Ballerina Dominika Egorova is recruited to 'Sparrow School,' a Russian intelligence service where she is forced to use her body as a weapon. Her first mission, targeting a C.I.A. agent, threatens to unravel the security of both nations.
Jake Pentecost, son of Stacker Pentecost, reunites with Mako Mori to lead a new generation of Jaeger pilots, including rival Lambert and 15-year-old hacker Amara, against a new Kaiju threat.
A gritty crime saga which follows the lives of an elite unit of the LA County Sheriff's Dept. and the state's most successful bank robbery crew as the outlaws plan a seemingly impossible heist on the Federal Reserve Bank.
Director:
Christian Gudegast
Stars:
Gerard Butler,
Pablo Schreiber,
O'Shea Jackson Jr.
Lara Croft, the fiercely independent daughter of a missing adventurer, must push herself beyond her limits when she discovers the island where her father disappeared.
T'Challa, the King of Wakanda, rises to the throne in the isolated, technologically advanced African nation, but his claim is challenged by a vengeful outsider who was a childhood victim of T'Challa's father's mistake.
Director:
Ryan Coogler
Stars:
Chadwick Boseman,
Michael B. Jordan,
Lupita Nyong'o
Ensconced in her sprawling California mansion, eccentric firearm heiress Sarah Winchester believes she is haunted by the souls of people killed by the Winchester repeating rifle.
Directors:
Michael Spierig,
Peter Spierig
Stars:
Helen Mirren,
Sarah Snook,
Finn Scicluna-O'Prey
12 Strong tells the story of the first Special Forces team deployed to Afghanistan after 9/11; under the leadership of a new captain, the team must work with an Afghan warlord to take down the Taliban.
Director:
Nicolai Fuglsig
Stars:
Chris Hemsworth,
Michael Shannon,
Michael Peña
In a room with no windows on the eastern coast of Africa, a Scotsman, James More, is held captive by jihadist fighters. Thousands of miles away in the Greenland Sea, Danielle Flinders ... See full summary »
Director:
Wim Wenders
Stars:
Alicia Vikander,
James McAvoy,
Alexander Siddig
Lewis (Luke Evans) is an outwardly ordinary guy, but in reality he is hiding an obsession - revenge - against Cathy (Kelly Reilly). Lewis kidnaps Cathy in broad daylight and takes her to ... See full summary »
A young Russian intelligence officer is assigned to seduce a first-tour CIA agent who handles the CIA's most sensitive penetration of Russian intelligence. The two young officers collide in a charged atmosphere of trade-craft, deception, and inevitably forbidden passion that threatens not just their lives but the lives of others as well.
The plot-line is similar to the TV movie Secret Weapons (1985), made during the Cold War era. Linda Hamilton played the 'Dominika Egorova' character and Sally Kellerman played the 'Matron' character. Several scenes at the school are very similar. See more »
Goofs
Dominika suffers a broken left leg and has to use a cane to support herself. She is shown holding the cane with her left hand. This is not the correct way to support oneself if the left leg or foot is injured; she should use her right hand to hold the cane, thereby easing the pressure off the injured limb. Conversely, if her right leg or foot were injured, she should hold the cane using her left hand. When one walks, one's left hand and right foot swing forward, and then the right hand and left foot follow suit alternately. So, with her left leg injured, her right hand should hold the cane to help support the left leg. See more »
Well as someone who actually read the book and just saw the movie, and having seen how incongruous many of the ratings are here on IMDb, I felt obliged to pass on a few notes. Frankly, I'm flabbergasted at the large number of low ratings - some weirdo rated it low as there was not ENOUGH nudity (clearly he must have wound up in the wrong theatre!), on the other end of the spectrum are the puritan nut-jobs who will denigrate an entire film because their hyper-active sensibilities are offended! Perhaps reading and understanding warning labels on movies would be useful to avoid future surprises - did the terms "brutal violence, sexual violence, disturbing content, and nudity" not give you a clue?
I'm always really impressed how screenplay writers take an excellent and very complex book such as Red Sparrow and, out of necessity, condense the story/eliminate sub-plots and still come off with a movie adaptation that captures the basic premise of the book (and is shorter than 6hrs long!). I'm not sure why they substituted locations from the book (Helsinki and Rome/Athens) for Budapest and London (budget/logistics/tax incentives?), but it doesn't impact the story. I'm impressed with how the movie deftly wove key elements of the book into a shorter narrative, and yet still preserved the key story line and character arcs of the novel (for example the book has Californian Senator selling secrets to the SVR, while the movie puts this as the Chief of Staff to the US Ambassador to Hungary - enabling there to still be a mole hunt inside both the US and Russian governments).
In one of the opening scenes, I was ready to criticize the film for lack-luster research - Nate is receiving a coded message which comprises a letter "F" phonetically relayed as "Frank" vice "Foxtrot" (you don't have to be in the Air Force or Type A - I am admittedly both) to know that NATO, ICAO, International Aviation, and Western militaries/police services around the world use "Foxtrot." It kind of reminded me of those cheesy 80's cop shows that insist on using "Baker" vice "Bravo." However, after this one albeit extremely minor error, I found myself immersed in a totally believable and realistic world of post-Cold War espionage.
