User Reviews (26)

Add a Review

  • I don't understand how they expect to make money of these kind of movies. Are these C Flicks a method to launder money?

    The movie tried to appear real slick but ends up delivering motion sickness inducing camera work. Headache inducing soundtrack and Corny Computer Hardware clichés. Last times like Schwab and Diebold...seriously?

    I'm trying to think of something positive and it's quite difficult.

    I kept hoping to hear the Purge Siren go off, and the main character to start killing everyone to end the movie quickly. It would have been a much more redeemable ending.
  • Bad guys are going to crash all the financial markets in the USA. They tell us they will do it in two days. They tell us in advance… so that our hero can assemble his team (like in Ocean's 13, …)? Anyway, lots of other hardcore CS action. He needs the "back door codes" for all the market servers. He gets them – typed on a sheet of paper. Yeah, that's how I would pass on codes. But don't worry, when they use them the first security key to a market server is "RG182." And when the servers reboot, they all proclaim to be MS-DOS 6. Yes, fresh DOS 6.0, so much better than MS-DOS 6.21 for heavy Internet traffic.

    Anyway, chop up 30 minutes of top CS action like this, stick it into a one-hour soap opera chick-flick. They are separated and fight over their daughter, who is dying of cancer of course. Then we have the betrayed employee who can help save the world – oh, and is banging the dying daughter. Finish up in 2016/17 style – the unbelievable plot twist of a betrayal, and a big-ass preachy ending.


    (I see reviewers rave about this wonderful film, blame bad reviews on trolls. Perhaps they didn't watch this turkey, just got a check? One is titled "very realistic" -- perhaps they have never been around computers?)
  • I don't spend a lot of time reviewing movies, but when I looked this movie up on IMDb and saw a few 'great reviews' I figured those folks were getting paid, so I wanted to add my thoughts.

    My theory is that they made the camera work so bad (the camera is constantly shaking and zooming in and out) the viewer wouldn't notice the terrible character development and lack of plot. Seriously, if you have ever tried to take a photo with a camera while the the zoom/focus constantly is going in and out, then you will have a preview of what it is like trying to watch this piece of junk. Did they give an I-phone to a 2 year old to do the camera work?

    As far as the plot, totally predictable and weak as water, and I felt no no connection to the characters.

    Bottom line: if you were wanting to present a movie where nothing worked, this would be a superb example.
  • g-adamopoulou14 January 2017
    Well what can I say, that was a waste of time. The acting is bad and the story looks like everything was put together last minute with very little research etc. The music background was tacky and such a cliché and so where a bunch of quotes and monologues. The conclusion is predictable the cinematography... well there is none and even the costumes look like they were bought from the nearest mall. Generally, it felt more like a drama class project and less than a professional job. I gave it 3 stars and in my most generous mood I wouldn't rate it with more than a 4. I would strongly advice for choosing another film to watch tonight.
  • larrys315 February 2017
    I'm wholeheartedly in agreement with almost all the reviewers here that this is one stinkeroo of a movie. There actually is an excellent cast in the film, but the question of how they all agreed to appear in this mess is one I can't answer.

    It centers on the attempts to hack into and crash the worldwide financial systems so a few greedy profiteers can thus take advantage and make even more money for themselves. Writer and director Adam Rappaport obviously has an agenda here, and there are certainly some valid financial truths to be told. However, the way the film is presented, in such an amateurish way, and filled with tons of clichéd and stilted dialogue was a real turnoff for me. To note, there's very explicit language laced throughout the movie.

    All in all, I felt like I wasted an hour and half viewing this mess of a film.
  • Warning: Spoilers
    This movie give the word awful a bad name. The one thing that would make this movie good, is if was never made. The plot was weak and the camera work/ editing bounced around like 2 year old on a sugar high.

    I could see a potentially good movie if it was taken in a different direction. Sending text messages tipping off to the planned attack, come on that sounds like something a high schooler would do, not a (Blank - sorry no spoilers) would do. There is too many holes in this movie for me to get past.

