The Courier is a strange little flick that dabbles in the kind of pulpy narrative which the 80's were famous for. One lone antihero sets out to deliver a package of enigmatic value to a recipient that is always one step ahead of him, proving to be quite elusive. Bad guys and gals hinder him at every turn and violence ensues, leading up to an inevitable confrontation and in this case a neat little twist that admittedly defies any sort of reason, yet is fun for the actors to play out and provides sensationalism, a trait that's commonplace in such films. Jeffrey Dean Morgan is a haggard presence in any role, a guy you immediately feel rooted to in a scene. He gets the lead role here, playing an underground criminal courier, passing along dangerous goods from one cloak and dagger person to another. His latest task comes from his handler (Mark Margolis): Deliver an odd case to a reclusive criminal mastermind known only as Evil Sivle. Little information is given beyond that, but it soon becomes apparent that his mission is a cursed one, as he finds himself a hot target for all kinds of weirdos. German live wire Til Schweiger plays a dirty federal agent who hassles him with that campy charisma and narrow eyed theatricality that only he can bring to the table. Miguel Ferrer and Lilli Taylor are priceless as Mr. & Mrs. Capo, a pair of married contract killers who discuss their dinner plans whilst hunting their quarry, and have devised some truly vile torture methods involving culinary instruments. Yeah, it's that kind of movie, where B movie mavericks are let off the chain and allowed to throw zany stuff into their otherwise pedestrian material that often borders on experimental. Morgan is assisted by a young chick (Josie Ho) who saves his ass more than a couple of times. Mickey Rourke shows up late in the game as Maxwell, a mysterious Elvis impersonator and Vegas gangster who plays a crucial role in Courier's quest. Trust Rourke to take a derivative, underwritten supporting character and turn the few minutes of screen time he has into utter gold that elevates his scene onto a plane which the film as a whole is sheepishly undeserved of. Morgan is better than the flick too, but he's great in anything. He ducks the heroic panache of the action protagonist and dives into growling melancholy, his grizzly bear voice and imposing frame put to excellent use. This one got critically shredded upon release. Yeah it ain't great, but it sure as hell ain't terrible. Worth it for a cast that makes it work, and for that classic genre feel that can't be beat.
38 Reviews
Amnesiac confronts his identity; reasonable film, but please no sequel.
suite9227 February 2014
Warning: Spoilers
The opening sequence in the amusement park was so-so. It had the dusty smell of comic book turned live action, but not in a good way.
While Stitch is binding up his wounds from the opening sequence, The Courier gets a new case. He's offered 120,000 USD if he succeeds; if not, people who like him, but don't know his criminal associations, will be enlightened, but not in a good way. So he takes the job.
The Courier (can't remember his name or early life) gets a clue to the whereabouts of his target, Evil Sivle (oi, Elvis Live) from the Internet, plus some porous online databases. Before leaving his base in New Orleans, he gets some serious hand weapons, and transportation in the form of a stolen key to a private propeller plane. Anna flies him to St Louis since Stitch sent her. He finds the person he wanted to talk to, but a hit man arrives and kills the contact. On the body of the hit man, The Courier finds a sheet of paper with three pictures on it; these are his next clues.
Anna and the Courier fly to their next city, which is New Orleans, where he started. The hit man already took out his target in Lake Charles, St Louis was his second successful stop, New Orleans his third. The Courier finds his last hope of a contact, but Mr and Mrs Capo are in hot pursuit. They manage to escape for a while, and the Courier gets a little information linking Evil Sivle and Maxwell. Then the hit succeeds, and the Courier spends time with the police. He uses the stay to borrow police computers to get information on Evil Sivle (Connor Maxwell), who is Maxwell's son by adoption or some bogus common law sort of thing.
The chase goes on and on. The Capos have to be dealt with, and Maxwell has to be found. Supposing the Courier succeeds, will he deliver the package?
-----Scores------
Cinematography: 8/10 Dark, gloomy, but well-shot.
Sound: 7/10 Eh, OK.
Acting: 6/10 There are some good actors here: Mickey Rourke, Mark Margolis, Lily Taylor, Miguel Ferrer, and Josie Ho; Jeffrey Dean Morgan is not so bad either. So, what happened? The screenplay is too simplistic and not up to the quality of the actors.
Screenplay: 4/10 The closing credits were extra long due to large number of producers on the film. 'Too many cooks spoil the broth.' Perhaps too many producers (or not enough direction) spoil the film. The ending was easily predictable, no surprise at all, but did beg for a sequel, which I hope will not come.
While Stitch is binding up his wounds from the opening sequence, The Courier gets a new case. He's offered 120,000 USD if he succeeds; if not, people who like him, but don't know his criminal associations, will be enlightened, but not in a good way. So he takes the job.
The Courier (can't remember his name or early life) gets a clue to the whereabouts of his target, Evil Sivle (oi, Elvis Live) from the Internet, plus some porous online databases. Before leaving his base in New Orleans, he gets some serious hand weapons, and transportation in the form of a stolen key to a private propeller plane. Anna flies him to St Louis since Stitch sent her. He finds the person he wanted to talk to, but a hit man arrives and kills the contact. On the body of the hit man, The Courier finds a sheet of paper with three pictures on it; these are his next clues.