One reviewer said there was not a word of actual Russian spoken in the movie - again proving that some people are just not paying attention - I recall of at least one line when Dominika's boss speaks to her in Russian in the London hotel room. The number of reviewers that criticized the "fake" Russian accents to me must be Russians more upset about how the movie portrays Russia and Russian SVR ethics/tactics in a negative light. Considering the pedigree of the book's author, I'm inclined to believe in the realism and authenticity of the storyline. At least the actors made an effort to speak English with a Russian accent to lend authenticity to the story (and boy have we come a long way from Sean Connery's Scottish "Russian" accent in "Hunt For Red October" - and I'm an massive Connery fan!).
Folks, without any spoilers here, this is a harsh and graphic movie, but intended to tell a story based on how espionage, intelligence and counter-intelligence work in the real world. The violence, torture and nudity in this film is not gratuitous at all, but essential to the authenticity and realism of the story. If people want mindless, "no thinking required," family-friendly fluff, they should stick to Marvel, Disney or Pixar movies. I think Jennifer Lawrence does a brilliant job in this film; she has made another bold movie choice to broaden her character portfolio (personally, I wasn't a huge fan of "Mother" - but that is more me, not being a fan of that genre).
The movie ending has a surprise plot-twist that deviates from the book - a forgivable Hollywood nuance to show justice/closure, and end on a slightly more positive note. Like the book, the movie sets us up perfectly for a legitimate sequel - I, for one, hope this is something being contemplated!
157 of 250 people found this review helpful.
Was this review helpful to you?
| Report this
Well as someone who actually read the book and just saw the movie, and having seen how incongruous many of the ratings are here on IMDb, I felt obliged to pass on a few notes. Frankly, I'm flabbergasted at the large number of low ratings - some weirdo rated it low as there was not ENOUGH nudity (clearly he must have wound up in the wrong theatre!), on the other end of the spectrum are the puritan nut-jobs who will denigrate an entire film because their hyper-active sensibilities are offended! Perhaps reading and understanding warning labels on movies would be useful to avoid future surprises - did the terms "brutal violence, sexual violence, disturbing content, and nudity" not give you a clue?
I'm always really impressed how screenplay writers take an excellent and very complex book such as Red Sparrow and, out of necessity, condense the story/eliminate sub-plots and still come off with a movie adaptation that captures the basic premise of the book (and is shorter than 6hrs long!). I'm not sure why they substituted locations from the book (Helsinki and Rome/Athens) for Budapest and London (budget/logistics/tax incentives?), but it doesn't impact the story. I'm impressed with how the movie deftly wove key elements of the book into a shorter narrative, and yet still preserved the key story line and character arcs of the novel (for example the book has Californian Senator selling secrets to the SVR, while the movie puts this as the Chief of Staff to the US Ambassador to Hungary - enabling there to still be a mole hunt inside both the US and Russian governments).
In one of the opening scenes, I was ready to criticize the film for lack-luster research - Nate is receiving a coded message which comprises a letter "F" phonetically relayed as "Frank" vice "Foxtrot" (you don't have to be in the Air Force or Type A - I am admittedly both) to know that NATO, ICAO, International Aviation, and Western militaries/police services around the world use "Foxtrot." It kind of reminded me of those cheesy 80's cop shows that insist on using "Baker" vice "Bravo." However, after this one albeit extremely minor error, I found myself immersed in a totally believable and realistic world of post-Cold War espionage.
One reviewer said there was not a word of actual Russian spoken in the movie - again proving that some people are just not paying attention - I recall of at least one line when Dominika's boss speaks to her in Russian in the London hotel room. The number of reviewers that criticized the "fake" Russian accents to me must be Russians more upset about how the movie portrays Russia and Russian SVR ethics/tactics in a negative light. Considering the pedigree of the book's author, I'm inclined to believe in the realism and authenticity of the storyline. At least the actors made an effort to speak English with a Russian accent to lend authenticity to the story (and boy have we come a long way from Sean Connery's Scottish "Russian" accent in "Hunt For Red October" - and I'm an massive Connery fan!).
Folks, without any spoilers here, this is a harsh and graphic movie, but intended to tell a story based on how espionage, intelligence and counter-intelligence work in the real world. The violence, torture and nudity in this film is not gratuitous at all, but essential to the authenticity and realism of the story. If people want mindless, "no thinking required," family-friendly fluff, they should stick to Marvel, Disney or Pixar movies. I think Jennifer Lawrence does a brilliant job in this film; she has made another bold movie choice to broaden her character portfolio (personally, I wasn't a huge fan of "Mother" - but that is more me, not being a fan of that genre).
The movie ending has a surprise plot-twist that deviates from the book - a forgivable Hollywood nuance to show justice/closure, and end on a slightly more positive note. Like the book, the movie sets us up perfectly for a legitimate sequel - I, for one, hope this is something being contemplated!