Courier X (2016) Reviews

• Intense, Intelligent, Intriguing

  root-767912017-01-20

  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.

  More

• Excellent Low-Budget Film

  tellyw132017-01-14

  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.

  More

• Popular History

  meoforcongress2017-02-16

  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.

  More

• It's Better If you Lived Thru It.

  palainausa2018-04-06

  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.

  More

• Good stories don't need all that Hollywood flair

  lan-779992018-02-25

  I was browsing through Amazon Prime and came across this title. I noticed that it revolved around Flight 800 and it touched a chord because I am not far from Long Island where that flight crashed. I read the info and I noticed it was a longer movie. I am a 48 year old female and am used to good stories/movies being on the longer side. If I see a really short movie, I assume it's all special effects with little substance. The beginning of the film really got my attention because you don't usually see the human side of drug trafficking. At first the main character (Courier X) just seems to be some typical drug smuggler. But his character is developed and you see him in a different light. There is so much to this movie that honestly I think it may take a second viewing. Is any real life story so simple- of course not. So why should a movie be? I honestly will probably watch this movie again just to understand all the twists and turns this movie has to offer. Nowadays, people are impatient and want quick and short with lots of special effects and sexuality. But a good story doesn't need to rely on those things. Kudos to the writer of this film for telling a great story instead of relying on theatrics.

  More