"Whenever you find a pot of gold there's always a monster guarding it." Tom (Franco) and Anna (Hudson) are married and struggling. They are weeks away from losing their house and the job market is dry. They are cleaning up an apartment of one of their tenants who died they find a huge bag of cash. After going back and forth on what to do with the bag they decide to just take what they need to keep the house for another month. Little by little they begin to take more but then someone comes looking for the money. Keep in mind when you read this that I watch every movie we order for the store. There are at least 2 movies a month that come out with the exact idea. The only difference this one has is that big name actors are in this. People find a bag of money with like $1 million in it and think what should we do...we will only spend a little of it to help us out. Soon most of the money is gone then they act shocked when someone comes looking for it. I have always wondered if a bad movie can be made good by adding great actors. According to this movie the answer is no. This is still a b-rate overdone movie with better acting. Overall, a movie that has been done so many times that nothing can help the repetition of the plot. I give this a C+.
63 Reviews
Good People=Average Film
nebk26 September 2014
Warning: Spoilers
Good People is an average action thriller starring James Franco and Kate Hudson in the lead roles. They are an American Couple living in London, who stumble upon 220 000 pounds when the crook to whom they are renting their basement to dies of a drug overdose. In debt to their eyeballs they are tempted to keep the money and not to inform the lead detective (Tom Wilkinson) of their discovery. The plan is that they will only spend as much as they need to stay afloat financially. The trouble is that their deceased tenant double crossed a bunch of his criminal cronies and they want the money back. They In turn stole the money and a bunch of drugs from a French drug dealer called Khan. And soon, he is involved in the plot as well. No one has come for the money, and no one is coming utters Franco's character at one point. Yeah right.
Predictably, the Protagonists are soon being assaulted and chased by the criminals who want their cash and product back. In the end, all the various criminals, the policeman and the married couple congregate in one place and there is a shoot out. As for who is left standing....well, let's just say that there are no major twists that will leave you shocked by the ending.
Overall, the movie is not bad and has entertainment value if you feel like watching a relatively straightforward suspense action thriller. The plot is overly simplistic however and there is not much character development of either the good people or the bad ones in the film. There are subplots in the film which are supposed to enrich the characters and add suspense but they somehow look coincidental, feel rushed and are not too suspenseful. In the end the movie is watchable and entertaining to a point but not extremely memorable.
Predictably, the Protagonists are soon being assaulted and chased by the criminals who want their cash and product back. In the end, all the various criminals, the policeman and the married couple congregate in one place and there is a shoot out. As for who is left standing....well, let's just say that there are no major twists that will leave you shocked by the ending.
Overall, the movie is not bad and has entertainment value if you feel like watching a relatively straightforward suspense action thriller. The plot is overly simplistic however and there is not much character development of either the good people or the bad ones in the film. There are subplots in the film which are supposed to enrich the characters and add suspense but they somehow look coincidental, feel rushed and are not too suspenseful. In the end the movie is watchable and entertaining to a point but not extremely memorable.
Many plot holes
greggjohns29 December 2014
Warning: Spoilers
Hard to ignore some gaping mistakes in the plot:
1. The lead character finds the money, but not the briefcase full of "liquid O" that is right behind it. He finds a box full of cash, but does not look in the ceiling again to see if there is more, or anything else up there?
2. The thugs find the drugs in the apartment after the police have searched the apartment. The police, suspecting that there is a drug tie-in, never think to look in the drop-down ceiling?
3. The couple is about to be evicted, and about to lose "the house." This means the house they are renting? Why not move into the house that he is fixing up and has inherited? It had a roof and walls, and he knows carpentry. No rent to pay if they move into the house, yes?
4. No one seems concerned that a police officer, or someone dressed as a police officer, shot a detective and continued shooting in a public park. Never mentioned on the news they listen to? Never brought up in any of the conversations among the characters?
5. When nailing the thug to the floor, the lead male is somehow able to know exactly where both of his feet were positioned, although the floor is solid where he is standing, with none of the cracks that can be seen in other parts of the floor.
6. The same thug, hiding from people with guns, lights a cigarette, which might not seem wise, since smoke could be seen coming from the room where he is hiding, or smelled. But no one does see or smell it, including Khan, who walks right up to, and almost past, the room before being shot at.