    At one point in the movie a White House document was shown signed by Hillary Clinton. Either the writers assumed she'd win the election or she's corrupt enough to be a part of the crash. I'll leave that up to you on how you see it.
  • Even the lovely Dianna Agron wasn't enough to make me continue watching this utter load of rubbish to the end. Why was it so bad? Well there's one main reason and that's the continued use of shaky cameras. I have no idea which photographer first thought they'd make their name from this style of photography, and not a clue which director first though it added to their film. However all it does to me apart from making me feel dizzy is think that they don't care if their movie is enjoyed, only that they do something they want to do with it for an undisclosed reason. Let me tell you, never in human history have we had shaky vision. Nor do we enjoy shaky vision. There is no artistic merit in this and it stops people enjoying a film. The plot itself is ridiculous. Now because it's a film and needs a bit of licence, I'd have forgiven it but due to the awful photography that made me grump so I looked at the plot with more dislike than I should. Anyone with half a brain knows the situation as was presented has not and will not ever happen that way so B movie shaking combined with TV B movie plot makes for a crap movie. I have not seen the other 2 films that Rappaport has directed so I don't know if this is his own style or if it's just this one film that is awful. I got to 17 minutes in and that's as much as I could possibly manage before I turned it off in disgust.
  • pintiha17 February 2017
    This movie could have been very good but the presentation was too hectic; we kept getting random bits of several sub-plots in two-minute intervals, interspersed with flashbacks to fill in the story line. I think it would have been better had they spent the first section of the film giving the story of the guy who was going to prison for fraud; let the audience get to know him and build up some sympathy for him, or at least interest in the character. Then get into the current terrorist plot to crash the market; that way, when they call in the hired gun, we know about him and how he might be able to save the day.
  • contremario22 January 2017
    Amateur director, shaky camera, watched for about 5 minutes and couldn't watch no more because I got dizzy. Amateur director, shaky camera, watched for about 5 minutes and couldn't watch no more because I got dizzy.Amateur director, shaky camera, watched for about 5 minutes and couldn't watch no more because I got dizzy.Amateur director, shaky camera, watched for about 5 minutes and couldn't watch no more because I got dizzy.Amateur director, shaky camera, watched for about 5 minutes and couldn't watch no more because I got dizzy.Amateur director, shaky camera, watched for about 5 minutes and couldn't watch no more because I got dizzy.
  • Prepare yourself before watching this movie. I would recommend taking motion sickness prevention before attempting to watch this. If you are prone to this type of condition then this movie is not for you. This has to be the worst movie I have ever watched. It features, 'On purpose', horrible camera action that was seemingly taken by novice camera operators or was ordered as such by the director. Either way it makes for a terrible viewing experience. Don't say you were not warned. Have the motion sickness pail ready. Note to the director, Aram Rappaport; I'm sure this movie would have turned out 500% better had one been able to watch the entire picture without losing ones breakfast.
  • Was it shot with a cell phone? Camera movement was VERY distracting. Made it hard to watch to the end.
  • This film tells the story of a finance guru, who is convicted of some financial crime. The government gets him to stop a cyber attack on the American stock market, but he finds out the truth is actually different than he is led to believe.

    The first minutes of the film may have been completely lost on me, as I'm still unclear what crime has Guy been convicted of. Is the stopping of the cyber attack a part of an exoneration deal? It would have been nice to find out. Anyway, the story is a little thin, as you can tell from the film length and from the lack of details in the plot. The supposed moral struggle by Guy is not obvious at all. The part where they have done computer generated lights running along a cable to indicate signals being transmitted in the cable got me laughing. This is such a primitive way to convey this message! After all, it is just a film to kill time, but don't expect to much.
  • Warning: Spoilers
    I was looking forward to this . But when I started to watch it , I was like.. OMG , who ever filmed it should go back to school. It doesn't help one bit.

