Wonderful character development!

Good start, but then it gets ruined

The storyline feels a little thin and moth-eaten in parts but this sequel is plenty of fun.

Close shines in drama with strong language, adult themes.

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

So Many Historical Headlines to Cover, so Little Time, and so Little Money to make the Movie. The Story of Palmer's Raids, the Attorney General's Attempt in 1919 to Mass Deport Thousands of Immigrants before such a Thing was made Illegal, is a Story that is just too Enormous to Tell in Ninety Minutes.Add to that the Backstory of Fat Cat Indifference and down right Worker Oppression is Given some Screen Time but again is Light on Detail and Heavy of Speechifying. But if this Little Movie can do Anything it can Draw Attention to a somewhat Forgotten Time and Place in America's Early Twentieth Century History and might Propel Folks to do some Research.The Subject matter and the Situation has Not Lost any of its Relevance and can be Seen as a Mirror to Things that matter just as Much Today. It is an Engrossing Story and is Played Well enough to Entertain as well as Enlighten. This was a Time when Workers were Definitely Exploited and Sought Collective Bargaining. It Must Also be Said that the Workers were Being Exploited from All Sides and there was Blood on Everybody's Hands.Worth a Watch for its Historical Relevance and as a Primer for more Investigation into the Struggles of the Time and a Sordid Situation that can Never be Forgotten, Lest We Repeat. Oh, Wait, We Have. So that makes this Movie even more Important.

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?

Obviously this movie is made by someone with a great love for the Italian community, or rather what was the Italian community during the years of emigration in early 20th century, who are now integrated citizens and part of the USA. Just like the Irish, who came before. And everybody else, who followed. The USA is founded on emigration. On people coming to USA to seek their fortune and thus providing the labour, on which the modern age was build. That's a lot of eyes, but unfortunately the stories told from those days are mostly the same, and in the same historic perspective.This movie narrows the focus to depict a fragment of the battle to define exactly what democracy is - and who gets to define it. Labour unions are at the forefront of this battle, recognising the oppression that makes a few people very rich and powerful enough to bend the government. For example the banker J.D. Rockefeller, who was able to call in national guards to terrorize and kill his striking miners, who were kept under slave-like conditions. One can never see the whole of a story, without losing important details. But "No God, no master" manages very well, I believe, to show how both the powerful and the powerless are only just people, and how bridges of understanding can be build through simple acts of diligence and kindness. Besides being presented with a less knows aspect of the story of how the nation was build, I loved the feeling of being "back then". Indie movies can't recreate and build fake streets, but rather than resorting to CGI like many Indie movies (and over-funded movies too - neither with quite satisfactory results) No God, No master makes do with camera angles, select streets and plain good storytelling in frames to create the illusion of streets from a 100 years ago. My only critique was a tendency to take "tension music" right to the edge. I would say this was unnecessary as the plot was sufficient to keep me interested and leaning forward. All in all a decent movie I have no problems recommending. 7/10 for just making a good movie.