Colibel Terrible acting, screenplay and direction.

ThedevilChoose When a movie has you begging for it to end not even half way through it's pure crap. We've all seen this movie and this characters millions of times, nothing new in it. Don't waste your time.

Kaydan Christian A terrific literary drama and character piece that shows how the process of creating art can be seen differently by those doing it and those looking at it from the outside.

Freeman This film is so real. It treats its characters with so much care and sensitivity.

kosmasp The spoilers will only appear in the last paragraph, so feel free to read until then, if you want to. Actually the spoiler will contain a comparison to another movie, just so you know. But lets look at the movies cast for second first. You have Jeffrey Dean Morgan who made a name of himself with the Watchmen (and his appearance in the Shutter Island I guess). Now he either missed out on opportunities after that or didn't get offered better roles I suppose.Whatever it is, he is not alone in this movie. Miguel Ferrer, whom most might remember from the TV show 24, but some might remember from his straight to video days in the 90s is there with some other familiar faces (more of that later on). And while they're all pretty decent and the pace is strolling along quite nice, this is not a revelation. Not really bad by any standards either.And here come the spoilers: The main bad guy who isn't revealed until the end, is easy to spot. I recognized his voice instantly. We are talking about ... Mickey Rourke of course. But when I say main bad guy, you obviously having seen the movie (or not caring), should know that he actually isn't. The Keyser Soze moment isn't really bad, but it doesn't really elevate the movie either.

John Raymond Peterson You are bound to think that this movie has Jeffrey Dean Morgan as a cheap version of Jason Statham in the role of the transporter; I hate to admit I did, and I'm a J.D. Morgan fan. So we're not off to a great start. Unlike the Statham role, Morgan takes a beating now and then, and has the bruises to match. The story is that of a courier of last resort (high risk jobs) who is targeted for revenge by a former associate. The plot is meant to have us discover the true identity of the courier and of his former associate in a surprise scene at the end. Unfortunately, this plot which is somewhat reminiscent of the 1987 Angel Heart, and I'm stretching just a bit, just does not have the build up of the 1987 highly rated film in which Mickey Rourke played a role reverse of this 2011 film, sort of that one played by De Niro. Rourke has less screen time than his credit would have us hope for.It's sort of a mystery action, but the mystery part just doesn't quite keep you interested; that mystery, when it does get revealed/explained way at the end is somewhat of a letdown. The fact that the key mystery figure, Evil Sivle played by Mickey Rourke, is masquerading as an Elvis impersonator, pretty lame anagram, would be enough to dissuade most from watching the movie. Well, I guess now that I spoiled it for you, you can thank me by checking the box for useful review.I'm a hard core J.D. Morgan fan and I love long time character actor Mark Margolis, whose performance in TV highest rated series Breaking Bad leaves no doubt about his acting talent, so I stuck it out to the bitter end. I can't say I hated it, but I won't recommend it either; I'd lose all credibility if I did. I think Morgan's career is getting hot, since his role as Clay in the 2010 movie The Losers; I liked his short role in the other 2010 movie Shanghai (not a popular release – it's a film noir genre that's not usually popular anyway). His newer TV series Magic City (I'll post my review soon), however, should get him much better movie scripts in the future.

bastiaan0740 As a fan of 'the transporter', I looked forward to this, because it's 'the courier'...which means basically the same. Only this time, not so much with cars. The movie started out great, getting to know the courier and his type of work, just finishing a job. He is then forced into his next job, which is a bit out of his comfort zone - making an unknown delivery to an unfindable crime lord - played by Mickey Rourke! The premise allowed for so much, I was genuinely excited by now - but I soon got disappointed. As a whole, the delivered briefcase, the job, and the impossible plot made no sense. All the obligatory elements in the movie viewed apart - the sidekicks, the stolen airplane, the torture, the assassins, the bugged apartments, the murders, the arrests, anagrams, and much more... - had a feel of pointlessness and irrelevance to it, as if someone just grabbed some spy story ingredients and threw them together. Our courier stumbles through his unlikely adventure to complete his job and gets, true to the movie, an ironic surprise ending that made no sense. A total let-down.

messiercat This movie certainly had style. It seemed to be directed well. Editing was crisp enough and on the surface it looked pretty interesting. Cinematography was basically very good and quite inventive with a lot of action. But the whole package was a mile wide and an inch deep because the screenplay was a muddled mess, the storyline was laughably inane. Mickey Rourke and Lili Taylor, two actors who can really deliver the goods, were incredibly wasted and about a third of the way into it you realized it was going to be all style and no substance, and that was when I just stopped caring. A clue as to what happened comes when the credits roll. Producers, co producers, associate producers, executive producers galore. Too many cooks in the kitchen destroyed the soup. I've never quite seen a movie like this that had promise and so much energy put into production, but ultimately fell flat on it's face. The first movie that I've seen where I'm completely at a loss as how to rate.