Courier X

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.

This movie provides a view of the underbelly of our government in no shy terms. It is not for folks who need the pacing and eye-candy of a big Hollywood production. But it is very persuasive in and of itself. Very disillusioning to any idealistic American. But the subject-matter would not be served by a more polished presentation. It is a good demonstration of Arendt's concept of "the banality of evil". A very slow unfolding low boil thriller -- much more satisfying than the dramatizations of your run of the mill spy or espionage movie. Closely connected with actual historical event of recent American history. Close to a dramatic documentary. I did not have a problem with the actors. I can't imagine CIA and such sorts as being very histrionic. Again: The banality of evil.

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.

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.

This movie makes a raft of sensational charges against the CIA, a statement which I don't think needs to be considered a spoiler, given the advertising line, "The movie the CIA didn't want you to see."

Both of the charges it levels against the Agency are now in the distant past, as far as the national news media are concerned, and are in the course of being forgotten altogether, say, like the civil war in Lebanon, which used to be headline news. These charges are definitely in the realm of conspiracy theory, since the Agency is depicted as consisting of a bunch of amoral killers who have no qualms about wiping out innocent people. They don't even grieve when their coworkers are assassinated.

Thus we have, thanks to the virtually one-man efforts of Thomas Gulamerian, an effort at popular history, a fictionalized dramatization of an episode in our history that may have happened the way it was shown here, and deserves to be remembered as part of the crimes the government commits against its own people.

The extraordinary control shown by the "courier" was a life-saving trait. The acting reflected that. The most gripping part of the movie were the claims made at the very end, where the characters are revealed as real people whose stories have been dramatized; if any of that is even close to true, this is indeed a sensational claim of malfeasance by our Deep State.

Alas, the reviewers want to groan that the Internet speeds are too fast for the 1990s, and the offices shown in the CIA building are too small and crowded.