Encrypted: The Cyber Crime

All I can really muster -- this is a 60 minute picture that is 130 minutes long. In essence, it feels unbearably unwatchable.

I honestly don't know what to think of this. Is this supposed to be spirited in a flippant or sarcastic way? Or was the writer entirely serious in his attempts toward making a film about cyber crime?

There is an abundance of opportunity to notice the weak spots in this picture. These include silly dialogue, poor matching shots, wholly clumsy and woefully gimpy staging, and a final unmasking of "the cyber criminal to be" that was not surprisingly underwhelming. C'mon Crypto -- or whomever is the oaf who plays him -- please use your face muscles. GOD GAVE YOU FACE MUSCLES. PLEASE USE THEM!

Okay, moving on! The picture has a plot. Yes, it exists. But I feel that the true plot (or whatever movie the writer ripped off for this remake) was more of a nuisance for him as he tried to Spiderman his way through the "boring" bits because this picture seems about as cultured as the movie bros who only watch Marvel films and think of themselves as art connoisseurs. Just don't, please.

So to sum it all up, this film is either flippantly and sarcastically genius or uproariously, painfully, maddeningly awful.

In this so-called "crypto" movie, it's painfully evident that writer was more interested in riding hype train of cryptocurrency than understanding nuances. The plot is as shallow as kiddie pool, with seem to stumble into the world of cryptocurrency without any real understanding or depth.

First off, let's talk about portrayal of cryptocurrency itself. Instead of complexities of blockchain technology or the economic implications of decentralized finance, the film treats cryptocurrency like some sort of magical internet money with no real-world consequences. It's as if writer did quick Google search on Bitcoin and thought, "Hey, this sounds cool, let's make a movie about it!"

Then there's the characters. Our antagonist is insecure "bro" who thinks he can boss it up quick by waggling eyebrowz. He's joined by a cast of one-dimensional sidekicks who serve no purpose other than to nod enthusiastically at his every harebrained scheme. There's zero character development, no arcs to speak of, and you'll struggle to remember any of their names five minutes after the credits roll.

But perhaps the most egregious sin of this film is its complete disregard for basic facts and logic. Cryptocurrency may be a complex and evolving field, but this movie treats it like a playground where anything goes. Want to hack into a government mainframe using nothing but your smartphone? Sure, why not! How about stealing millions of dollars worth of Bitcoin with a few lines of code? Easy peasy! It's as if the writers watched "The Matrix" one too many times and decided to sprinkle some techno-jargon on top of their already half-baked script.

In conclusion, this crypto movie is a prime example of what happens when filmmakers prioritize buzzwords over substance. It's a shallow, poorly researched mess that does a disservice to both the cryptocurrency community and anyone hoping for an engaging cinematic experience.

Well, after finishing a book on bitcoin (given the current economic situation), I decided to search for and watch a movie on this topic.. To be honest, the "based on a true story" moniker caught my eye. Now, don't get me wrong, I'm no stranger to low budget independent films (production value, home-made visual effects, awkward lighting, et cetera), and some of my favorite movies are independent as well. But with this one, I couldn't even make it through the first half hour. Initially I was slightly annoyed by the dozen or so completely wrong details and jarringly/poorly written dialogue, but I kept going because I know that always happens when a movie is adapted from "true events". What finally killed it for me and what I simply couldn't bear was the ab....so.....lute....ly... TERRIBLE, HORRIBLE misunderstanding of how cryptocurrency and cyber security works, in addition to the horrendous back and forth dialogue with the villain.

Crypto/Gizzi honestly reminded me of when an adult film star "acts" in a movie.

For those who wrote positive reviews, if you honestly believe what you wrote, I envy you and the ease with which you are satisfactorily entertained, though I suspect it was written simply by the production team or a friend of the production team.

What a waste of time. Worst acting, bad direction, incomplete script

There's a lot wrong here, but many of these actors look like they got stuck on a movie that was probably worse than they thought. It's a tough spot to be in. You want to get your name out there and accept a job, but you also don't want your good name and reputation tied to garbage.

Whoever this dude is (same name listed under director, writer, and Crypto-dude) is probably never going to get a role in anything outside of non-speaking background acting making $150 per day, but I hope that these other actors are able to move on from this and learn to be more selective in the jobs they accept.

Director/writer dude should be thankful for these actors and their hard work. Otherwise this would be a one star POS.