7. No one tries to put out the fire, which is confined to a small section of the house once the shooting has ended.
And of course, the clichés were terrifying--the couple trying to have a child and learning at the end that they were going to have a child. The detective who has lost a child to drugs, and is now seeking to destroy the drug trade? Somehow, the obvious cliché was missed--this couple needed a dog. A dog, wounded in the battle with the drug dealers, but recovered by the end and leaping into their laps after the news that a child is on the way. If you're going to do it badly, go ahead and do it badly.
1. The lead character finds the money, but not the briefcase full of "liquid O" that is right behind it. He finds a box full of cash, but does not look in the ceiling again to see if there is more, or anything else up there?
2. The thugs find the drugs in the apartment after the police have searched the apartment. The police, suspecting that there is a drug tie-in, never think to look in the drop-down ceiling?
3. The couple is about to be evicted, and about to lose "the house." This means the house they are renting? Why not move into the house that he is fixing up and has inherited? It had a roof and walls, and he knows carpentry. No rent to pay if they move into the house, yes?
4. No one seems concerned that a police officer, or someone dressed as a police officer, shot a detective and continued shooting in a public park. Never mentioned on the news they listen to? Never brought up in any of the conversations among the characters?
5. When nailing the thug to the floor, the lead male is somehow able to know exactly where both of his feet were positioned, although the floor is solid where he is standing, with none of the cracks that can be seen in other parts of the floor.
6. The same thug, hiding from people with guns, lights a cigarette, which might not seem wise, since smoke could be seen coming from the room where he is hiding, or smelled. But no one does see or smell it, including Khan, who walks right up to, and almost past, the room before being shot at.
7. No one tries to put out the fire, which is confined to a small section of the house once the shooting has ended.
And of course, the clichés were terrifying--the couple trying to have a child and learning at the end that they were going to have a child. The detective who has lost a child to drugs, and is now seeking to destroy the drug trade? Somehow, the obvious cliché was missed--this couple needed a dog. A dog, wounded in the battle with the drug dealers, but recovered by the end and leaping into their laps after the news that a child is on the way. If you're going to do it badly, go ahead and do it badly.
Watchable
mikelieberman23 November 2015
The creative team behind this film is definitely promising. Director Henrik Ruben Genz is the Danish film and television director, known for his film Terribly Happy (2008) and work on the series The Bridge and The Killing in the original Danish version. Kelly Masterson has signed two film scripts. Maybe I was wrong to set high expectations, because Good People is only fair, average thriller with a story seen a million of times. Tom (Franco) and Anna (Hudson) are an American couple in financial problems. They move to London to the house Tom inherited. Since their earnings are not enough for renovation so they rent a room to Ben, suspicious type. After he's gone, Tom and Anna will find the mysterious stash of more than 200,000 pounds. But as we all know big money is not without owner. And so it begins... The problem is that we have already seen that story, and Good People does not bring anything new. Even the adaptation of the novel by Marcus Sakey is kind of awkward. The dialogues are poor. Acting is not bad. Visual effects are on higher level. The pace is easy, which certainly reinforces the impression of weirdness and "suspense", although we know all too well the sequence of events. Good People is correct thriller. Watchable, but really nothing more than that.
A Little Shallow But Still A Good Movie
HorrorOverEverything27 September 2014
I like James Franco a lot, however I have comes to terms with the fact that just because he is in a movie does not mean it is going to be a good movie. Fortunately with "Good People" that is not the case.
Right from the get go the movie had my attention, it starts off very well and sets the mood for the rest of the movie. From there it gets a little slow but remains interesting. Then once things pick up again it is pretty entertaining.
I find it hard to rate this movie too high since the story is generic and it doesn't really do any original or new. However it is still a very watchable and entertaining thriller.
6.5/10
Right from the get go the movie had my attention, it starts off very well and sets the mood for the rest of the movie. From there it gets a little slow but remains interesting. Then once things pick up again it is pretty entertaining.
I find it hard to rate this movie too high since the story is generic and it doesn't really do any original or new. However it is still a very watchable and entertaining thriller.
6.5/10
Good people, bad movie
l-vrtis4 October 2014
Warning: Spoilers
This movie had a lot of potential. The plot is interesting and acting good. What it suffers from is predictability, underdeveloped characters and probably the biggest cliché of action movies. The first half is good but then stupid things start happening.
LARGE SPOILER: So the couple gets tracked to a hotel and they know it. They not only stay there but also invite the friendly cop and have a nice morning chat with him right in front of the hotel to let everybody know they are working with the police.
Then they invite everybody to the house and let them shoot each other. As they probably had watched all the Home Alone movies, they prepare some nice traps to be saved by the good old cop who despite severe head trauma and shock has the aim of Robocop.
