Everything about this production was odd. Story line was so-so. Acting was poor.
It's Cold War 1963. Why would anyone use LED overhead lighting?
Fluorescent flickering lighting should have been used.
Touch tone was invented in 1963, however the keypad that was used was more of the late 70's to mid 80's era. The women's dresses were all wrong, the syntax of vocabulary was incorrect for that era.
To the directors / producers: Make it believable!
Add a Review
-
xolesphinx8 August 2018
-
When a Hollywood production is going absolutely nowhere, you at least hope they get there fast, getting you out of your misery.... The story is a royal mess, going from one unclear spot to another which makes it impossible to find the viewing experience attractive. But the real showstopper here is the often rushed, awful acting which sucks the reality out of every scene before you even THINK of identifying with the characters! Just another waste of effort, capital and time....theirs....and ours! Advice; avoid when encountered, refuse to watch when invited or delete when accidentally downloaded...
-
braddy48 August 2018Boring conspiracies and decades outdated, I was there and hoped that I could find something in a Cold War thriller but this is overly dramatic nonsense with no real purpose or reason.
-
Tak0057 August 2019This is a good story and had plenty of potential. However, I'm sorry to say it is badly let down by a poor script and acting
-
TdSmth525 May 2019OK, so an American spy in the USSR takes control of its missiles and launches one against the US. The Soviets can't abort it on their own but once they find him and in his lair manage to abort the missiles just in time. Turns out the spy works not for the US government but for the military industrial complex. Except that he doesn't know it. Things become murky because one of the weapons industrialists is working against the other. One of them actually realizes that atomic war isn't good for business--his name: Blackmark. He hired the spy originally to grab one of the Soviets in charge of nuclear weapons because he has some secret failsafe in case something happens to him. What that failsafe is and why Blackmark would care we never find out. Another atomic weapons industrialist named Hillcrest who has formed a consortium of the 8 greatest arms dealers actually intercepts the spy's job and feeds him the order to launch the missile.
The Soviet guy has a sick daughter, a fact which the spy uses to turn the tables and actualy take the Soviet captive while he awaits new orders. Blackmark launches an operation to kill the Soviet guy to somehow end the cold war. But again Hillcrest gets ahead of things and warns the spy who by now has to join forces with the Soviet. The Soviet guy also has some other Soviet contact, who is CIA and who also initially works for Hillcrest and is at the same time the spy's official handler.
As a result of the missile launch, Kennedy decides to place Hillcrest's nuclear missiles in Turkey, something which Blackmark opposes because he sees it as a threat to the world. If Kennedy goes ahead with this plan there will be war. There are only two solutions, the Soviet ambassador warns Blackmark- remove Krushev or Kennedy. Blackmark decides to do the latter.
The movie is framed by the story of a woman talking to a FBI guy in the 80s. The woman--Anya--is the daughter of the Soviet guy. She lives in America, works at the Soviet embassy and has dedicated her life to finding the killers of her father. The FBI guy is mainly interested in finding the spy who apparently has gone rogue. Anya informs him that the spy is actually dead by now. Instead she offers to tell him who killed Kennedy.
So in the 60s we have the story of the spy and the Soviet trying to fend off Blackmark's men and the KGB. Then, there's battle between Blackmark and Hillcrest for absolute power over even the Pentagon. Additionally Blackmark has some German scientist working on a radio-chemical weapon and its anti-serum which Hillcrest wants to get his hands on. There's the story of the Soviet guy and his family. Finally there's the story taking place in the 80s.
As you can tell, there's an awful lot going on, much of which isn't clear to the viewer. It's interesting stuff, or should be interesting stuff. You have this second missile crisis during the cold war, the growing influence of the military industrial complex while fighting for power amongst itself, and the Kennedy assassination to boot. Unfortunately, Blackmark doesn't convince. Things are more convoluted than necessary. Morally, the script is ambiguous. It wants to moralize and lecture against war and the military industrial complex. But then the more charismatic character is Blackmark, who also gets a lot of screen time. He's the bad guy because he's a weapons manufacturer and is after power, but also a good guy because after all he realizes that wiping out the world isn't the answer. This ambiguity starts from the beginning with a speech by Kennedy about the dangers of some insidious dangerous force, which could be applied to a host of things, but bizarrely he applies to the Soviet Union. The movie wants to take a part of the speech out of context and apply it to the military industrial complex, which as mentioned could easily work. The hero of the movie is presumably the spy, but he's a morphine junky for some reason and we learn very little about him. Things do backfire for the script because it gets us to like both the Russian and Blackmark.
The script does have some interesting things to say and criticism of the status quo is always welcome. Blackmark near the end gives an I have a dream speech about what the ideal scenario of a weapons manufacturer would look like, well, it looks like America post-9/11.
