Imperium

2016

Action / Crime / Drama / Thriller

189
Rotten Tomatoes Critics - Certified Fresh 82%
Rotten Tomatoes Audience - Upright 66%
IMDb Rating 6.5 10 34685

Synopsis


Uploaded By: FREEMAN
Downloaded 61,711 times
October 20, 2016 at 11:44 AM

Cast

Daniel Radcliffe as Nate Foster
Burn Gorman as Morgan
Toni Collette as Angela Zamparo
Nestor Carbonell as Tom Hernandez
720p.BLU 1080p.BLU
803.24 MB
1280*534
English
R
23.976 fps
1hr 49 min
P/S 0 / 21
1.66 GB
1920*800
English
R
23.976 fps
1hr 49 min
P/S 4 / 16

Movie Reviews

Reviewed by SnoopyStyle 7 / 10

Radcliffe surprising

Nate Foster (Daniel Radcliffe) is an empathetic nerdy FBI agent. Agent Angela Zamparo (Toni Collette) recruits him to infiltrate white supremacists suspected of importing stolen caesium. The prime target is internet radio host Dallas Wolf. Nate tries to connect through local leader Vince Sargent. He also connects with Aryan militia leader Andrew Blackwell and seemingly suburban family man Gerry Conway.

Infiltration movie can be quite intense. The oddity in this one is Radcliffe. He is not the usual muscle-bound emotional-cripple with whom these movies traffics in. He is a nerd. That's what is so interesting in the movie. It's actually fascinating that these characters don't see him coming and I buy it. I also like that Gerry Conway is actually smart and the movie has a variety of white supremacists. There are a couple of false steps later on in the movie which keeps it from going all the way to the top. Nevertheless, this is good.

Reviewed by WubsTheFadger 7 / 10

Imperium

Short and Simple Review by WubsTheFadger

The story is very intriguing and had many high points. Imperium does a great job at putting us into the world of supremacists and fascists.

The acting overall is okay. Daniel Radcliffe delivers some dry lines but is the best part of the film. Sam Trammell gives a good performance as a well read, smart and intelligent man. Toni Collette and Tracy Letts give the worst performances. They are both very dry and have weak characters.

The pacing is a little slow at the beginning, but the it is needed in order to develop Daniel Radcliffe's character.

The runtime is neither too long or too short which is great.

The editing in this film is at times a little wacky. The scene cuts come out of nowhere and seem forced.

Pros: Intriguing story, Radcliffe's performance, and a perfect runtime

Cons: Some dry performances, some wacky editing, and slow pacing in the beginning of the film

Overall Rating: 7.0

P.S. If you enjoyed this film, you might enjoy American History X and The Believer. Both of these films deal with white supremacy. American History X is one of my all-time favorite films.

Reviewed by Arthur_Desmond 2 / 10

Surprisingly mediocre

This film deals with a very pertinent and rabidly current subject matter, at a time when populist nationalism appears to be in vogue in American politics like never before. It features good actors, has an interesting soundtrack and a reasonable budget.

And yet, in spite of these promising prospects, the result could not be more disappointing.

Daniel Radcliffe seems like a fish out of water, awkwardly struggling with what should be easy acting material and proving that casting him was not an interesting, if unorthodox choice, but a mistake altogether. Not only does he look like the unlikeliest of skinheads, or FBI agents for that matter (with his small, fragile frame and his nervous demeanor), but his acting is insecure and lazy, and his chemistry with Toni Colette is next to nonexistent.

The handling of the subject itself is half-baked, simplistic and full of clich├ęs. It ticks all the requisite boxes that it deems necessary, but it does so with disciplined half-heartedness, almost as if it were a moral obligation and little else. A minority of white supremacists are intelligent enough to have a higher education and (partly) blend in with a "civilized" mainstream? Check. Fascism is fueled to a large extent by inferiority complex? Check. Radio hosts, preachers, soapbox populists and other manufacturers of consent are usually media-savvy narcissists who don't truly believe their own hogwash? Check. Nothing new.

Character development is haphazard and leads to awkward situations. A few characters are (rightly) suspicious of the protagonist's motives, only to discard said suspicions with equal celerity, for no apparent reason. Said protagonist's unexpected friendship with one of the supporting characters could be an interesting plot development in theory, but its treatment in practice is wholly inadequate, overdeveloped and at times, strangely, borderline homoerotic--which is not good or bad in itself, but is probably far removed from the screenwriter's original intention.

This is not a good film. It lacks intelligence and cynicism and it barks without a bite. Absolutely uninspired from every point of view. A film with this subject matter can never have a happy ending and expect to be taken seriously.

Read more IMDb reviews

96 Comments

Be the first to leave a comment