LARGE SPOILER: So the couple gets tracked to a hotel and they know it. They not only stay there but also invite the friendly cop and have a nice morning chat with him right in front of the hotel to let everybody know they are working with the police.
Then they invite everybody to the house and let them shoot each other. As they probably had watched all the Home Alone movies, they prepare some nice traps to be saved by the good old cop who despite severe head trauma and shock has the aim of Robocop.
Does it pay to be good?
kosmasp23 September 2015
And what is good anyway? Who defines what actions are good? Or if good people are not capable of doing bad things? And would that make them bad people? Don't get it twisted though: This is not a philosophical look at those things. If you even remotely asks those questions, it's not because the movie intended to make you think that much. It's your own perception that goes that extra mile (or two).
The movie moves along nicely, you can see almost everything coming your way and it's decent, if you're not annoyed by the standard formula this uses. It's nice to see another french actor making the move into "mainstream" Hollywood, even if he's not in it that much. Decent or a time waster, depending on your threshold
The movie moves along nicely, you can see almost everything coming your way and it's decent, if you're not annoyed by the standard formula this uses. It's nice to see another french actor making the move into "mainstream" Hollywood, even if he's not in it that much. Decent or a time waster, depending on your threshold
"Thriller Movie"
isabelle-frater18 October 2014
My Saturday night movies are starting to develop a bad pattern. This was supposed to be an action, crime, thriller. I seem to pick boring movies. Well, the action was mostly at the end, there was a crime, and it didn't thrill me very much.
It starts out as one of those gritty dramas. Or at least tries to. The colours are muted, mostly greys, and we quickly establish that the "good people" are a couple down on their luck. They have money troubles, fertility problems, so you can really feel that these people are just in a hole. Now this is where the predictability starts to happen. Generally bad things don't seem to happen to the good people who are well-off and happy. From then on, it feels like a generic thriller. It has the drugs, the single mum, the ageing cop with a personal beef against the evil guys. It was almost like watching one of those genre comedies, like it should be titled "Thriller Movie".
It's not the cast, really. They were fine. It's the story. Kate Hudson was a good female lead. I don't remember seeing her in any action before, but there was a line; "Guns are for pussies" that she looked really bad-ass saying. She had a good mix of regular woman caught in a bad situation, but kicking butt. James Franco blended in well with the look of the movie. He had the dirty, grey visage that was perfect. I felt he was a bit overshadowed by Kate, but he was a good, supporting husband. Tom Wilkinson was a fine British cop. He was so generic though, it could have been anyone of the many actors who generally play British cops on TV.
Overall, a lacklustre movie, and there really isn't all that much to say about it. You can watch it, if you have low expectations. Or if you really have some time to kill. Or you're doing something, and want some background noise and gunfire doesn't bother you. Otherwise, give this one a miss.
It starts out as one of those gritty dramas. Or at least tries to. The colours are muted, mostly greys, and we quickly establish that the "good people" are a couple down on their luck. They have money troubles, fertility problems, so you can really feel that these people are just in a hole. Now this is where the predictability starts to happen. Generally bad things don't seem to happen to the good people who are well-off and happy. From then on, it feels like a generic thriller. It has the drugs, the single mum, the ageing cop with a personal beef against the evil guys. It was almost like watching one of those genre comedies, like it should be titled "Thriller Movie".
It's not the cast, really. They were fine. It's the story. Kate Hudson was a good female lead. I don't remember seeing her in any action before, but there was a line; "Guns are for pussies" that she looked really bad-ass saying. She had a good mix of regular woman caught in a bad situation, but kicking butt. James Franco blended in well with the look of the movie. He had the dirty, grey visage that was perfect. I felt he was a bit overshadowed by Kate, but he was a good, supporting husband. Tom Wilkinson was a fine British cop. He was so generic though, it could have been anyone of the many actors who generally play British cops on TV.
Overall, a lacklustre movie, and there really isn't all that much to say about it. You can watch it, if you have low expectations. Or if you really have some time to kill. Or you're doing something, and want some background noise and gunfire doesn't bother you. Otherwise, give this one a miss.