Anna and the Courier fly to their next city, which is New Orleans, where he started. The hit man already took out his target in Lake Charles, St Louis was his second successful stop, New Orleans his third. The Courier finds his last hope of a contact, but Mr and Mrs Capo are in hot pursuit. They manage to escape for a while, and the Courier gets a little information linking Evil Sivle and Maxwell. Then the hit succeeds, and the Courier spends time with the police. He uses the stay to borrow police computers to get information on Evil Sivle (Connor Maxwell), who is Maxwell's son by adoption or some bogus common law sort of thing.
The chase goes on and on. The Capos have to be dealt with, and Maxwell has to be found. Supposing the Courier succeeds, will he deliver the package?
-----Scores------
Cinematography: 8/10 Dark, gloomy, but well-shot.
Sound: 7/10 Eh, OK.
Acting: 6/10 There are some good actors here: Mickey Rourke, Mark Margolis, Lily Taylor, Miguel Ferrer, and Josie Ho; Jeffrey Dean Morgan is not so bad either. So, what happened? The screenplay is too simplistic and not up to the quality of the actors.
Screenplay: 4/10 The closing credits were extra long due to large number of producers on the film. 'Too many cooks spoil the broth.' Perhaps too many producers (or not enough direction) spoil the film. The ending was easily predictable, no surprise at all, but did beg for a sequel, which I hope will not come.
Does a poor job at telling its story.
Boba_Fett113820 June 2012
Never heard of this movie before? Well, keep it that way! There is absolutely nothing worth seeing about this movie, that is basically being just a very standard modern action flick, with a poor story but even worse storytelling.
Quite weird and surprising to learn that this movie got directed by Hany Abu-Assad, who definitely has class and skills in him and is mostly known for directing smaller type of movies, with a strong message in them. Most definitely not dumb action flicks such as this one!
I can see what kind of approach they were going for but they obviously failed with it. They tried to create a smaller and more realistic type of action movie but the story and its characters really aren't suited for that. I actually believe I might had liked this movie better, had it been done as a silly and over-the-top action-flick, in a more '80's type of style.
The movie has a very simple concept but it makes things needlessly difficult. Because of this you will start to loose interest in it all pretty fast and after a while you simply have no idea what is going on anymore, simply because you just don't care about anything that is happening. The storytelling really makes this a far from pleasant movie to follow. Just imaging a Chuck Norris flick, with all of its clichés, getting told as a serious movie. That should give you an idea of how this movie is like.
Those who are looking for a movie with plenty of action to enjoy will also end up feeling disappointed by this movie. This movie feels like such an extremely low-budget one and things don't get any more exciting than a couple of poorly filmed gunfights. Certainly nothing spectacular, surprising or exciting about this movie.
Just forget about it!
4/10
http://bobafett1138.blogspot.com/
Quite weird and surprising to learn that this movie got directed by Hany Abu-Assad, who definitely has class and skills in him and is mostly known for directing smaller type of movies, with a strong message in them. Most definitely not dumb action flicks such as this one!
I can see what kind of approach they were going for but they obviously failed with it. They tried to create a smaller and more realistic type of action movie but the story and its characters really aren't suited for that. I actually believe I might had liked this movie better, had it been done as a silly and over-the-top action-flick, in a more '80's type of style.
The movie has a very simple concept but it makes things needlessly difficult. Because of this you will start to loose interest in it all pretty fast and after a while you simply have no idea what is going on anymore, simply because you just don't care about anything that is happening. The storytelling really makes this a far from pleasant movie to follow. Just imaging a Chuck Norris flick, with all of its clichés, getting told as a serious movie. That should give you an idea of how this movie is like.
Those who are looking for a movie with plenty of action to enjoy will also end up feeling disappointed by this movie. This movie feels like such an extremely low-budget one and things don't get any more exciting than a couple of poorly filmed gunfights. Certainly nothing spectacular, surprising or exciting about this movie.
Just forget about it!
4/10
http://bobafett1138.blogspot.com/
There's No There, There
messiercat29 March 2012
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.
A wasted opportunity
bastiaan07405 April 2012
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.
Utter Garbage
Raydio24 March 2012
Warning: Spoilers
What's truly amazing to me is that in these days of post-GFC fiscal austerity, a film such as this can still attract funding. Seriously, either the tax write-offs must be very attractive, or there are some considerably wealthy individuals who are just desperate to proclaim, "I'm making a movie" to their friends.
"The Courier" has so many flaws it's hard to know where to begin. Firstly, the story itself is woeful. It's a painful mishmash of assassins, FBI agents, Elvis-impersonating arch villains, and the obligatory female tag-along love interest. Add to that the father figure, who like some bad impression of Huggy-bear, seems to know everything and everyone that's happening on the street and, well...you're starting to get the picture.
It's as if the writers were working from a "Scriptwriting for Dummies" book.
Then there are the many obvious technical mistakes, such as a woman hostage falling from a great height while bound only by her wrists, and seemingly not suffering any ill effects when the rope breaks her fall. I would have thought having both shoulders dislocated might result in at least mild discomfort! Then there was the protagonist with a clearly unloaded revolver which fires bullets in the next scene. Perhaps the two killers who captured and tortured him, loaded it while he was unconscious in the bathtub? And what about the ease with which the hero and his girl accomplice borrow an aircraft, not once, but twice, and land it in St.Louis and Las Vegas. Did they even bother to lodge a flight plan?
