mickharry 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.

John Raymond Peterson 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.

bastiaan0740 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.

diggus doggus 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.