Fun yet predictable.
powell-yendi29 September 2014
I liked this movie. It was realistic fiction that was entertaining to watch. There is excellent acting among all the main characters, and the story line is so believable. The only reason I can not rate it a 10 is that this movie was oh so predictable. As usual, there is no honesty among thieves, which is the premise of this movie. Then, of course, the underdog always wins. The climax of the movie was very reminiscent of "Home Alone," so I knew what was coming the moment that I saw the set towards the end. The predictability is the only reason I can think of the movie having such a low overall rating. However, when watching realistic fiction, extravagant happenings would convert the realistic to ridiculous. It stayed true to it's genre. I would recommend this movie to all movie-lovers, but I would be shocked if it got an Oscar.
not recommendable
sof_gr2 November 2014
Watching the trailer, the movie seems very promising, it had a lot of potential. However I evaluate it as so-so. The cast was good and there were some well done and imaginative killings particularly at the middle to the end of the movie. But the whole movie was kind of complicated. Some facts weren't clear to understand and some absurd scenes were just to serve the plot. At last, there wasn't anything new and it had nothing to offer, except of so little action as to justify the classification of the movie to an action-thriller movie. Unfortunately, I think that the time I spent to watch the film was a waste of time and I wouldn't recommend it.
Not sure why low rating?
leonidasoriginal15 October 2019
Serves Its Purpose
Floated219 July 2015
Warning: Spoilers
Good People is not a film to be taken too serious or to have high expectations. The film didn't manage to have a wide US release date in theaters but then it managed to make its rounds in foreign countries, and limited release revenues. The film starts out well, and starts to pick up when the main plot is put in place- the couple of Tom and Anne (James Franco & Kate Hudson) discover their tenant renting their basement has died, and they eventually discover large sums of cash. At this point, we start to realize how the film will go and turn out, but howeever within this there lies many possibilities which the film could have taken, though it seemed to struggle down towards the end.
Good People is a fun light hearted crime thriller, and includes several twists and turns along the way. For a film such as this, its serves it purpose, it could have been better with a better plot, more developed characters, a better and less predictable ending, but for what it was it was entertaining for a solid run time film. What makes the film worth watching is the wonderful scenery and the chemistry between James Franco and Kate Hudson, there are also several scenes of unintentionally comedy towards the last 30 or so minutes which are worth while.
Good People is a fun light hearted crime thriller, and includes several twists and turns along the way. For a film such as this, its serves it purpose, it could have been better with a better plot, more developed characters, a better and less predictable ending, but for what it was it was entertaining for a solid run time film. What makes the film worth watching is the wonderful scenery and the chemistry between James Franco and Kate Hudson, there are also several scenes of unintentionally comedy towards the last 30 or so minutes which are worth while.
More like: Dumb People
jimalba-8788718 January 2020
Warning: Spoilers
Wow, this movie was really bad! We start off with a robbery and betrayal, and then by meeting a young couple- nice teacher (Kate Hudson) and hard working contractor? (James Franco- who is not at all convincing as a contractor), who are struggling with finances. Well, yada, yada, yada, they find some money from the robbery, know they shouldn't use it but overnight these two turn into complete morons who had about five chances to get out of their predicament, yet kept choosing to keep the money, which isn't even that big of an amount, at least not enough to risk a lot of lives for. Tom Wilkinson, whom I really like, is wasted in this movie and I'm actually sorry to see him in it. He plays a cop with a backstory that is not really clear and a snotty boss that hates him- tell me you haven't seen that cliche' before. Anyway, Franco and Hudson seem to immediately adapt to being hunted and seeing people killed in front of them doesn't really seem to be an issue- are these really "Good People"? No, they're actually stupid, trashy, people who clearly don't tell each other anything and they each have spending problems. Why this movie had to be set in England with two American lead actors is something I don't know, this garbage could have been set anywhere in the U.S. I guess the fact that it was set in England was the twist? I don't know. Finally, in the climactic scene, the leader of one of the biggest drug cartels in the world shows up to get his $220k (seriously, this is couch cushion money to someone like that) with only one bodyguard/hoodlum to help him out. Predictably, both druglords (yes, there are TWO of them fighting over $220k!) are outsmarted and outlasted by a teacher and a terrible contractor, and the day is saved. This movie is fun if you want to just sit and poke fun at all the plot holes, but otherwise is a horrible bore.
Familiar (though professionally made) story
Wizard-88 November 2014
If you have watched your share of thrillers, more likely than not the premise of "Good People" - ordinary people stumbling across a large amount of cash belonging to criminals - will be somewhat familiar to you. It certainly seemed familiar to me. But it's not just the premise that's familiar, but also how the movie plays out, with its various characters and supposed plot twists and turns. The climax comes as no surprise, since it's telegraphed very early in the movie as to what will happen and where it will happen.