I was especially amused by the hero's uncanny ability to instantly hack any computer in order to locate just the info he was looking for. I mean why bother being a high-risk delivery man, which is clearly not paying off too well for him, when he could have a highly lucrative career working for Google?
I could go on, but I feel the less said about this movie the better. Suffice to say that of 968 films I've rated on IMDb, "The Courier" ranks as number 3 in my all-time worst list, only bested by "Little Nicky", and "2001, A Space Travesty".
Regrettably one or two decent actors took part in this disaster, so it's clear that work is hard to come by in tinsel town these days. Their valiant efforts are the only reason this film didn't get 1 star. Definitely one to avoid. 2/10
"The Courier" has so many flaws it's hard to know where to begin. Firstly, the story itself is woeful. It's a painful mishmash of assassins, FBI agents, Elvis-impersonating arch villains, and the obligatory female tag-along love interest. Add to that the father figure, who like some bad impression of Huggy-bear, seems to know everything and everyone that's happening on the street and, well...you're starting to get the picture.
It's as if the writers were working from a "Scriptwriting for Dummies" book.
Then there are the many obvious technical mistakes, such as a woman hostage falling from a great height while bound only by her wrists, and seemingly not suffering any ill effects when the rope breaks her fall. I would have thought having both shoulders dislocated might result in at least mild discomfort! Then there was the protagonist with a clearly unloaded revolver which fires bullets in the next scene. Perhaps the two killers who captured and tortured him, loaded it while he was unconscious in the bathtub? And what about the ease with which the hero and his girl accomplice borrow an aircraft, not once, but twice, and land it in St.Louis and Las Vegas. Did they even bother to lodge a flight plan?
I was especially amused by the hero's uncanny ability to instantly hack any computer in order to locate just the info he was looking for. I mean why bother being a high-risk delivery man, which is clearly not paying off too well for him, when he could have a highly lucrative career working for Google?
I could go on, but I feel the less said about this movie the better. Suffice to say that of 968 films I've rated on IMDb, "The Courier" ranks as number 3 in my all-time worst list, only bested by "Little Nicky", and "2001, A Space Travesty".
Regrettably one or two decent actors took part in this disaster, so it's clear that work is hard to come by in tinsel town these days. Their valiant efforts are the only reason this film didn't get 1 star. Definitely one to avoid. 2/10
Started mediocre, and all downhill from there - vague spoilers
Matteus7229 March 2012
Warning: Spoilers
Like a previous review mentioned, this movie actually started out fairly promising. The first 20-30 minutes were exciting enough to stay interested, despite the fact that you've seen the clichéd premise before. I have no problem with clichéd premises provided that it's done well with a few original sequences and even partially compelling characters. Though it seemed to be a lower budget and weaker scripted version of The Transporter, at least it had some credibility with favored actors like Jeffrey Dean Morgan and Til Schweiger, not to mention Mickey Rourke, and the action was fast paced and fun.
Unfortunately, by the time Micky Rourke even shows the back of his head, I no longer cared. After 30 minutes, the movie starts to fall apart. A character or two whom you've never seen before or even heard referenced start showing up, and are ascribed importance for no fathomable reason. The action sequences, though not terrible, no longer hold any weight due to the confusion caused by the messy script, and plot holes and character inconsistencies abound.
Til Schweiger is totally wasted here, and Mickey Rourke is practically non-existent, though I can't say I blame him. Josie Ho as the love interest(what?) seemed very miscast, and I found her hairstyle distractingly ugly. At the end of the movie they try to wrap up all the many confusing loose ends with what was no doubt supposed to be a shocking reveal-all diatribe prior to the "boss battle", but I couldn't have cared less even if I wanted to understand. I found myself getting angrier that I was still watching this mess as the minutes rolled by.
The end could not have been worse. It's like it ended in the middle of a scene, though it's hard to say. I was busy watching condensation roll down my glass by this time, then was startled back to the screen by the movie ending abruptly.
So all in all, not good. I give it a 3 for the first 30 minutes, and for Jeffrey Dean Morgan who did his best with what he had.
Unfortunately, by the time Micky Rourke even shows the back of his head, I no longer cared. After 30 minutes, the movie starts to fall apart. A character or two whom you've never seen before or even heard referenced start showing up, and are ascribed importance for no fathomable reason. The action sequences, though not terrible, no longer hold any weight due to the confusion caused by the messy script, and plot holes and character inconsistencies abound.
Til Schweiger is totally wasted here, and Mickey Rourke is practically non-existent, though I can't say I blame him. Josie Ho as the love interest(what?) seemed very miscast, and I found her hairstyle distractingly ugly. At the end of the movie they try to wrap up all the many confusing loose ends with what was no doubt supposed to be a shocking reveal-all diatribe prior to the "boss battle", but I couldn't have cared less even if I wanted to understand. I found myself getting angrier that I was still watching this mess as the minutes rolled by.
The end could not have been worse. It's like it ended in the middle of a scene, though it's hard to say. I was busy watching condensation roll down my glass by this time, then was startled back to the screen by the movie ending abruptly.
