Suspect numéro un

Is it me or are TV series now simply better than 90% of movies now? I had fairly high hopes for this movie despite what sounded like a cliche premise, but keeping in mind that it was based on a true story. The storyline bounces around all over the place and at every turn, you can guess what happens next. The renegade reporter, the frustrated editor, the typical drug dealer and 'protege,' the immediate love interest, the stereotypical cops with no layers, and the corrupt government officials. We've seen it a million times, but sometimes it's worth watching again if done right (City on a Hill). This movie fails miserably and I struggled to get through the first hour. It's as if producers, directors, and writers are sitting in a movie sweatshop (Thailand in this case) trying to pump out as many movies as possible. Then they are completely baffled as to why no one wants to go to the theatre and spend $50.

There is zero character development and the acting is mediocre at best. Antoine Pilon keeps it interesting and Jim Gaffigan tries hard (and fails miserably), but this is a movie you should wait to see for free on a winter afternoon if the football is cancelled because of COVID. Thankfully, Amazon Prime had it as a special for $2.99 and I can see why. Does my review contain spoilers? Absolutely not because there is zero intrigue with this diluted and discombobulated disaster of a movie.

I remember reading the actual news from this incident back when I was in my late teens, early twenties. Victor Malarek did an incredibly good job at showing how incompetent Canadian officials who couldn't cause a significant dent in the drug trade coming from Asia into north america decided to use a straw man to create a fictitious incident in order to improve their image. The incident in itself and how it was covered back then by journalist Malarek was plain riveting. Unfortunately, the movie that was made about it is clearly not a top quality product and misuses the talent of great actors. Still worth watching just to learn about what happened.

It was a telling story of how possession of drugs in Asian countries can be penalized by harsh and hard sentences. I wanted to love this film, but I just could find my way to move the needle past the okay line!!

This was an alright biographic movie with elements of crime and thriller added. The cast did well portraying the characters. Josh Hartnett playing victor was a good choice in my opinion as well. But aside from everything else seeming ok the movie itself just felt disconnected, the way the sections were added almost didn't create a liner story and as I watched, I wondered why they were doing this and why he was there and such. Overall a good biographical movie, it could've just been a better approach to it.

Well worth a watch! A credible account that was well depicted.

I can't speak for 80's Canada but it got 80's Thailand spot on. DEA and British customs were very active in Thailand at that time. They pressured the Thai police which,in turn, vigorously targeted foreigners, escalating the severity of relatively minor drug offences, and if they didn't have the funds to buy their way out of trouble, in they went. To divert attention from the real ( protected) players, to satisfy visable Thai compliance, to deter chancers and newcomers but predominantly to bolster publicity for Reagan and Bush's, well funded and highly lucrative "just say no! " "war on drugs."

There from 84 to 92. The film brought back a lot of memories, not least those shackles that Justin Jackson mentions in his review. I'd forgotten the peeling blue/green paint that was everywhere. The prison population seemed authentic apart from a lack locked up foreigners (among other nationalities lots of Nigerian mules were convicted around that time) the film depicts the situation and era very well.