IMDb > Courier X (2016) > Reviews & Ratings - IMDb

Reviews & Ratings for
Courier X More at IMDbPro »

Write review
Filter: Hide Spoilers:
Index 6 reviews in total 

1 out of 1 people found the following review useful:

Excellent Low-Budget Film

9/10
Author: tellyw13 from United States
14 January 2017

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 Did some of the environments look outdated?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.

Was the above review useful to you?

1 out of 1 people found the following review useful:

This movie wants to be more

3/10
Author: Damian G
23 December 2016

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

Where to start?

This movie should rank somewhere at the top of B-rated movies. If you have nothing else to watch at the time, or just want some background noise while cooking, this is what you put on.

To be fair, it does start off rather well with some good acting. The first 30mins are mildly entertaining, but then it just flops. It fails to follow through and deliver when it really matters. It's dull past 45mins and definitely not something you would watch on the big screen unless you into REALLY dull movies.

Switching over to the weather channel without pausing wouldn't make you feel that you've missed much.

It just wants to be more ... shame it's not

Was the above review useful to you?

Imagine being dragged backwards by your ears for 100 yards, inch by inch...

2/10
Author: Boristhemoggy from United Kingdom
22 January 2017

...that's how I felt watching this film. At the outset I thought Bron Boier's character was insignificant as the diminutive, thin lipped, double chinned is about as menacing as Mr Tumble, has the acting ability of a Queen Anne chair, the personality of a large beach rock and the presence of the Invisible Man. His face never changed throughout the entire film: no expression, no emotion, just deadpan looks throughout from someone as threatening as the paper boy. The direction was dire, the pace of the movie going at such a snails pace that at times I had to rewind to pick up a lost plot point. I'm still unsure of what I watched even by the end. The only one who seemed to know how to act was Ben van Bergen who played Ivan. However he wasn't on screen enough to make a big difference. The tagline is "The film the CIA tried to stop." I am very sure that the CIA had no interest at all in this film and if they even knew it existed the tagline should read "The film the CIA tried to stop laughing at." Once again I'm disappointed at wasting so much of my precious time on garbage.

Was the above review useful to you?

Intense, Intelligent, Intriguing

9/10
Author: Steven Root
20 January 2017

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.

Was the above review useful to you?

A slow cooking espionage thriller

6/10
Author: mallaverack from Australia
29 December 2016

Unfortunately, I have to agree with the reviews so far written about this movie. It seems the budget was fairly limited; the pace of the movie was very slow in the main; acting was not of a particularly high caliber throughout. However, the pace picked up towards the end making this a watchable espionage tale. For those interested in the CIA involvement and the implications of criminal activity by a government agency, this movie should whet your appetite to perhaps seek out better movies/reading material about this period in US history. Still a worthwhile production. Two of the characters who made a creditable impression were Nathan Volgel and Charles Alexander' It seems almost ironic that the closing credits describe Trenlin as an operative whose ability to "..remain calm in stressful conditions made him a preferred 'contractee' of the CIA" In all honesty I found this character to be almost lacking emotion and maudlin in the extreme.

Was the above review useful to you?

This is actually a quite watchable film

Author: BasicLogic from United States
24 December 2016

with cloak-and-dagger suspense, betrayal and backstabbing, political conspiring, shyster-mobster and intertwined human relationship all woven and fabricated together, allowing you to know some truth and facts behind Iran-Contra scandal during Reagon administration.

The movie could be much much better, if 1) The script could be more condensed, the tempo from scene to scene, setting to setting, locality to locality much much faster, 2) with more production budget, 3) a better director, 4) more appropriate casting 5) better post-production editing.

But in real world, this film just turned out to be snail-crawling slow, loosely relayed sequence, and boring acting. A film produced in 2016 couldn't even catch up the tensed paces like what we saw in "Three Days of the Condor (1975)". Lot of scenes showed the shortage of limited budget. The CIA headquarters just looked like some small company's office, only with several key characters, all worked in tight small offices, the CIA director's office got a staircase that made his office looked very funny. The journalist's scenes, simply looked primitive and unrealistic...There are lot of segments that should be paced 300% faster, yet simply turned to be like the speed of the locomotive when we pioneered from the east to the west coast.

There's only one thing that I have to point out: The dialog sometimes quite strong and top-notched with depth and cynicism, but due to the loose script, the mediocre directing and extremely low budget, making this film looked more like adapted from John Le-Carre's deadbeat boring espionage novels. A 2016 movie's tempo is 1000 times slower than a 1975 one, an absolutely shame!

Was the above review useful to you?


Add another review


Related Links

Plot summary Ratings Awards
External reviews Official site Main details
Your user reviews Your vote history