So all in all, not good. I give it a 3 for the first 30 minutes, and for Jeffrey Dean Morgan who did his best with what he had.
Atrocious wreck that redefines drivel, why oh why!!
Robert_duder16 February 2013
Warning: Spoilers
The Courier actually read really well. I had it at the top of my weekly movie viewing and I happen to really, really, like Jeffrey Dean Morgan although the poor guy has such a hard time finding his way in Hollywood and this won't help him one little bit. This is simply trash. It is horrendously written, directed, edited, acted...you name it, they destroyed it. They try to slap together a few ingredients from other like minded action films and things that someone "thought" would look cool on screen but its cheesy, incredibly cheesy, with terrible dialogue and a story that makes absolutely no sense. Who is chasing who? Why are they chasing him? Who hired who? And most importantly who cares? I knew what I was in for right from the first scene (which seems to have very very little bearing on the actual story) but is blatantly done on a green screen so much so that it looks hokey. And then the very first fist fight is so poorly edited that its like watching two high school kids do prat falls and "pretend" fight. There are some genuinely violent scenes, the shoot outs are actually not bad, and some of the cinematography and locations settings are actually pretty good but it doesn't even come close to saving this absolute garbage-fest.
I love Jeffrey Dean Morgan! Why can't this guy get a break! I will say that I think he really does try his utter best with what he is given which is virtually nothing. He plays a brooding, angry, violent courier of sorts who has been essentially set up although the reasons are extremely convoluted and confusing. Without him I never ever would have bothered to sit through more than fifteen minutes of this. Why Hollywood keeps casting Til Schweiger I will never understand. His style of acting is better suited for porn films because the guy is just atrocious. He tries to be serious but everything he does comes across as completely campy. He is as expected in this, awful, as an FBI agent who seems almost cartoonish in his performance. But cartoonish is par for the course in this film as you have a Dr. Claw type villain named "Evil Sivel," (seriously? That's an anagram from Lives just to ruin the surprise for everyone...believe me I'm doing you a favour,) whom they show only in shadows and from behind to mask his identity when its obvious from voice, profile and the cover of the movie that its Mickey Rourke. He's awful and pointless because they under use him and make him into a cartoon character. Miguel Ferrer and Lili Taylor are straight from Rocky and Bullwinkle playing bumbling sidekicks that are supposed to be terrifying. I like both these actors and its a real shame they are wasted on this. And finally Josie Ho is atrocious as some sort of sidekick romantic interest who is literally painful to watch act. She is awful and the chemistry between her and Morgan is completely nil and awkward.
As if the film couldn't get any worse they tack on this ridiculous non-sensical twist ending that is a complete laugh and is really the perfect lid on this garbage pail movie. As the story goes, the cast jumped on board simply because Hany Abu-Assad was directing and I'd love to know...why?! I've never heard of this guy before or any of his projects and if this is the quality of his film making then God help them all. There is absolutely NO WAY the budget on this film was 15 million dollars. There is nothing that would indicate any significant budget was put into anything and furthermore anyone that would give this script 15 million dollars needs their head examined. There is nothing worthy of your attention in this film. I sat through it out of respect for Jeffrey Dean Morgan but I won't ever lay eyes on this again. It was an undeniable atrocity. Avoid this at all costs!! 2/10
I love Jeffrey Dean Morgan! Why can't this guy get a break! I will say that I think he really does try his utter best with what he is given which is virtually nothing. He plays a brooding, angry, violent courier of sorts who has been essentially set up although the reasons are extremely convoluted and confusing. Without him I never ever would have bothered to sit through more than fifteen minutes of this. Why Hollywood keeps casting Til Schweiger I will never understand. His style of acting is better suited for porn films because the guy is just atrocious. He tries to be serious but everything he does comes across as completely campy. He is as expected in this, awful, as an FBI agent who seems almost cartoonish in his performance. But cartoonish is par for the course in this film as you have a Dr. Claw type villain named "Evil Sivel," (seriously? That's an anagram from Lives just to ruin the surprise for everyone...believe me I'm doing you a favour,) whom they show only in shadows and from behind to mask his identity when its obvious from voice, profile and the cover of the movie that its Mickey Rourke. He's awful and pointless because they under use him and make him into a cartoon character. Miguel Ferrer and Lili Taylor are straight from Rocky and Bullwinkle playing bumbling sidekicks that are supposed to be terrifying. I like both these actors and its a real shame they are wasted on this. And finally Josie Ho is atrocious as some sort of sidekick romantic interest who is literally painful to watch act. She is awful and the chemistry between her and Morgan is completely nil and awkward.
As if the film couldn't get any worse they tack on this ridiculous non-sensical twist ending that is a complete laugh and is really the perfect lid on this garbage pail movie. As the story goes, the cast jumped on board simply because Hany Abu-Assad was directing and I'd love to know...why?! I've never heard of this guy before or any of his projects and if this is the quality of his film making then God help them all. There is absolutely NO WAY the budget on this film was 15 million dollars. There is nothing that would indicate any significant budget was put into anything and furthermore anyone that would give this script 15 million dollars needs their head examined. There is nothing worthy of your attention in this film. I sat through it out of respect for Jeffrey Dean Morgan but I won't ever lay eyes on this again. It was an undeniable atrocity. Avoid this at all costs!! 2/10
I liked it. And it doesn't have Tom Cruise.
digdog-785-71753824 March 2012
OK this film isn't bad.
