SERIOUSLY. This is what the crap Hollywood still puts out?

Too much about the plot just didn't add up, the writing was bad, some of the scenes were cringey and awkward,

This story has more twists and turns than a second-rate soap opera.

The movie's not perfect, but it sticks the landing of its message. It was engaging - thrilling at times - and I personally thought it was a great time.

The only thing interesting about this film is the plot, which has one innovation: the super-secret, off-the books CIA team is out to protect citizens AGAINST the military-industrial complex! Now there's a new one. Acting and directing are less than convincing. Locations are low- budget. Nothing wrong with that, but I wouldn't say that this is an undiscovered gem. There is one find, however: Russell Friedenberg, who convincingly plays a rough and sinister covert operator . I would like to see more of him. There were enough loose ends to make one think it was intended as a pilot for a series. It has an interesting concept, and a series could work with better direction. We are left wondering whether the "Keepers" are the secret overseers of the CIA detail or the secret, conspiratorial rich guys, who they are trying to get. Anyway, the major bad guy gets away in the end, so it sets up at least a sequel.

This is another of these many, many American clueless action/adventure films but with added terribleness - terrible plot, terrible script, terrible action. This film clearly focuses on the events of 9/11 and how the Echelon group failed to prevent the events of that day.However, everything is done in the style of an actors workshop where the tutor is just off-screen. Sadly, nobody seems to have learned any lessons from the workshop and they just delivered the same performances on film.Being low budget, there are no special effects, which actually is a plus for me, but that means that the film has to be carried by the acting performances that, sadly, universally lack charisma.Unless you know someone involved in this film, or are studying how not to make an action film, you'll want to avoid this film. There's almost nothing to keep you awake long enough to reach the final scene. Doubt that? Here's some scintillating dialogue:A: "I got no choice but to get out of town." B: "If you go under, you'd better go way under." A: "If there was no cover up, and you were wrong, they're still gonna come after you. Even worse, if there was a cover up, they're gonna come after you."With such pith, eloquence, and depth of understanding you know you're in for a treat - if you're a masochist. Please, for the sake of your sanity, avoid this film.

The movie was a bit intriguing, but not exceptional. Non of the actors are very well known and their performances are not outstanding, though I would say they are good enough to keep the story moving. I guess it was the kind of movie that was on a budget, a number of scenes just seem a bit too fake for my tastes.For example, in one scene there are two agents that are shooting at two terrorists who aren't very far away from them; the agents are standing still, and the terrorists are standing still. And yet it takes the agents about 10 attempts with rounds of fire back and forth before they actually take out their objectives. Makes you wonder how well they did their training! They are being portrayed as the best of the best in their field, but for suspense's sake they wind up looking a bit unprofessional. And in another scene, two agents seem to have cornered their objective (a terrorist), but there is a sniper hiding behind them, who eventually shoots at one of the agents as a warning, wounding her in the arm, after which everyone goes on talking things over for another few minutes, as the terrorist warns them "you don't want to do this, or my sniper will take her out" etc. Uhm, if the sniper is behind both of them, and neither one has even turned around to try to take him out, couldn't he just take them both out in a flash instead of chatting away about whether they'll make it or not?This movie has some potential, but would have been so much better if more attention was paid to keeping a more professional, efficient, action-packed portrayal of our heroes. There are ways of creating suspense without making it look fake...

It is 2001. A secret government group is investigating something, and one of the agents has had to abandon his apartment because people were sent there to kill him.It is obvious that before long this movie will reference September 11 in some way. And yes, we see some of the concepts familiar to those who paid attention to the investigation. Someone, for example, wants to learn how to fly but not how to take off or land.Just before that terrible day, our heroes have figured out what is going to happen and are well on their way to stopping it. Early on that morning, they arrive at Boston's Logan Airport all set to stop the perpetrators. One solution would be to stop all flights, which seems impossible, but recall that George W. Bush was able to stop all commercial air traffic in the country a few hours later. But it doesn't matter. An FBI agent ejects our heroes from the building, and we all know what happened then.Ten years later, the team is back together as a unit called Echelon 8. And they have a crisis even bigger than September 11, in terms of the total number of dead, even though it won't all happen at once. If they don't figure out what to do in time, the results will be disastrous. If they do stop the villains this time, they will at least partially redeem themselves for their failure years earlier.There is plenty of excitement, and the potential for dire consequences if they mess up any of the many complicated steps in reaching the goal.It's a pretty standard action thriller, and no one seemed familiar, so I didn't have that as a reason to enjoy the movie. I don't really remember standout performances.But it's an interesting way to pass the time, I suppose.