Very disappointing...

Good movie but grossly overrated

It’s not bad or unwatchable but despite the amplitude of the spectacle, the end result is underwhelming.

The film's masterful storytelling did its job. The message was clear. No need to overdo.

Things don't go so well for Paul. He didn't manage to get a job, his mother is ill and he doesn't have money for medication and he still lives with his parents. Troubles is his life has made him to do an extreme thing and together with two friends kidnaps three rich students and demands a ransom from their father in order to release them. But the plan is not going how they planned because one of the prisoners dies and the rest manage to escape. The fathers of the three are at a mansion taking a break to relax but one of them is late so this is the reason why he's don is shoot, it could not ensure the kidnapper that he will pay him the money. The two are able to reach their parents but also one of the guys involved who has his own plans to escape clean even if this means to betray his friends.The Entitled is an amateur movie in witch three inexperienced teens put up a plan beyond their powers and also this is the reason why it never worked. So, they keep them bound in the basement and instead of guarding them what are they doing? Playing on Playstation. Wow this is awesome. Also the girl that shoots that guy with a shotgun? That kind of weapon is not easy to handle but she had a very good accuracy and precision in her shot. Another Wow. And the three fathers didn't have so much responsibility since they never left the house, didn't contact the police, all they had to do is seat on the couch, wait for the telephone to ring, answer and write an account number and again to wait...but wait did I tell you already that this movie is idiotic?

Paul is a dis-likable young man with a plan. His mother can't afford her medication (doesn't Canada have nationalized heath care?) and they're repossessing her house. He needs money right away. He hatches a complex kidnapping plan which is supposed to be brilliant, but which is, in fact, fairly stupid. Only the intervention of the script writers allows this plan to succeed in the end. *SPOILERS*Paul recruits two psychopathic morons to assist him in his crime. Together they kidnap three adult children of some rather shady rich guys and demand a million from each parent be transferred to an offshore account. The old rich guys are obviously corrupt, though what business they're in isn't clear. These old miscreants are played by some well-known and accomplished actors, but the actors playing the young kidnappers are not so good. Anyway, as criminals they continue to make stupid mistakes, leaving fingerprints, making calls and just doing stupid things. Other reviews here have listed some of the blunders these idiots make which in the real world would land them in prison in a New York minute. Our protagonist doesn't intend for his accomplices to come out of it alive and he kills one of them personally. The girl accomplice gets kicked to death by the boy accomplice for no reason except he's a homicidal maniac. Among other contradictions is the improbability that two escaped hostages would be able to hike several miles through dense woods at night or that the ill-fated sidekicks would be able to track them. Then we come to a hole in the plot big enough to drive a minor asteroid through: after money has been transferred to the offshore account Paul calls up the fathers and tells them their children are free (actually one is already dead and two have escaped) and just not to make any phone calls or answer the phone for the next hour or so. So the dim-witted dads just sit there and don't answer the phone for the next hour as the surviving children desperately attempt to call. And of course they don't phone the police. What? These guys are supposed to be smart, though crooked, businessmen. Doesn't it occur to them that there's no possible way the kidnapper could know if they're using the phone? They don't even look at caller ID to see who's calling them! This is almost a credible thriller, if you park your brain at the door, but the ending is abysmal. Paul, the mastermind of the kidnapping, is supposed to be the entitled one, you see. He deserves the money because rich guys are always corrupt and he needs it more than they do. So in the end he gets away with 2 million and he's supposed to be the hero because he had such a smart plan. He only committed enough felonies to get life in prison. He murdered his friend and engineered a kidnapping, but he's supposed to be the hero, despite the fact that's he's an extremely unlikable pratt. Somebody in these review pages suggested that this was a right-wing scenario. Nothing could be further from the truth. This is pure leftist, entitled generation, narcissistic nonsense. "Occupiers" will love it because it sticks it to the rich guys, I mean, Paul represents the 99%, one of the liberals' beloved victims who isn't doing it out of greed but to obtain justice for his ailing mom and see that the rich bastards pay their fair share. Isn't 'social justice' what it's all about?

This film is a huge disappointment. I was looking forward to it, reading critiques about how un-Hollywood this film was. The truth is, the scenario is so weak it isn't even funny.You plan on getting a USD 3 million ransom so who do you take to help you? Of course 2 dumb losers. And as a loser how dumb do you have to be to not question you being chosen for a 3 million dollar high risk kidnapping?Then you go on kidnapping people but of course without mask it's way better this way. It is certainly not telling your hostages that you intend to kill them in the end.You then expect the money to be wired in a few hours but of course this doesn't mean someone should guard the hostages: a million dollar an hour certainly is too low a compensation. Let's play video games very loudly instead so as not to hear anything.And when the leader is going to talk with the hostages he is wearing a mask but this doesn't surprise his 2 associates who were mask-less from start to finish? Nothing ticks in their minds that something could be fishy?And why not kill a hostage while being on the phone negotiating the ransom? Why not let the killed hostage where he is and not move it away from the other two? Also of course a shot in this neighborhood is very common and no one will call the police telling them they heard a gun shot.Why not being so dumb a leader that you allow the killer woman associate to wander as she wants? And sure she's got to taunt the 2 remaining hostages and explain the plan from a to z. because they're worth it. This smells like a bad scenario trying to insert a weak justification for later and of course it is.The money is finally wired and received, your leader tells you to meet him at a gas station (why not at the house you might ask) and let the hostages go. As 2 associates whose faces were never hidden you are happy to let the hostages go because the money was wired? You don't for a single moment fear the hostages will recognize you and you'd better kill them before? You don't ask yourself why the leader would come with such an order?But then your gun has fake bullets because your leader doesn't trust you. He did when you killed an hostage but not anymore. So he probably stealthily changed the bullets in front of everybody. Also in the forest as 2 hostages against a kidnapper without bullets you don't try to fight? And as an associate who hates rich kids and just understand you had fake bullets, you don't try to catch the kids or at least one of them and inflict maximum pain & kill? Or is it only possible to kill someone with bullets?It turns out the leader planned all along to kill the two antisocial dumb associates and planned the whole thing with his father, a majordomo to the rich people whose kids are hostages. The leader after explaining everything to his associate (to show how the screen writer was smart)shoots said associate point blank between the 2 eyes because it's the easiest way not to get blood on himself and also because people who want to suicide generally aim between their eyes.And now we discover even more incoherences. Why could the hostages escape through the forest? Why didn't they just run to the nearest neighbor especially when the kid knows the neighborhood so well because it turns out he was kidnapped in his father's home? The sub-story with the laptop that could explode isn't believable and even if it did, it wouldn't explain why the kidnappers wouldn't remotely explode it if the hostages escaped.The story with the leader coming to the ransomed's house doesn't add up either. If the wife really did worry after her husband, why did she not call? When the police analyzes the crime it won't be difficult to check that the wife neither called the house nor called his son to tell him she was worried after her husband but also to check that the son did call the ransomed. The leader will then have to explain why he lied and why he called the ransomed. He will also have to explain what he was doing at the gas station. And how he could hit an armed man and escape without the slightest scratch and why the armed man decided to commit suicide after that instead of running for his life.Finally checking many time the bank account status per internet makes it very difficult to locate the ransomer does it not?