The first reason why it's disappointing it's because - just like Black Death (2010) - it tries to "keep it real" way too much .. films need escapism, to a point, and here it almost seems that they decided to go full speed for the not-Hollywood look.
Now i'm not one to defend Hollywood, but what kills this film is that the direction is poor; it fails to capitalise on the realism, instead giving me a film that looks like an amateur production. Some of the shots are truly amateurish, and often the camera-work fails to make a scene interesting.
Having said that, The Courier isn't half bad, there are plenty things i liked in it, from the fight moves to the casting (the lead is a bit wooden, the girl fits the part OK~ish, the detective is perfect), and the whole production is pretty decent.
I also don't subscribe to the whole "it's full of cliché'" thing; if anything, it tries to avoid clichés in a film genre where everything has already been done.
All in all, i can say that it's an interesting film to watch, even though i get the feeling the director has a background in TV - seriously, you (whomever you are) truly murdered what could have been an interesting flick.
So, after all considerations, i give The Courier a decent 6/10 - better than MI3, and no Tom Cruise.
The first reason why it's disappointing it's because - just like Black Death (2010) - it tries to "keep it real" way too much .. films need escapism, to a point, and here it almost seems that they decided to go full speed for the not-Hollywood look.
Now i'm not one to defend Hollywood, but what kills this film is that the direction is poor; it fails to capitalise on the realism, instead giving me a film that looks like an amateur production. Some of the shots are truly amateurish, and often the camera-work fails to make a scene interesting.
Having said that, The Courier isn't half bad, there are plenty things i liked in it, from the fight moves to the casting (the lead is a bit wooden, the girl fits the part OK~ish, the detective is perfect), and the whole production is pretty decent.
I also don't subscribe to the whole "it's full of cliché'" thing; if anything, it tries to avoid clichés in a film genre where everything has already been done.
All in all, i can say that it's an interesting film to watch, even though i get the feeling the director has a background in TV - seriously, you (whomever you are) truly murdered what could have been an interesting flick.
So, after all considerations, i give The Courier a decent 6/10 - better than MI3, and no Tom Cruise.
The Courrier misplaces its package
cultjones11 February 2013
Jeffrey Dean Morgan is a specialist in delivering packages without questions in Hany Abu- Assad's, The Courier. The best in this niche industry, Morgan is forced to take on a job to protect those close to him by delivering a package to someone who is supposedly dead. A dark mystery unravels as he gets closer to discovering the truth about his target and himself.
With notable performances on the small screen in Supernatural and Grey's Anatomy as well as a significant contribution in Zack Snyder's, Watchmen, one shouldn't be surprised with Morgan headlining a suspense thriller. Thing is, you wish he had opted out of this feature. Even with recognisable faces, The Courier has that low-budget feel about it and the story never really hooks you. It's a respectable attempt but the plot really doesn't blow your mind away and may instead give you a headache. After a while it begins to get tedious and you decide to follow it to the end only to write a review!
Assad's attempt isn't amateurish but it certainly isn't award winning. Morgan gives a solid performance with what he's got but it's nowhere near enough. The story is, well, blah and this is one to miss.
With notable performances on the small screen in Supernatural and Grey's Anatomy as well as a significant contribution in Zack Snyder's, Watchmen, one shouldn't be surprised with Morgan headlining a suspense thriller. Thing is, you wish he had opted out of this feature. Even with recognisable faces, The Courier has that low-budget feel about it and the story never really hooks you. It's a respectable attempt but the plot really doesn't blow your mind away and may instead give you a headache. After a while it begins to get tedious and you decide to follow it to the end only to write a review!
Assad's attempt isn't amateurish but it certainly isn't award winning. Morgan gives a solid performance with what he's got but it's nowhere near enough. The story is, well, blah and this is one to miss.
Nothing at all like the Transporter. Comparing the two is like comparing Armageddon to Deep Impact, very different. I say B-
cosmo_tiger21 August 2012
"Walking out the door doesn't mean it's over." The courier (Morgan) is the best at what he does. If you have a package that needs to be delivered he will ask no questions and get it there on time. When he is approached with a deal, deliver a briefcase and get a million dollars, but if he fails his family will be killed. Realizing he has no choice he accepts. When he finds out the recipient is a feared killer and people he meets are out to get him the job becomes much more then a simple delivery. I know what you thinking...this sounds like the "Transporter" and you couldn't be more wrong. The courier in this movie doesn't drive everywhere, he runs too. He doesn't find a girl in the trunk of a car, he just finds her. He doesn't try and deliver a briefcase to someone but ends up being a target himself....wait...never mind. This is not a 100% copy but it's close. I like Morgan but Statham is really the only one who should do this role. If you liked the "Transporter" then you will probably like this one. The ending did make it a little better and the second half was entertaining but this is pretty much "Transporter 4". Overall, not bad but they should have called it what it is. I give it a B-.
Tom Sicola
williwaw17 January 2013
Excellent film starring Mickey Rourke who gives a fine performance. and a cast of fine supporting actors.
