Dotsthavesp I wanted to but couldn't!

ChicRawIdol A brilliant film that helped define a genre

Juana what a terribly boring film. I'm sorry but this is absolutely not deserving of best picture and will be forgotten quickly. Entertaining and engaging cinema? No. Nothing performances with flat faces and mistaking silence for subtlety.

Geraldine The story, direction, characters, and writing/dialogue is akin to taking a tranquilizer shot to the neck, but everything else was so well done.

vampiri Well, were to start and what to say, eh? Although only a "user" of IMDb for a measly 2 years I have noticed that many remark on the high marks of certain movies, i.e. No God, No Master and Time Lapse. Furthermore, for my part, I have also seen quite a few movies with odd marks, both overrated and underrated.Sure, movie companies may very well pay persons to write favorable reviews. Some, however, may seem to write bad reviews just for spite towards those over-favorable reviews. Neither type of review is any good.Movie companies I understand, it is, after all, all about the money. But, for crying out loud, write a fair review if you take the time to write one.Plot: set in the 1920s, an honest officer investigates bombings seemingly connected to the political atmosphere during that period.5,9 (8th June 2015) seem high. However, it is not as bad as 1/10, neither as good as 9/10. An average 5/10 is more fitting.Period movies are always interesting, no less so for a historian like me, and always a break from futuristic and contemporary movies.Now, this movie has way too many subplots and characters for its own good. what is worse, none of them has depth, the makers fails to make the viewer root for the hero or feel disgust for the villain. Mainly because there is no real hero or villain. To me this movie feels like a dramatized documentary like Captain Cook: Obsession and Discovery (2007).Hardened actors like Strathairn and Wise try their best, but seem constrained by budget, less good actors and poor writing.The action scenes are very poor at best, especially the man to man fighting scenes.Anti- or pro-Russia propaganda? In my view you may consider both. however, I choose to go for the middle way and root for justice by honest methods.I may seem to crash down on this movie totally, so why 5 out of 10? Well, regardless of genre, I have seen much much worse than this. And it is not all that bad. The setting is believable, i.e. costumes, location- and studio shots. The main plot IS interesting although not fully explored nor masterfully executed.I give it 5 out of 10 because it is a decent attempt to make period movie. it is not the first choice for a Friday night, but it will pass the time, truly a made-for-TV kind of film

elf417-946-141834 This is not an action pack movie. It is somewhat of a documentary of a part of history. History is not pretty and laced with the making of a star studded movie. I haven't really seen much about the Italian heritage. It is interesting to see what the early immigrants had to go through. There were spots in the movie that were a bit slow and could have had improvement. But I am sure the movie was made to explain history. I live in Milwaukee where much of the film was made. It was fun watching it from a distant. I remember that summer. The actors were lucky we had such nice weather. Around here the seasons are pretty erratic. I talked to one of the stagehands and it was interesting. Glad I finally got a chance to see it. I have been looking for it ever since I viewed it being made. David Stratharin is a great actor. I feel he hasn't gotten the praise that he should get. I have seen him in many movies. Again he did a great job in this movie making it believable. I really like Sam Witwer and think he will be a good actor. Love him in "Human Beings."

frankf-10 OK, I love period pieces and tried to like this one despite the obvious budget constraints of No God, No Master as it moved along, but the no- nuanced presentation of the historical characters made it a task. The simplistic and fiery speech of Galleani (face lit from underneath to emphasize "evil") was a prime example. Flynn in the middle of a melee of activists and cops as his boss (who instigated the fight) looks on passively, is another. Say what you will about baddie Palmer, he seemed to have an awful lot of patience with the uncooperative Flynn.Just taking it as a movie - a "work of art" as opposed to reportage - it failed to satisfy. The all too many plot lines were hard to follow and hard to buy into. The "romance," in particular, was just too cute and convenient and made some of the final scenes pretty screwy. But maybe my attention drifted and I missed some details. Would that I could convince a smart friend to watch this movie and answer my questions, because I am befuddled and left to wonder...Why was the boy taken?What are we supposed to conclude when Flynn finds Louise Berger living in a nice apartment, rather than a tenement hovel?Is Flynn partially blind? If not, how come such a brilliant couldn't see the car following him during his ride in the country?How did agent Swanson beat him to the hideout? Who the !#!!^>< is agent Swanson?Why was the boy in the barn? Are the anarchist bad guys also pedophiles?If Flynn is such a liberal and is so disgusted by Palmer's actions, why doesn't he want to talk to the press when the boss first makes the offer?Why in blazes was the boy in the barn?

demiurgiac Started out look'n pretty good, then went from bad to worse. All the same old liberal narrative about the rich bad guys and the poor good guys, in this case immigrants (sound familiar?). Any kind of movie that attempt to persuade politically, to be any good, has to do it with some measure of finesse, you know, so you don't even know your being persuaded. One gets the feeling right away that there is very little depth to the movie as we watch our main protagonist start out with a resolve to track down the bad guys only to learn (according to this narrative) they aren't the bad guys at all. (Example: When a rich guy makes reference to his front lawn 'our guy' replies 'I wouldn't know, I have never had a front lawn. (Message? America is a really bad unfair place.) This movie is soooo heavy handed. Example: To show how our main 'poor guy' couldn't be guilty, they take the time to show that he like children and kitties... well, I imagine Hitler and Stalin did too.