Unfortunately the movie botches much of the good ideas behind it. Acting is unconvincing almost across the board. I doubt that the actors's fault. Rather it's probably the director's. Martinson who acts as producer/editor/writer/director should really have hired someone else to direct and probably also to edit. This is a case of an overly saturated script and a director/editor who is trying to cram everything in a movie. Plenty of things should have ended up on the editing room floor while more attention should have been placed on acting. -
I love finding a well-made underground indie film like this. I saw this movie and was impressed by the quality of such an inconspicuous picture by an unknown director with an unheard-of cast. I did a bit of research into the people who made it, among other things, I found out the original title was "Redfish Bluefish". On their YouTube channel there is a video posted in 2015 (3 years before it was released) that tells a bit about the creation of this film that should be inspiring to any upstart filmmakers out there who wonder what is possible to accomplish with not much else but talent and perseverance.
This is not a perfect movie, but it's a damn good one considering it's a micro-budget, independently produced film by a first-time writer/director/producer. The cinematography and editing are impressive, giving it a polished look. It's cast strictly with lesser and un-known talents who are all very good in their roles.
The top-billed leads include Kaiwi Lyman, who's biggest credits include some smaller roles in well known titles and a few leads in other straight-to-video movies, plays Timothy Daniels, a rogue American spy, the main protagonist in this picture. Jeff Hatch, an obscure actor who has only a handful of credits on IMDb, is the title character Arthur Blackmark- our principle antagonist. Corey MacIntosh, another unknown, plays a noble Russian military commander, Alexi Popolovski. These three turn in solid performances, anchoring a roster of veteran D-list actors as well as some other polished rookie talent. John Henry Richardson, Lana Gautier, Jon Briddell, Tim Oman, David Light, Brian Ide and Elliot all turn in solid performances.
Based on the film's behind the scenes YouTube videos, the real talent behind it is writer/director, AJ Martinson III, who apparently pulled this project together with not much more than a motley cast and crew, a shoestring budget, and lots of called-in favors.
The overall quality of the script, direction, cinematography and editing make this feature feel like the "little film that could" hold its own beside big Hollywood Cold War movies like Bridge of Spies, Hunt For the Red October or classics such as Failsafe and 7 Days in May.
The story takes place in 1963 during the highest tensions of the Cold War. It involves a shadowy, Illuminati-like organization working behind the backs of the Whitehouse and Kremlin to initiate a nuclear showdown for reasons that do not become clear until late in the story, as twists, double-crosses, treachery and a unique conspiracy theory unfold.
The knocks from negative user reviews have mainly been the complexity of the plot and overly dramatic feel of the acting. The plot is a bit hard to follow, but if you stay with it, it pays off. A second viewing with the subtitles turned on satisfied some questions that left me scratching my head. The movie does not quite "stick the landing" at the story's climax though, in explaining the reasons it comes to the conclusions it does, but it executes a high degree of difficulty getting there, so it only loses one point on that count. As for the acting, I felt the quick, snappy dialogue and rushed pace was a nod to the straightforward way acting was typically done in classic noir thrillers of the black and white era, but it does get a little heavy-handed at times and there are a couple of over-cooked speeches, costing them one more star for final rating of 8/10.
Overall, the quality of this film, especially considering it's a first time effort with a tiny budget, is incredibly impressive. I hope this movie will find the audience it deserves and I'm quite interested to see what Martinson does next. -
chriszedillo23 August 2018What's not to like about a movie about JFK? Everyone knows, just like the Manhattan Towers, that the truth has not been told; and when the truth is hidden fantasy abounds. Now fantasy is usually more fun than the truth, and whatever the truth about the JFK assassination this fantasy is interesting, intelligently constructed, even if at times a tad confusing, but certainly action packed. The characters are sketchy, but it is a short movie, and designed to be leave much to the imagination - filling out the characters would, imho, take from the "whaaat?" factor. The second viewing opened up new possibilities, and the third led to "Ah ha!" moments. Overall a good watch to fill an evening with other conspiracy theorists.
-
platinmman14 August 2018Don't believe the harsh reviews from people writing reviews in their mother's basements. This is a good, solid, well-crafted movie that's entertaining. To me, a movie is good and entertaining when I'm not wondering how much longer before it's over. Blackmark is like walking out of a fog - it starts a bit slow and is a little confusing, but as it goes along it builds momentum so by the end you're right there and caught up in the drama. And, like coming out of a fog, you see things clearer and clearer as the movie progresses. What makes that interesting is you want to watch it again - and it actually plays better the second time because you now understand and have context for the whole story. Most importantly, it's just as entertaining the second time around.
-
ronpalmer30003 July 2018I liked this movie a lot. Very similar to Bridge of Spies, but with an (as of now) unknown cast. This is a movie you have to pay attention to, so don't try to multitask with it on in the background. Watch closely and try to figure out who's betraying whom.