In the old studio days they would be called character actors and they would be part of a Studio stock company, for example John Ford has the same people like Jane Darwell, and Aldo Ray cast in his films, and Otto Preminger also had some of the same actors Such as Carol Lynley, and Keir Dullea and Jill Haworth,, and John Wayne cast many of the same people such as Glenn Corbett and Maureen O Hara, and Aldo Ray. The audiences never seemed to be bored and in fact looked forward to seeing these fine actors. In this film look out for a fine actor Tom Sicola who has a brawny presence in this film and others such as the Wrestler.
In the old studio days they would be called character actors and they would be part of a Studio stock company, for example John Ford has the same people like Jane Darwell, and Aldo Ray cast in his films, and Otto Preminger also had some of the same actors Such as Carol Lynley, and Keir Dullea and Jill Haworth,, and John Wayne cast many of the same people such as Glenn Corbett and Maureen O Hara, and Aldo Ray. The audiences never seemed to be bored and in fact looked forward to seeing these fine actors. In this film look out for a fine actor Tom Sicola who has a brawny presence in this film and others such as the Wrestler.
Watchable
dileo6724 May 2012
Warning: Spoilers
As a Rourke Fan (especially Angel Heart !!!) i found the new film from Director Hany Abu Assad quite amusing. Jeffrey Dean Morgan was refreshing and most sympathetic, while our Star Til Schweiger was not as bad as i usually remember him. Most impressing were a couple of good action sequences ( hard core torture with Miguel Ferrer) and the most hilarious scene I've ever seen Mickey in...him doing a rather short Elvis impersonation...as I said: hilarious.
The Storyline lacks here and there an it does indeed remind one of "The Transporter" (I heard they had this movie already a couple of years in the pipeline, hence the "old" story) and "Angel Heart". On the other Hand it is strict and forward,no big misleading story lines, which of course means that you know rather quickly, where the train is going...unless you have never seen Angel Heart, that is.
One thing stroke me odd though, the End is a bit ...let's say unusual, or maybe I did not understand the film at all ;-)
Do not expect a great action thriller - because it is not ! Do not expect anything and I bet you'll be surprised.
The Storyline lacks here and there an it does indeed remind one of "The Transporter" (I heard they had this movie already a couple of years in the pipeline, hence the "old" story) and "Angel Heart". On the other Hand it is strict and forward,no big misleading story lines, which of course means that you know rather quickly, where the train is going...unless you have never seen Angel Heart, that is.
One thing stroke me odd though, the End is a bit ...let's say unusual, or maybe I did not understand the film at all ;-)
Do not expect a great action thriller - because it is not ! Do not expect anything and I bet you'll be surprised.
you know when a film is so mediocre...
dominicsynnock024 February 2013
... you can't be bothered to write a review. This is one of those films.
and now I have to fill out 10 lines of text for the minimum review length. Sometimes I sort of wish I never started doing something, so I guess in a way writing this review is very much like The Courier, essentially pointless and a complete waste of my time and not even getting to the level of 'so bad it's good'. It's actually amazing that I've managed to write this much to be honest, I only finished watching The Courier 10 minutes ago and it's already slipping out of my brain to the extent that I'm not entirely sure what actually happened at the end anymore (the first half has gone already). Normally this would be good as valuable brain space isn't being taken up by The Courier but I expect by the end of the day all memory of this very forgettable film will be erased from my memory which leaves the very real possibility that one day in the future I might see it's title when I'm looking for some rubbish action film to watch and actually waste my time by watching it again with a nagging sense of déjà vu and I won't be sure if it's because I've watched the courier before or that it's just generic rubbish.
So that's 10 lines of text done (in fact more than 10 lines which is a lot more than The Courier deserves) so I'm going to do something more interesting than watching The Courier such as watching paint dry or sitting in a dark empty room.
and now I have to fill out 10 lines of text for the minimum review length. Sometimes I sort of wish I never started doing something, so I guess in a way writing this review is very much like The Courier, essentially pointless and a complete waste of my time and not even getting to the level of 'so bad it's good'. It's actually amazing that I've managed to write this much to be honest, I only finished watching The Courier 10 minutes ago and it's already slipping out of my brain to the extent that I'm not entirely sure what actually happened at the end anymore (the first half has gone already). Normally this would be good as valuable brain space isn't being taken up by The Courier but I expect by the end of the day all memory of this very forgettable film will be erased from my memory which leaves the very real possibility that one day in the future I might see it's title when I'm looking for some rubbish action film to watch and actually waste my time by watching it again with a nagging sense of déjà vu and I won't be sure if it's because I've watched the courier before or that it's just generic rubbish.
So that's 10 lines of text done (in fact more than 10 lines which is a lot more than The Courier deserves) so I'm going to do something more interesting than watching The Courier such as watching paint dry or sitting in a dark empty room.
Yeah, I Watched This Movie
Bob_the_Hobo1 January 2013
A Courier (Jeffrey Dean Morgan) is tasked with delivering a package to a crime boss (Mickey Rourke) thought to be dead. Hilarity ensues.
