Empire State

When I saw the rating on IMDb it kinda put me off watching this film. Usually anything that rates lower than a 6.0 on here is actually pulp, IMDb works great that way. Pulp is OK every once in a while so I still sometimes watch some of those films if I like the cast or the storyline, however I usually draw the line at anything below 5.0 cause it's mostly just a complete waste of time.

Made an exception for this though after seeing the cast and reading the story outline, I thought how bad can it be, so I decided to find out.

I was pleasantly surprised, at no point was this film hard to watch or boring to me, just an OK thriller like many others that is worth watching even if it's not blowing your mind away. I would say it deserves about the same rating as 'man on a ledge' or 'alphadog' or 'savages'.

Anyway maybe there's some hate in some of these reviews because of some cast members or because it could have been better (it could) or because it sometimes gives you an atmosphere like your watching the departed, however then the film isn't nearly as good or it uses historical cues like argo but it's not as good as that either...all that doesn't take away from my opinion that it's still an interesting story to watch with generally decent acting.

7 out of 10 to boost the rating a bit, would give it more like a 6.5 myself.

The story has a very nice and potential background as its base. But it turned out that the movie didn't really took advantage of this in the development and execution. The opening looks quite nice with the back and forth flow of the story, starting the story near the ending point, and the quick story buildup between the start and the conflict revelation. But then it plunges into mediocrity, and quite honestly boredom, since the movie decreased its speed significantly and let the drama and investigation set in more dominantly. The action also don't take long when they happen. Too much use of close up angles combined with the very quick camera movement with less shot accuracy takes precious split seconds at those sequences to refocus on what we are viewing.The acting seems just a standard job in overall. It's a bad surprise considering the potentials of Dwayne Johnson and Liam Hemsworth.

I'm a fan of real stories turned into movie when they revolve about an epic robbery and those robbed aren't worth of pity. This seemed to fit the genre. I didn't know what to expect from this, but the Rock is in it, so I thought, at least will be entertaining as he is the quintessential hero.

The film is not dreadful, but it is kinda mediocre. Bad direction, bad production, mediocre acting, poor dialogues, bad tempo, lack of climax, lack of tension, lack of humour, lack of proper drama, lack of everything that makes this sort of movie interesting.

The movie is supposed to happen in the 1980s, but it looks more like the 70s, regarding, dress style, make up, hair, and overall looks. If you don't get something as basic right, how do you pretend us to believe the rest?

The acting is uneven. The Rock underwhelms here, probably because the role doesn't suit his style, and he is not a proper actor, but more an action hero and I am OK when he does those sort of movies. Liam Hemsworth has potential, but he needs a bit of time off and focus on developing himself as an actor, because his lack of dramatic register was painful to watch here and not even the accent was believable; he is miscast here, and the film doesn't make him any favor or push his career forward, quite the contrary. Three people stand out to me in this film: Arangano as the most annoying Eddie, Ben-Victor as the good Chris' father, and Rispoli as the normal-guy Toni. Other supporting actors are OK in their respective roles as not much is expected from them and they are stereotypical baddies.

It is a pity that despite the story being really interesting a priori, this people wasted millions of dollars to produce a B movie. If I had had to pay for this, I would be furious.

If a movie doesn't entertain you, doesn't make you laugh, doesn't move you, doesn't have a decent settings, or the right actors for the characters, well, why bother?

To be honest the majority of this movie is the two main characters cussing and fighting. While it's cool that the plot is based on a true story, the execution leaves a lot to be desired. The acting is okay, but the characters are annoying. The plot itself, wanders around a lot and doesn't seem to have a clear direction. Then the movie just kind of ends.

In the 80's, in New York, Chris Potamitis (Liam Hemsworth) had dreamed on joining the police academy but his best friend Eddie (Michael Angarano) destroyed his dreams being caught by the police with marijuana together with him. Chris is hired by the Empire State Company to work as security guard in an armored truck with the driver Tony (Michael Rispoli). When Tony is murdered in a heist and the Empire States does not pay the insurance to the widow, Chris decides to steal money from the depository to give to her. Chris comments with Eddie, who is a lowlife and bigmouth person, the fails in the security system of the Empire State and Eddie plots a scheme with another smalltime criminal to steal the money from the depositary. The FBI agents do not believe that two morons like Eddie and Chris could have planned the heist but the experienced Detective Ransome (Dwayne Johnson) follows his instincts to solve the case.

"Empire State" is movie apparently based on a true story with one of the most unpleasant and irritating characters of the cinema history, the loser Eddie. Consequently the performance of Michael Angarano is top- notch. On the other size, Chris Potamitis is shown as a naive and quite innocent victim of the heist but it is hard to believe in this character. Therefore, despite the good performances, the screenplay is badly written and waste the good cast. My vote is five.

Title (Brazil): Not Available