    The computer CGI was really bad.. Sometimes even laughable. Even tron was better lol.

    And about the plot.. Right from the start it was clear that it was an inside job.

    The actors.. shallow , not well written and the main guy.. well was awful.

    If you really want to watch a movie and be entertained.. I would suggest you go watch WarGames.. That movie was a lot better then this one
  • Crash is about what we all fear, that the stock markets are nothing more than what is coordination and manipulated by the banks and the federal reserve. In the film Guy Clifton (Frank Gillo) was convicted of insider trading and is about to be sent to prison. He is offered his freedom if he averts a cyber attack that will affect the world stock exchanges. He and his band of white criminals set up their command center in his home, a mini-mansion on the water.

    There are several side stories going on which detract from the main storyline. Guy's wife, Shannon (Minnie Driver) thinks they have too much money as it is but for Guy it's never enough. Their daughter Crason (Anna Sophia Robb) has cancer and is also having a affair with Ben Collins (Ed Westwick) one of her father's co-conspirators.

    Lastly there is George Diebold (Christopher McDonald) who is the head of the Federal Reserve. He's the financial bogeyman and feels he is in absolute control. Good rainy day film with a pizza and a beer.
  • You know when you see big actors in a bad movie? When they haven't done anything recently and the bills are due. There's really no other explanation for this movie's existence. It's unbelievable, implausible, improbable, boring, stupid, vapid, idiotic, and any other adjective you could use for a C movie posing as an A movie.

    This was just bad. Bad. Bad. Bad. There's no interest while the movie is going on. The acting is just bad. The cameras need to stay the hell still (someone else noted this whole, shaky camera thing, STOP SHAKING THE CAMERA LIKE A TODDLER WAS DOING THE FILMING ON A CELLPHONE). It's distracting and stupid.

    The plot is laughable. The acting bad. I'm in agreement with others who have written that it was painful to watch this until the end. I did in the hopes that this would get better.

    Spoiler. It got worse.

    Save your 82 minutes and do something else.
  • Low-budget waste of time and resources. I can't imagine waking up every morning and saying to "I can't wait to work on this!" Much has been said about the spastic cinematography, elevator music score, ridiculous plot, poor dialog, and D-level emoting. Agree on all prior comments indicating this must've been made as a junior high school project. Personally I believe this was made expressly as a tax write-off to decrease a beach vacation rental. Watching people pull wires as high drama. I hope the write off was worth squandering so much effort.
  • Warning: Spoilers
    The stock market has been hacked and is going to crash on Monday. Only one man in the world can fix it, Guy Clifton (Frank Grillo) Tony Clifton's illegitimate son. He assembles a crack team as we watch all the action and drama unfold as people plug wires into the back of a server and type into a keyboard. Whew! Just over whelming stuff. Oh wait! The daughter Creason (Anna Sophia Robb) seriously? Creason? has cancer and isn't responding to treatments. AND her boyfriend Ben (Ed Westwick) is one the programmers helping dad who operates "under a different moral compass." Dad has been arrested for hacking and gets immunity for doing this.

    The original title was "A Conspiracy on Jekyll Island" although I don't know if they were ever on the island, it wasn't in their filming locations. This film is for the conspiracy minded about stock market manipulation, corporate greed, insider this that and the other, and the evil Federal Reserve. All that good John Birch stuff that has suddenly gone mainstream. I am surprised they didn't work a dig in at the UN. However, if you are going to do a film such as this, you need a believable plot, decent actors, and maybe a shower scene. Factual films about the last crash were a lot better than this one about a fictional glitch in the stock market that caused an unreasonable panic.