"Yeah, I Watched This Movie". That's the attitude I had when "The Courier" reached its conclusion. We have seen this type of movie before, often, and we have had more fun at the expense of a larger budget. But like so many other movies nowadays, we feel a bit let-down when the screen goes black.
Jeffrey Dean Morgan, an exceptional actor who never seems to be the right fit for his character, does the best he can with what he has. His character wakes up in a crummy apartment infested with mice. He uses superglue to fix a nasty cut. Yet despite all this self-loathing, he has good friends and family that he cares about. What's with that?
The female lead is bizarre. Her hairstyle makes it appear as if her follicles are desperate to escape from her scalp, and considering how bad it is, I can't blame it for trying. She also has an unnecessary dubbing-over occasionally when she speaks. Perhaps they shot the film and forgot to record her at places.
Mickey Rourke and Til Schweiger, the other draws on the cover, are under and wrongly used. Rourke's head is only visible for the first half of his scenes, the latter's introduction is corny. Schweiger's bodyguard hasn't ever seemed to have used a fire arm before, let alone in a movie.
An odd assortment of has-beens and ne'er-do-wells fill out the rest of the cast. Lily Taylor and Miguel Ferrer play a Team Rocket type pair of villains who never say much besides grunts and gunshots. Mark Margolis, the definitive "that guy!" of actors plays Morgan's dad, or something. I'll give you one guess as to his fate.
"Yeah, I Watched That Movie." That is what I will say to people when they ask if I have seen "The Courier". And it might take me a minute to remember exactly what they are talking about.
"Yeah, I Watched This Movie". That's the attitude I had when "The Courier" reached its conclusion. We have seen this type of movie before, often, and we have had more fun at the expense of a larger budget. But like so many other movies nowadays, we feel a bit let-down when the screen goes black.
Jeffrey Dean Morgan, an exceptional actor who never seems to be the right fit for his character, does the best he can with what he has. His character wakes up in a crummy apartment infested with mice. He uses superglue to fix a nasty cut. Yet despite all this self-loathing, he has good friends and family that he cares about. What's with that?
The female lead is bizarre. Her hairstyle makes it appear as if her follicles are desperate to escape from her scalp, and considering how bad it is, I can't blame it for trying. She also has an unnecessary dubbing-over occasionally when she speaks. Perhaps they shot the film and forgot to record her at places.
Mickey Rourke and Til Schweiger, the other draws on the cover, are under and wrongly used. Rourke's head is only visible for the first half of his scenes, the latter's introduction is corny. Schweiger's bodyguard hasn't ever seemed to have used a fire arm before, let alone in a movie.
An odd assortment of has-beens and ne'er-do-wells fill out the rest of the cast. Lily Taylor and Miguel Ferrer play a Team Rocket type pair of villains who never say much besides grunts and gunshots. Mark Margolis, the definitive "that guy!" of actors plays Morgan's dad, or something. I'll give you one guess as to his fate.
"Yeah, I Watched That Movie." That is what I will say to people when they ask if I have seen "The Courier". And it might take me a minute to remember exactly what they are talking about.
a movie to quit half way
frank_kneepkens4 April 2012
Warning: Spoilers
At start I liked the movie, the lead character, Jeffrey Dean Morgan (in someway resembles a younger version of Nicolas Cage ;-) plays a good role, very convincing. The story appears interesting with some hints to movies like "the transporter". Unfortunately along the way the movie gets tiresome, after about 40 minutes it gets predictable. I saw it coming: Stitch has to die and agreed to myself that if he does I stop watching the movie, well -of course- he did so at that moment I knew the story is one of the dozen and I stopped watching... Unimaginative uninspiring movie, not worth watching because you already seen dozens of them. I post this review to try to say to the scenario writers: please come up with better and more original stories. We (the watchers) have had enough of this kind of "really bad guy that kills almost everyone except the lead character movies".
Dull and pointless
grantss24 September 2020
Dull and pointless. Plot is mostly predictable and unoriginal. Unimaginative direction.
Cast is good - Mickey Rourke, Jeffrey Dean Morgan, Til Schweiger, Lili Taylor, Miguel Ferrer - but they are let down by the script and director.
Cast is good - Mickey Rourke, Jeffrey Dean Morgan, Til Schweiger, Lili Taylor, Miguel Ferrer - but they are let down by the script and director.
Stupid -stupid -stupid
tcasey-833-21579321 December 2012
Absolutely terrible movie. One STAR is way too much! No one could follow the crazy plot. For instance how does one get permission to land a stolen plane? AND THEN be allowed to take the same plane back to the original departure location!
Mickey Rourke gets worse with each movie. His Elvis impersonation was god awful. And the half baked ending! What was the FBI involvement? What crime did Rourke supposedly commit? What was the femme fatele secret? None of these were answered. And that stupid pointless ending! Where was the kid going? Terrible movie with terrible acting and senseless plot.
Mickey Rourke gets worse with each movie. His Elvis impersonation was god awful. And the half baked ending! What was the FBI involvement? What crime did Rourke supposedly commit? What was the femme fatele secret? None of these were answered. And that stupid pointless ending! Where was the kid going? Terrible movie with terrible acting and senseless plot.
Plot was a disappointment
zoegabby25 March 2013
Warning: Spoilers
The acting was good. Jeffrey Dean Morgan, did a great job.
