jimsboatworks This is a nice period piece that was a married by the distortion of facts about Galliani and his anarchy thugs and their roll in bombings and robberies in 1919-1920. Let's establish a few facts not touched on or distorted in the film- The first batch of bombs in April 1919, numbered 36 bombs, they were intended to be delivered on May Day (Communist Workers holiday). Half were not delivered to insufficient postage. Only one other detonated when a Georgia Senator's housekeeper opened the package, she's was horribly injured. No boy on a bike was blown up as the movie shows. On June 2 1919, eight 25lb dynamite and shrapnel bombs were blown up simultaneously. Addressees included government officials who had endorsed anti-sedition laws and deportation of immigrants suspected of crimes or associated with illegal movements, as well as judges who had sentenced anarchists to prison. These bombs only succeed in killing a night watchman. The film doesn't mention the 1910 bombing of the LA Times, which is actually the first terror bombing in the US, not the 1920 bombing of Wall Street, another deliberate lie in the film. The way they try to show that they were struggling workers all innocent of attempting to kill officials and some corporate board members is just sad. The attempt at making the two robbers look heroic giving their speeches at their sentencing is pitiful attempt at communist spin. Modern socio-communist filmmakers ruined what could have been a great factual historic drama. Too bad.

vampiri Well, were to start and what to say, eh? Although only a "user" of IMDb for a measly 2 years I have noticed that many remark on the high marks of certain movies, i.e. No God, No Master and Time Lapse. Furthermore, for my part, I have also seen quite a few movies with odd marks, both overrated and underrated.Sure, movie companies may very well pay persons to write favorable reviews. Some, however, may seem to write bad reviews just for spite towards those over-favorable reviews. Neither type of review is any good.Movie companies I understand, it is, after all, all about the money. But, for crying out loud, write a fair review if you take the time to write one.Plot: set in the 1920s, an honest officer investigates bombings seemingly connected to the political atmosphere during that period.5,9 (8th June 2015) seem high. However, it is not as bad as 1/10, neither as good as 9/10. An average 5/10 is more fitting.Period movies are always interesting, no less so for a historian like me, and always a break from futuristic and contemporary movies.Now, this movie has way too many subplots and characters for its own good. what is worse, none of them has depth, the makers fails to make the viewer root for the hero or feel disgust for the villain. Mainly because there is no real hero or villain. To me this movie feels like a dramatized documentary like Captain Cook: Obsession and Discovery (2007).Hardened actors like Strathairn and Wise try their best, but seem constrained by budget, less good actors and poor writing.The action scenes are very poor at best, especially the man to man fighting scenes.Anti- or pro-Russia propaganda? In my view you may consider both. however, I choose to go for the middle way and root for justice by honest methods.I may seem to crash down on this movie totally, so why 5 out of 10? Well, regardless of genre, I have seen much much worse than this. And it is not all that bad. The setting is believable, i.e. costumes, location- and studio shots. The main plot IS interesting although not fully explored nor masterfully executed.I give it 5 out of 10 because it is a decent attempt to make period movie. it is not the first choice for a Friday night, but it will pass the time, truly a made-for-TV kind of film

frankf-10 OK, I love period pieces and tried to like this one despite the obvious budget constraints of No God, No Master as it moved along, but the no- nuanced presentation of the historical characters made it a task. The simplistic and fiery speech of Galleani (face lit from underneath to emphasize "evil") was a prime example. Flynn in the middle of a melee of activists and cops as his boss (who instigated the fight) looks on passively, is another. Say what you will about baddie Palmer, he seemed to have an awful lot of patience with the uncooperative Flynn.Just taking it as a movie - a "work of art" as opposed to reportage - it failed to satisfy. The all too many plot lines were hard to follow and hard to buy into. The "romance," in particular, was just too cute and convenient and made some of the final scenes pretty screwy. But maybe my attention drifted and I missed some details. Would that I could convince a smart friend to watch this movie and answer my questions, because I am befuddled and left to wonder...Why was the boy taken?What are we supposed to conclude when Flynn finds Louise Berger living in a nice apartment, rather than a tenement hovel?Is Flynn partially blind? If not, how come such a brilliant couldn't see the car following him during his ride in the country?How did agent Swanson beat him to the hideout? Who the !#!!^>< is agent Swanson?Why was the boy in the barn? Are the anarchist bad guys also pedophiles?If Flynn is such a liberal and is so disgusted by Palmer's actions, why doesn't he want to talk to the press when the boss first makes the offer?Why in blazes was the boy in the barn?

demiurgiac Started out look'n pretty good, then went from bad to worse. All the same old liberal narrative about the rich bad guys and the poor good guys, in this case immigrants (sound familiar?). Any kind of movie that attempt to persuade politically, to be any good, has to do it with some measure of finesse, you know, so you don't even know your being persuaded. One gets the feeling right away that there is very little depth to the movie as we watch our main protagonist start out with a resolve to track down the bad guys only to learn (according to this narrative) they aren't the bad guys at all. (Example: When a rich guy makes reference to his front lawn 'our guy' replies 'I wouldn't know, I have never had a front lawn. (Message? America is a really bad unfair place.) This movie is soooo heavy handed. Example: To show how our main 'poor guy' couldn't be guilty, they take the time to show that he like children and kitties... well, I imagine Hitler and Stalin did too.