Still, I must give credit where credit is due. The acting by all the participants is professional and effective; the bad guys do come across as acceptably nasty pieces of work. The movie also has reasonable production values for a movie that didn't have a megabudget. And the story, though very familiar and predictable, does go from scene to scene at a fairly brisk pace and leaves no lulls. So if you don't mind seeing the same story and characters all over again, you'll probably find this movie a fairly well crafted retread.
Still, I must give credit where credit is due. The acting by all the participants is professional and effective; the bad guys do come across as acceptably nasty pieces of work. The movie also has reasonable production values for a movie that didn't have a megabudget. And the story, though very familiar and predictable, does go from scene to scene at a fairly brisk pace and leaves no lulls. So if you don't mind seeing the same story and characters all over again, you'll probably find this movie a fairly well crafted retread.
Worth your time
Wegiddy23 September 2020
I'm surprised this movie got so little stars! It kept you thinking who will die and I just want to put it out there if I found a bag of money I'd NEVER give it to the police. That'll be the stupidest thing a wallet yes a bag of money hell no! That being said it's a good movie and I'm glad I watched it.
Nothing new but watchable.
deloudelouvain12 March 2015
The movie isn't that bad as some want make us to believe. Okay it might be a story that we already have seen before but it has the merit that the acting is not bad at all and the filming is also good. You might get the feeling of been there, done that but I'm also sure that you already saw the same kind of movie but a worse version. You can't really fault the actors because they did their job making the whole scenario believable. It's not a movie that will make history but it's enough to keep you entertained for an evening. It's not really a thriller, it's just a crime movie, with the good people and the bad guys. Okay it's predictable, but is that not every movie with bad & good people? The good always win, and the villains always lose. Nothing new but watchable.
Convenience, Convenience, Convenience plus Stupidity = Too Bad
cyhutch-130 October 2014
Too bad because what a great cast! Kate Hudson and James Franco are always interesting to watch, and their chemistry together was really nice in this film. Totally believable. And then there's the awesome Tom Wilkinson, terrific in just about everything he's in, and a new favorite, Omar Sy (loved him in the French film,The Untouchables.) When I put the movie in and watched the first 30 minutes, I was enjoying it. Then convenient writing starting seeping in and I lost all interest. I won't go into detail...I'm too tired right now honestly. But it just pisses me off when writers are lazy and good actors go to waste (and allow themselves to be in films like this!) There are just too many dumb decisions the characters make about 2/3's the way into the film to stay hooked. You are just like, "wow, they let this film get made???" Pisses me off again! Hell, I have 2 screenplays that would kick this one's ass. Mainly because I'm anal about not being convenient. Biggest pet peeve of all, because it's so easy to do. Not sure if it was the novelist or the screenplay writer but come on! You can do better than this - either of you or both of you! Damn. I'm disappointed :(
Good But Shallow Grave Is Still Better
dfa12037411 April 2015
Warning: Spoilers
Good People is actually a pretty good tense thriller and is nowhere near as bad as some people are making it out to be. Is it pretty predictable at times? Yes. Has it been done before? Yes. That doesn't make it a bad film though.
It's main idea is along the same lines as the excellent Shallow Grave, so while it's definitely not an original story it still makes for a decent film in it's own right. There are differences between the two films with the main one being the desperation the main couple, Anna & Tom, find themselves in regarding money. They are struggling to make ends meet and are on the verge of being evicted...Shallow Grave didn't have these elements, so it's the same same box but with different wrapping.
The film is pretty slow going at times but it doesn't ever feel boring and even through these moments you're still getting to know about the different characters so while it gets slow at times, the story still develops. It does pick up as it goes on though, so it's not as if it doesn't ever get going, and there is a good amount of tension and suspense throughout to make up for those slower instances.
The main characters - on the whole - were well written, but one thing that annoyed me about Anna & Tom was that they had all of this financial trouble yet they were desperate to have a baby. Priorities people! They were also very naive with regards to the money by thinking that they were safe and that no one would be looking for it especially considering the background of their tenant. In saying that though, that is where the story shows how desperation makes them blind to reality. I mean what would YOU do if you were in the same situation and came across 1000s of pounds? The vicious criminal boss Jack Witkowski was played excellently by Sam Spruell who brought a real believability to that character as someone you definitely did not want to upset/double-cross.