When Stitch was killed and the Courier and Anna grieved by going to bed, then I knew the plot was lame. How did the Courier find all the leads? There was never any indication...he just knew? The twist of Elvis lives and the Courier, was what one reviewer called "a muddled mess".....I agree. Then the ending with the couriers son, where did that come from and what happened to the son? The end result...the movie didn't make any sense, it didn't have a cohesive plot.
The writer/screenwriter truly failed at what could have been a very good action movie.
What a colossal waste of money for the backers.
When Stitch was killed and the Courier and Anna grieved by going to bed, then I knew the plot was lame. How did the Courier find all the leads? There was never any indication...he just knew? The twist of Elvis lives and the Courier, was what one reviewer called "a muddled mess".....I agree. Then the ending with the couriers son, where did that come from and what happened to the son? The end result...the movie didn't make any sense, it didn't have a cohesive plot.
The writer/screenwriter truly failed at what could have been a very good action movie.
What a colossal waste of money for the backers.
guns'n'super-glue
jwalker1222 April 2012
Warning: Spoilers
As with Louis Cipher before him Evil Sivle reveals himself. The fill-um ain't half bad. The knowing use of cliché reflects Tarantino though without his kind of budget. Check out the watch as with the film it's kind of very knowingly cool. Oh yeah all rugged notebooks, phones and apps work like this - straight out the box. I know mine does - I hack my local constabulary all the time. But dude! somebody please explain the denouement, is he Elvis? The boy? Evil Sivle? The Glass Marble? (good title for a film?) or Maxwell? Mmm! I never understood Driver. either
Precis... so not-hip it's hip.
Precis... so not-hip it's hip.
Only for the hard core J.D. Morgan fan, not much reason to watch it otherwise
JohnRayPeterson6 April 2012
Warning: Spoilers
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.
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.
dark enough to be entertaining, but underrated because is hard to find
Cinema2kMendoza10 June 2022
The courier deliver a package and people start to appear dead...even if this premise has been used in crime movies(someone does something and people appears dead after)alooot of times, the tone and the darkness in this movie for me is enough great. In fact i have watched the movie alot of times because is dark enough so you can understand the movie, but not that dark that you cant eat something while watching. Is enough dark to be good, but is underrated because not everyone knows this movie, in fact i cant even find the name, i needed to search actor movies first...this director needs to do more dark crime movies, he is in the right path, is dark as could be, and i like.
Also, is set in new orleans and louisiana, every crime movie set here is good(at least for me)and the photography is great.
Why is so hard to find info about this movie???
Also, is set in new orleans and louisiana, every crime movie set here is good(at least for me)and the photography is great.
Why is so hard to find info about this movie???
It's An OK Watch - Not A Great Watch
fredgfinklemeyer31 January 2019
01/30/2019 The majority of the movie was OK to watch but also pretty lackluster in the "Shootin & Killin" area. Thriller it's not, mrediocre it is. The last part with Mickey with the Bad Facelift brought tears to my thighs. He was so bad, he Sucked. Could have been a really good movie with a better writer and a decent director. Bon Appetit
Not bad but "Meh..." Lost itself...
destroyerwod12 May 2013
Warning: Spoilers
Minor Spoilers Only.
I rented this because my mother really like Jeffrey Dean Morgan. I have a lot of trouble watching movies with her, as she dosen't want to watch a movie with an actor she dosen't like or she can't watch too violent movie and so on.
When i saw this movie in the suspense category with that actor, i said why not, i was actually surprised she liked "The Loosers" when we watched it so i rented this.
The movie start in a good way, the plot seem to show promise, the dark gritty feel is also pretty good, but sadly as the movie unfold and all, it lost itself into too many different stuff and the final twist have a hard time making sense.
This movie was never meant to be a transporter rip-off or whatever, and i think if the screenplay was done better, it could had been really interesting but some elements poped out of nowhere and i dunno, like i said it lost itself. But its not as terrible as some of the other reviewers said.
I rented this because my mother really like Jeffrey Dean Morgan. I have a lot of trouble watching movies with her, as she dosen't want to watch a movie with an actor she dosen't like or she can't watch too violent movie and so on.
When i saw this movie in the suspense category with that actor, i said why not, i was actually surprised she liked "The Loosers" when we watched it so i rented this.
The movie start in a good way, the plot seem to show promise, the dark gritty feel is also pretty good, but sadly as the movie unfold and all, it lost itself into too many different stuff and the final twist have a hard time making sense.
This movie was never meant to be a transporter rip-off or whatever, and i think if the screenplay was done better, it could had been really interesting but some elements poped out of nowhere and i dunno, like i said it lost itself. But its not as terrible as some of the other reviewers said.
Pointless
mickharry10 February 2013
I stuck with this to the end. Why? There had to be some thing here that made the enterprise worthwhile. There is a weird scene that involves the victim of torture asking the questions. The female with the torturing tools gives a brief history of torture. There is an element of philosophy here but I am sure fans of torture will know this stuff off by heart anyway and I can do without such education. The millions of employees on the cast list at the end spell out what this movie is about. See The Producers. All will be clear. Don't watch this movie. It is spell blindingly dreadful and you will hate yourself at the end for watching it.
See also
Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews
