Courier X

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.

Realistic. Accurate. Intelligent. It is a very very special movie, a fine wine, for those who like to read spy books and watch spy movies. Completely unlike usual Hollywood spy movies.

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.

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!

I'm old enough to remember this stuff very well (MSNBC was about three days old when TWA 800 took place. The new network was suppoosed to combine NBC news withcutting edge MicroSoft technology. Full capacity was not up and running and Brian Williams had to hold up a Rand McNally Road Atlas to show where the crash occurred). My trophy wife is younger and didn't pay as much attention, so I had to spend a lot of time stopping to explain the Stasi, the drugs, the false (at the time) Alzheimers charge, etc. Nevertheless, I liked this film a lot. Of course I never believed the TWA 800 story from the start (Please note that Deputy FBI Director James Kallstrom is often charged with the coverup, but today is cited by some as a good guy, proving Comey's corruption). Some of the actors were sort of Ricky Nelson awkward, but some were quite good, especially Nathan. The sets were sub-par in many cases. But I agree wholeheartedly with the reviews who would choose these limitations over CGI and superpowers. I'm not taking the storyline as gospel, but it makes you think a bit. Two final thoughts: Did the CIA Director remind you of John Deutsch? Didn't you always suspect "the toothy thing?" (said that way to avoid spoiler alert. Good film, worth a watch any day.