All in all, Good People isn't a fantastic film, but it's definitely worth a watch.
It's main idea is along the same lines as the excellent Shallow Grave, so while it's definitely not an original story it still makes for a decent film in it's own right. There are differences between the two films with the main one being the desperation the main couple, Anna & Tom, find themselves in regarding money. They are struggling to make ends meet and are on the verge of being evicted...Shallow Grave didn't have these elements, so it's the same same box but with different wrapping.
The film is pretty slow going at times but it doesn't ever feel boring and even through these moments you're still getting to know about the different characters so while it gets slow at times, the story still develops. It does pick up as it goes on though, so it's not as if it doesn't ever get going, and there is a good amount of tension and suspense throughout to make up for those slower instances.
The main characters - on the whole - were well written, but one thing that annoyed me about Anna & Tom was that they had all of this financial trouble yet they were desperate to have a baby. Priorities people! They were also very naive with regards to the money by thinking that they were safe and that no one would be looking for it especially considering the background of their tenant. In saying that though, that is where the story shows how desperation makes them blind to reality. I mean what would YOU do if you were in the same situation and came across 1000s of pounds? The vicious criminal boss Jack Witkowski was played excellently by Sam Spruell who brought a real believability to that character as someone you definitely did not want to upset/double-cross.
All in all, Good People isn't a fantastic film, but it's definitely worth a watch.
Should be called Home Alone 8 and a half
tfmiltz10 November 2014
Warning: Spoilers
I have a feeling the writer and director of this movie spent some time with Macaulay Culkin and also with his private stash.
First off- DO NOT WATCH THIS MOVIE.
The movie might be okay if viewed as a subconscious drama about the desperation of not being able to have children or get pregnant.
Movie opens - some heroin deal gone wrong.
Next 20 minutes you meet a couple trying to get pregnant who rents to a heroin addict in their basement - who dies - they find about $400,00 in cash in the ceiling and decide to keep it. Who knows, maybe no 'bad' people will come looking.
These two are broke, but the husband keeps throwing money into a broke down mansion his aunt willed him- they face eviction from the apartment and loss of the home unable to pay mortgage. COULD THEY SELL THE BROKEN HOME ? Sure - do they ? nope. Comes in handy later for a Home Alone re-enactment as an attempt to save the movie.
Police come - they lie to the police.
Bad guys come - break the guys fingers - which magically are just fine the rest of the movie - give him MULTIPLE head concussions- severe trauma to the body but - hey- $400,000 is worth it riiiight ? After the bad guys smash dad to be's head around a few times, I'm sure quality time with the children will be great - I can see it now - a 5 year old goes "Hi dad, how does the color blue taste today? Have you heard any more noises that sound like circles or squares ? (Dad just continues nods mumbling something about how $400,000 was worth losing potential for quality REST OF YOUR LIFE that renders you unable to sort abstract shapes out from a stick of butter.)
Guy STILL chooses to keep $400,000 over his own well being - and his wife's well being.
Remember - they JUST want to have a family- that's ALL they REALLY want to do - but hey - let's LIE to the police and LIE to the drug dealers who are willing to kill them- allllll for $400,000.
Bad guys catch up - They play out the bad guys coming as if they are cartel kingpings - you watch The Wire ? on HBO ? Avon Barksdale and Stringer Bell made $400,000 in a DAY, let alone Marlo Stanfield - and THIS MOVIE ? sends in the TOP CARTEL kingpin named 'Genghis Khan' to get his MEASLY $400k back.
So what does the young aspiring to start a family and live a normal quiet life decide to do ?
Why ? Go back to the abandon gutted mansion he was trying to fix up- and they get to work on it Home Alone style- setting booby traps and then call the bad guys to come on over.
At this point in the movie - if you made it this far - you have 4 therapists on SPEED DIAL - to counsel you for your emotional losses, or maybe a family priest just to handle to spiritual vacant abyss this movie takes you off the cliff of. Yes I just ended a sentence with a preposition.
In the end the police man who told them they were going to prison for keeping the money ? Comes in and says here- the fire man found this - and gives them about $20,000 - yeah - I BET the fireman found it.
So after ALL of that - he's got brain trauma - maybe some broken ribs- easily broken fingers - their best friends baby was held at gunpoint, she ? was fine with this the entire time and they drive off into the sunset to spend their whopping $20,000.
NOT to mention how many people died in this movie - ALL for $400,000.
I don't know who created this pile of garbage but it's either propaganda of some sort or they were DOING heroin when they wrote and directed it.
