57 secondi

This film is just terrible. The premise is okay but the main character is poorly written. The way he acts and his motivations are that of a 12 year old. This is as bad as that lame Jason Momoa film "sweet girl" where every point they want to portray is so on the nose that it all ends up stinking. Although I couldn't make it beyond 20 minutes of that tripe, I did make it further on this one. This script really needed another 6 or 7 rewrites. Maybe this script was written by ChatGPT? No? Or maybe it needed to be? This could've been so much better if it had been properly script doctored but we will never know.

I don't know how the team that made the movie managed to land Morgan Freeman on their lap. Whoever made that happen is the only genius on the team.

Everything else is absolutely dumb and/or low quality about this movie.

The main characters make the dumbest decisions possible. Their reasoning makes no sense.

From the cinematography perspective, it's just awful. Most outdoor scenes are way too contrasty with blown shadows. It's like they hired a team of first year art school students and put them in charge of lighting and the camera.

Audio is awful too. Many indoor scenes echo like crazy.

Zero attention to details.

Do not recommend.

3/10.

Wow. I'm mind-blown.

Do you know when you are watching a science fiction movie or any movie really and you have those moments of amazement thinking "Wow! I feel like I'm getting smarter after every scene!", "This is so well written!" "This is so ingenious!"? Well, unfortunately, the complete opposite just happened...

It's remarkable how the decision makers involved in this project were able to set up this big scope involving as characters apparently two of the worlds most influential beings, the tech genius entrepreneur! And the pharmaceutical giant!, with the MIT graduate 'chosen one'!, and the movie be so ridden by basically idiotic/childish decisions and set ups. Everything just feels relentlessly cheap. How contradictory.

How to suspend your disbelief when the movie is set within such a wealthy and high-stakes scenario but you have everything surrounding your production (except Morgan Freeman) being not up to par? It just makes no sense.

Next time just tune/humble the whole thing down so that you don't have to simplify every plot point because you don't have the budget or the technical team/energy to make it.

Sure you have the legendary Morgan Freeman sandwiched in here at the beginning and end, but even he's a lost cause in this flick. Also all the action scenes are laughable. We've all seen movies with large fireball explosion where characters have to quickly run away, or instances where guns are pointed at someone's head, and times where someone gets knocked out, drugged or kidnapped.

I think the writers missed out on the element of flashback - perhaps show some scenes of Franklin's twin sister, so that we can unravel how close the siblings were and how her passing affected his life. Franklin really is a poor character because we can't tell if his heart is in the right place. He is labeled as heroic, but most of the time he uses the ring for personal gain (to gamble) and not for the greater good.

This film is neither bold nor intrepid, and Josh Hutchinson does the bare minimum here. I don't think he's cut out for an action thriller.

While 57 Seconds had its fun moments, some cliche ideas let the movie down. It is not the best movie out there, but it is entertaining in it's own way and had the potential to have been better than what was released. Morgan Freeman is still a great actor that can make a bad movie look good with his topnotch acting. Josh Hutcherson did a great job too and I'll definitely love to see him in big budget movies. Nonetheless, 57 Seconds is a movie that contains a good dose of entertainment, a few laughing moment here and there and some solid acting. The story should have just been able to give us more.