
Contribuisci a questa pagina
Suggerisci una modifica o aggiungi i contenuti mancanti