The Entitled began well, with excellent cinematography helped by some aerial shots for the opening.The characters are all, unfortunately, written very shallowly, with almost no information provided beyond what is seen on screen.The plot concerns a young man, Paul, who is seen at the beginning struggling to get a job (even though he is perfectly qualified) and providing for his ill mother.Very quickly, the movie introduces Paul's plot to kidnap the silver-spoon-fed children of a trio of rich men. He himself looks like the rich men's children (college age, attractive, great hair), but apparently without the money.His accomplices are another college-age guy and girl. One seems to be his girlfriend (who doesn't seem to be his type) and the other is a Columbine-killer type.The movie begins to fail very quickly once the three young people are kidnapped. The main kidnapper is portrayed as very detail-oriented and together, very purposeful, but he makes mistake after mistake that drive the rest of the story, making it very contrived.SPOILERS FOLLOW The main kidnapper, Paul, is describes as very detail-oriented and his plot is intricate and involves a bit of preparation, but once the plot begins, he sits around letting things happen which threaten his success unnecessarily.His two cohorts are unstable, which he purposely knows, but he makes almost no effort to stop them from doing things to screw things up. Some of this unstable behavior turns out to have been acceptable, but there are some things that they do that he couldn't have foreseen but are played off as being foreseen by him.For example, he tells his Goth cohorts that there is an explosive device at the location where the fathers of his kidnap victims are waiting for the return of their kids. His goth girlfriend sneaks down to where the 3 kids are being held and tells them of this. Later it turns out that there is no such explosive device. 2 of the kidnapped kids escape (because -- duh -- no one was watching them) and make a bee-line for where the parents are waiting to warn them of the impending detonation. This beeline keeps them off the road so that they don't see the main kidnapper driving on the road. SO -- we are expected to buy that Paul planned on lying to his cohorts about the device knowing that they will spill its existence to the kidnappees, knowing that they will escape with enough time to hope to get to their parents' location, knowing that they will have to go through through the forest because they don't have time to follow the road and get their in time, knowing that it will keep them from seeing him escape... but none of it mattering because there really was no explosive device and if they had just been kept locked up there would have been no need for the subterfuge.Paul makes a point of giving his male cohort a 9mm with blanks, knowing that he would be trigger-happy. All of this is played off as having been part of his plan, that the intended to blame all of what happened on the two cohorts. But it is beyond intelligent belief to accept that he would have planned everything will so many details relying on the out-of-control behavior of the other two.The kidnapping is effected by the girl standing in the middle of the road. Coming up on a girl standing threateningly in the middle of the road, the driver is, of course, inclined to stop his car and walk up to her, allowing the Columbine-type guy to "surprise" him with the shotgun (wait, wasn't he NOT supposed to have been given a gun with real ammo?) The 3 kids are taken to the mountain home of one of the other rich parents, which is just 2 miles from where the rich parents are staying in the other mountain home. They are put in a storage space beneath the house. They are tied up and basically NOT WATCHED. Occasional visits are made to them to provide proof of life and to intimidate them.The kidnappers spend their time staring at an unchanging computer screen and playing violent First-Person Shooter video games. NO ONE is tasked with watching to make sure their kidnap victims do not escape.Paul knows that his two accomplices are mentally unhinged, and makes a point of loading blanks into the pistol he gives the guy, but the guy at other times has the shotgun that IS properly loaded, and Paul hands the shotgun to the girl who promptly kills one of the hostages with it. For such a prepared plan, it reeks of poor planning, yet such a glaring plot hole drives the story forward.He has given a pistol loaded with blanks to the other cohort. Later, when he tries to shoot one of the hostages with the gun, the man falls back as if hit but then gets up and runs away. He could have killed someone with it not realizing it was loaded with blanks by pressing it against their body or head. It simply should have been loaded with dummy rounds, which don't have any explosive force.There are other numerous dangling plot points and unanswered questions.END OF SPOILERS For a film that looks as good as it does on screen, and with good performances from the actors (although the kidnap victims are severely underutilized, especially Laura Vandervoort) it is decidedly disappointing that the story fails completely. With a running time of 1 hour, 25 minutes (without the end credits), there was ample time to flesh out the characters and fix the numerous plot holes. It seems to come down to lazy story-telling in the end.The end result is a bad film, not worth watching.