I can't blame the actors- they were good- but everything else ?
My god - the horror of it all -
This movie makes me want to start a website called REALLYBADMOVIES dot com
With all the heroin in this movie - AND the Home Alone finale ? I think they SHOULD have had a cameo from Macaulay Culkin.
First off- DO NOT WATCH THIS MOVIE.
The movie might be okay if viewed as a subconscious drama about the desperation of not being able to have children or get pregnant.
Movie opens - some heroin deal gone wrong.
Next 20 minutes you meet a couple trying to get pregnant who rents to a heroin addict in their basement - who dies - they find about $400,00 in cash in the ceiling and decide to keep it. Who knows, maybe no 'bad' people will come looking.
These two are broke, but the husband keeps throwing money into a broke down mansion his aunt willed him- they face eviction from the apartment and loss of the home unable to pay mortgage. COULD THEY SELL THE BROKEN HOME ? Sure - do they ? nope. Comes in handy later for a Home Alone re-enactment as an attempt to save the movie.
Police come - they lie to the police.
Bad guys come - break the guys fingers - which magically are just fine the rest of the movie - give him MULTIPLE head concussions- severe trauma to the body but - hey- $400,000 is worth it riiiight ? After the bad guys smash dad to be's head around a few times, I'm sure quality time with the children will be great - I can see it now - a 5 year old goes "Hi dad, how does the color blue taste today? Have you heard any more noises that sound like circles or squares ? (Dad just continues nods mumbling something about how $400,000 was worth losing potential for quality REST OF YOUR LIFE that renders you unable to sort abstract shapes out from a stick of butter.)
Guy STILL chooses to keep $400,000 over his own well being - and his wife's well being.
Remember - they JUST want to have a family- that's ALL they REALLY want to do - but hey - let's LIE to the police and LIE to the drug dealers who are willing to kill them- allllll for $400,000.
Bad guys catch up - They play out the bad guys coming as if they are cartel kingpings - you watch The Wire ? on HBO ? Avon Barksdale and Stringer Bell made $400,000 in a DAY, let alone Marlo Stanfield - and THIS MOVIE ? sends in the TOP CARTEL kingpin named 'Genghis Khan' to get his MEASLY $400k back.
So what does the young aspiring to start a family and live a normal quiet life decide to do ?
Why ? Go back to the abandon gutted mansion he was trying to fix up- and they get to work on it Home Alone style- setting booby traps and then call the bad guys to come on over.
At this point in the movie - if you made it this far - you have 4 therapists on SPEED DIAL - to counsel you for your emotional losses, or maybe a family priest just to handle to spiritual vacant abyss this movie takes you off the cliff of. Yes I just ended a sentence with a preposition.
In the end the police man who told them they were going to prison for keeping the money ? Comes in and says here- the fire man found this - and gives them about $20,000 - yeah - I BET the fireman found it.
So after ALL of that - he's got brain trauma - maybe some broken ribs- easily broken fingers - their best friends baby was held at gunpoint, she ? was fine with this the entire time and they drive off into the sunset to spend their whopping $20,000.
NOT to mention how many people died in this movie - ALL for $400,000.
I don't know who created this pile of garbage but it's either propaganda of some sort or they were DOING heroin when they wrote and directed it.
I can't blame the actors- they were good- but everything else ?
My god - the horror of it all -
This movie makes me want to start a website called REALLYBADMOVIES dot com
With all the heroin in this movie - AND the Home Alone finale ? I think they SHOULD have had a cameo from Macaulay Culkin.
The combination of debt and bad money!
Reno-Rangan4 September 2016
Much better film than I expected. Looks kind of a French thriller, but based on the novel of the same name. It revolves around a young American couple who moved to London, where they're on the verge to lose the inherited house after the severe debt. Luckily they find bundles of money from their dead renter. Since it was a bad money they wait for the right time to spend it, but what follows is their nightmare who ends up running away from the most dangerous men.
This is really a good story and a well made film, but I don't understand how it was so underrated. Obviously the critics did their job like usual, but the film fanatics turning it down as well which is a very sad. I know it feels so familiar, but very entertaining with lots of edgy moments. Especially the final battle between all the group at one place was very good, yet they kept it so simple. Both the lead actors were fantastic, including a small contribution by Tom Wilkinson.