    Guide: F-word. No sex or nudity
  • The names of the characters in this movie are actually enough to make you mad. Let me explain. The movie is about the stock market. The top gov't lady has the last name Schwab. Yes, like in Charles E. Schwab. Is there a connection? No. The top gov't guy's last name is Del Banco. Enough said. But the most upsetting name is of the main character's daughter. Her name is "Creason." Yes, I spelled it right. Pronounced "KREE-son." At first i didn't know what they were referring to. I thought it was maybe a disease that one of the characters had. I googled it. No luck. I had to rewind the movie to understand. Creason. Her name was "Creason." I have a few additional awful names the writers should have considered: Lawper, Cealton, Vantava, Wiltor, Anclavia, Phopiah, and Kalcinda. But they chose Creason. Has there ever been a person with the name Creason?
  • After trawling through a splurge of "awful" "didn't finish it" "they ate my brain" reviews.. i was wondering if i wasn't "on a different moral compass" but possibly in a different mindset.. I thought (and this is why i bothered looking) somebody might have speculated on a little suggestion. Perhaps the film wasn't great so my thinking picked upon character representation.. wouldn't get to deep here.. but sometimes it seemed as though the reasons for these obscure character traits were on a deeper level with characters representing the government, federal reserve, the public... the choppy sea as the big scary world etcetera..... Might have made/maybe was a wonderful novel but the Hardyesque qualities have been lost in Hollywoods vision... (because that never happens)
  • rod775-14 June 2017
    What more can I add? Complete waste of time. Impossible to understand due to horrible camera work. DO NOT WATCH. Some of the actors here have done entertaining movies and TV shows in the past and this is why I was drawn to it in the first place. Apparently they have no regard to their fans and are in the business solely to be paid. Yuck.
  • aguynameddrew13 January 2018
    The shaky hand camera has a reached a new level of annoying in this film. I seriously thought it might cause me to have a seizure. The level of plot believability is somewhere between unrealistic and LOL. There are a couple of scenes where the Del Banco character is talking to the "top US bank CEO's". If i could provide a link them you would see everything you need to know about how bad this movie is. To say the dialogue is laughable would be an understatement. There is nothing about this film that i have anything positive to say.
  • This movie is not action packed, there are no car chases, explosions or any of the sensationalism found in other movies.

    The characters have no super powers and are not vampires or zombies.

    The plot is highly believable and well acted without going overboard.

    I'd highly recommend this as it's a well rounded and honest film with a nice twist at the end.

    The characters are well cast and all share and contribute to the bigger picture without dominating or taking over.

    Everything comes together towards the end and it all fits into place. You're not left thinking or wondering why/who/what you just know.

    I can't see it being a blockbuster but it's certainly well worth a watch.

    Great film.
  • jeomo17 August 2017
    I like financial/corporate thrillers, and I enjoyed this one. I was looking for entertainment, not a documentary, so I didn't try to spoil it by noting technical errors or assessing the plot for realism. The acting was decent, and, realistic or not, technically accurate or not, the plot held together reasonably well. It's an evening's entertainment, nothing more, nothing less, which is all I think it aspired to be. If that's all you are looking for, and also like financial/corporate thrillers, you will probably think it's OK, too.
  • The Crash is good movie, and one of the reviews that say otherwise seem to be trolling. Ignore it. This movie is fabulous and 100% worth your time.

    It's a fabulous movie whether or not you're interested in the world of finance, and especially so if you are.

    Really interesting, great characters (played by some amazing actors like Minnie Driver and John Leguizamo). It deals with what would happen if cyber-terrorists got control of our markets and banks. The acting is great, strong story and an overall great indie film.

    This one is definitely worth a watch!
  • This movie could have been really good if Stone doctored the script and directed it. As is, it is ambitious and yet amateurish and excessively conspiratorial, though still pretty interesting; rather like a mash-up of Charles Ferguson's "Inside Job" and "The Big Short" with a cyber-heist movie and the fire-sale "Die Hard" movie. Presumably, Stone would have rendered the story only moderately conspiratorial. It is also, at key moments, overly melodramatic. And, the director went nuts with over-active camera movements. It is difficult to think of another movie both so ambitious and amateurish that was actually completed -- it deserves viewing for its Black Swan (rare) quality.
An error has occured. Please try again.