Jeff Hatch is fantastic in the title role of Arthur Blackmark, bringing a cool, Machiavellian dynamic to a period of history we THOUGHT we knew about. Kaiwi Lyman and Corey MacIntosh are adversaries turned allies as the threat of nuclear war becomes all too real. And newcomer Lana Gautier meticulously weaves a complex narrative as the resourceful and secretive Anya Popolovski. The many twists and turns will leave you wondering exactly who you're rooting for... and why. I highly recommend this flick! -
MovieFan-913194 September 2018I asked my girlfriend the other day, does Hollywood want us to go to war with Russia? What's with all these anti-Russia movies? I've lost count of how many American movies, in the last 5-8 years, that portray Russians as 'the bad guys'. Nevermind the daily news articles in the US trying to convince our popultion that Russia is evil. (Though I admit, it's a nice break from constantly being bombarded with stories about 'the evils of middle eastern countries.) So, I like the premise and I"m willing to believe there could be a 'consortium' out there, trying to get two powerful countries, like Russia and the US, to fight a war, or at least, start another cold war. As a movie, it's average, at best. The characters are two-dimensional and the non-linear story-telling is often unnecessarily confusing. But hey, I'm a fan of 'idea' movies and this is a strong idea with a lot of merit, and relevance for today. So, I'm adding an extra star or two. I hope people will watch it and consider the possibility that there might be people out there, working to get you to hate an entire country full of people you've never met, because it profits them in some way. Think for yourselves friends!
-
Alexander-laudeman8 August 2018Need I say more? A masterpiece made by Picasso himself. The role of Timothy Daniels is keen, clever, and witty; At the same time, a puppet to the russian overlords. A perfect cat and mouse movie.
-
plasmapilot21 July 2021What a delight to find such an excellent film from a director & cast previously unknown to me! I have no complaints about any aspect of this production. Poor reviews may come from people who refuse to embrace a storyline that doesn't align with previously published "history". Having read "THE GEMSTONE FILES" published in Hustler magazine in the 1970s I was intrigued with the believable details provided by the script. Anyone who thinks that we receive the real stories from our government or media is responding exactly as "they" desire. I found this film to be so intriguing that I had to download for future viewing. I highly recommend this movie to anyone how wants to be engaged & entertained by great actors previously under the radar and capable of holding the viewer's attention to the very end!
-
oobrimah6 March 2019Really interesting spy thriller. Realistic plot. Wonder why some people give this movie less than a 5 out of 10. Did IMDb have controls in place for preventing malicious ratings when this movie was released? Anyway, don't see how this movie comes across as less than average. The cinematography alone was enough for a 5 out of 10. Perhaps it was the reminder about JFK's assassination that generated the low scores. Given the assassination already is in the past, it is fact. Enjoying the movie for its literary quality does not change that fact. For me, framing of the assassination within a nicely articulated movie was a plus, not a minus. Prior to the very last frames of this movie, I was leaning towards a rating of 8 out of 10. But then the ending was so sublime.
-
hbsy200121 August 2021I am glad to see someone finally address this and the obvious role of John McCone head of the CIA. . I was only 14 when JFK was murdered but the moment I saw the Zapruder film I knew we were being lied to. If you watch the film, when he's shot with the kill shot, his head goes up and back. That just doesnt happen when shot from above and behind. He had to be shot from the front, likely from below. Interesting that there is a tunnel from the grassy knoll to a drain in the street just in front of where he was shot.
McCone hated Kennedy because he said he would ake the CIA apart into 1000 pieces. The CIA was closely affiliated with the Mafia since WWII when they shared info on Europe, The Mafia hated him because he let them down on the Bay of Pigs invasion where they planned to take back Cuba for their casinos. The Federal Reserve *the money) hated hem be cause he was going to dissokve them. So McCone had Carlos Marcella, the crime boss of New Orleans orchestrate the hit and then teamed up with J. Edgar Hoover, who hated Kennedy because he thoaughthe was soft on communism , to cover it up.
Was Johnson in on it? Where did it happen? Dallas Texas where LBJ had just been governor. Johnson hated Kennedy because Kennedy looked down on him as a redneck Texan.
So JFK pissed off too many people who kill people for a living and it cost him his life. Our country has never fully recoverded from that. -
stealthowl1 September 2018Although politically, I'm very independent, which is why after deciding I'd need protection of SOME party, went from misnomered NPA which is how they classify "independents" in the USA, decided that the GOP was only party who'd allow me to express myself freely and, they have so, I think that reality that JFK's greatest accomplishment, was his murder being staged by the CIA, says a lot about them as he nearly brought nuclear devastation upon the world.