It is a small story, that mostly takes place in a week. But the pace was excellent and it comes to the point without making any delay in the form of development. Yet there remains some mystery like how the guy died in the couple's rented apartment. Excluding those which only brings cliché if it goes deeper, the film definitely worth watching and I feel happy for watching a good thriller after a long time. So I recommended it.
7/10
This is really a good story and a well made film, but I don't understand how it was so underrated. Obviously the critics did their job like usual, but the film fanatics turning it down as well which is a very sad. I know it feels so familiar, but very entertaining with lots of edgy moments. Especially the final battle between all the group at one place was very good, yet they kept it so simple. Both the lead actors were fantastic, including a small contribution by Tom Wilkinson.
It is a small story, that mostly takes place in a week. But the pace was excellent and it comes to the point without making any delay in the form of development. Yet there remains some mystery like how the guy died in the couple's rented apartment. Excluding those which only brings cliché if it goes deeper, the film definitely worth watching and I feel happy for watching a good thriller after a long time. So I recommended it.
7/10
Same old, same old...
preparat1 November 2014
Long story short - the movie definitely deserves a solid 5 in my opinion, I have no reason to go lower and to go higher neither, to be honest I would have given it a 4, if not for the graphic and well done killings on a few occasions, which I haven't seen being done in that manner for a while on the screen, but otherwise the plot was just too generic and there is no point of producing movies of this kind anymore, unless it's based on facts, or biography... Honestly how much more innovation can you bring to this particular genre, just swapping actors and changing titles endlessly only to attract dumb masses to the cinemas? I guess that's the whole point...
Excellent Movie
cliffmacdev28 September 2014
Not sure why people review or have opinions about things they know nothing about. It would be similar to myself reviewing a Korean movie and saying it was bad. It could have been bad, but since I haven't got a frame of reference of knowing Korean culture, it might be arrogant and presumptuous to postulate? It's a well acted movie, well paced and completely in line with something British. Not the slick superficial production of an American movie but a dyed in the wool type English gangster movie. Not Guy Ritchie clever, but something that could happen and exactly how it might happen. The villains were believable and so to was Franco and Hudson. Wilkerson delvers his usual excellent performance and the set was superb. Exactly the kind of motors that a contractor or villain might have. The right flat and in the right neighborhood. Only complaint would be having Anna Friel act so little. Totally excellent actress and such lovely crumpet as well. Needed to see more of her. Excellent movie with brilliant understated acting. And Hudson's bum to booth!
Interesting, but disjointed
msdibble-238-56995325 March 2021
Warning: Spoilers
Everyone would like to find a boatload of cash, right?
Good premise.
What I don't understand is why they didn't hid the money elsewhere and move out because they were evicted. All true.
They had to move anyway...and could have done it without raising suspicion.
But that's too obvious...lol.
Lame but good for some laughs
utgard143 January 2015
A couple of Americans (Kate Hudson, James Franco) experiencing hard financial times head over to jolly old England to make a go of it. I'm pretty sure that makes no sense but we'll pretend in this fictional world that it does. So the couple are renting a room to a drug addict criminal who dies. They find a stash of money in the ceiling and, like everybody in every movie that has used this plot before, they throw common sense out the window and decide to start spending the money. Of course, some bad dudes come looking for the loot. Now the couple is in trouble and the only person who can help them is the dogged detective (Tom Wilkinson) who won't let the case go. Which is pretty much every movie detective ever. As you can see this thing is riddled with clichés and a formulaic plot. To compensate for the lack of originality we have ample doses of violence and a nice ass shot from Kate Hudson.
It's all put together adequately but it's as stale as month-old bread. Stupid people doing stupid things is the backbone of this movie. The best part is the last thirty minutes. Kate Hudson says "Guns are for pussies" because they have rigged their house Home Alone-style to fight the baddies, which is too ridiculous to miss. I love when the one criminal sees the other one impaled and asks "Are you alright?" Priceless. It's worth watching once, I suppose, if you're bored. But most people will have seen this done before and better many times over the years. There are some unintentionally funny moments, which bumps it up a notch.
It's all put together adequately but it's as stale as month-old bread. Stupid people doing stupid things is the backbone of this movie. The best part is the last thirty minutes. Kate Hudson says "Guns are for pussies" because they have rigged their house Home Alone-style to fight the baddies, which is too ridiculous to miss. I love when the one criminal sees the other one impaled and asks "Are you alright?" Priceless. It's worth watching once, I suppose, if you're bored. But most people will have seen this done before and better many times over the years. There are some unintentionally funny moments, which bumps it up a notch.
See also
Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews
