source: No God, No Master

Valiant attempt to a portrait of class struggle, government corruption and alliance with industrialists, radicalization of workers against inhumane labor conditions. interesting weaving of the scapegoating of sacco and vanzetti. dangerous portrayal of luigi galleani, who the director accuses of collaborationism with the palmer administration. why assign the role of traitor to a historical character who was certainly an extremist, but not a collaborationist? there's no doubt infiltrators were active and successful, but galleani is too famous to be so grossly misrepresented. also, the music-->unbearable

As I've read this film was made in 2009 and coundn't found a distributor for a longer time, a five years. It's not surprising at all, because it shows the system how it was, and actually how it is today. Also, it shows the historical figures of USA, as were J. Edgar Hoover and Mitchell Palmer, and the real picture of the Democratic Party, mostly financially supported by Rockefeller. At the end we can read conclusion what happened and what are some intentions to be done, and to be honest, it makes sense. David Strathairn's portrayal of anarchy fighting detective, William J. Flynn, is good, but for that role it would be better that he got some weight.

Oh my dog this one tops all of the others. Amalgamation of a lot of the anarchist history of the 1910's and 1920's in a same plot including Emma Goldman, Sacco & Vanzetti, the palmer raids, Hoover's files, the IWW, and insurrectionary advocate Luigi Galeani as the bad guy, as well as John Rockefeller, in an italian looking new york city of the time. Folks playing bocce, everyone speaks italian and the buildings look rather mediterranean. The story is all mixed up though, but revolves around the sending of bombs through the mail to the doorsteps of many conservatives and capitalists. It turns out these people are part of an organisation who wants to further control the american population and restrict immigration and are using the "anarchist" threat in order to do so. to pick one of the problems of the movie, the protagonist is william flynn, whose nickname was "the anarchist hunter", and plays the role of the good cop...

This is not an action pack movie. It is somewhat of a documentary of a part of history. History is not pretty and laced with the making of a star studded movie. I haven't really seen much about the Italian heritage. It is interesting to see what the early immigrants had to go through. There were spots in the movie that were a bit slow and could have had improvement. But I am sure the movie was made to explain history. I live in Milwaukee where much of the film was made. It was fun watching it from a distant. I remember that summer. The actors were lucky we had such nice weather. Around here the seasons are pretty erratic. I talked to one of the stagehands and it was interesting. Glad I finally got a chance to see it. I have been looking for it ever since I viewed it being made. David Stratharin is a great actor. I feel he hasn't gotten the praise that he should get. I have seen him in many movies. Again he did a great job in this movie making it believable. I really like Sam Witwer and think he will be a good actor. Love him in "Human Beings."

I'm not going to research who was behind the making of this movie but it appears to me they are showing that people like Rockefeller, Morgan, Carnegie, and their ilk, along with one of the craziest, most corrupt man in our history, ol J. Edgar himself, were perpetrators of the biggest mass theft and suppression in the history of the world. Thank goodness this movie is speaking up for the have nots. And, this was also the beginning of the police being the protectorate of the "good" white folk vs. those "immigrants.", or darker skinned folks. Which side are you on. That prob depends on whether you like this movie or not.

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.

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

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?

This movie started off with a bang , and we have crack FBI agent Flynn investigating a bomb in 1920 New England. Strathairn is always fun to watch, and is utterly convincing, but why he took this insulting script is beyond me. The film quickly devolves into "big bad businessmen vs little immigrant worker" propaganda of the sappiest kind. Set pieces and the lead character's side romance with his neighbor Conchetta (the Irish gets together with the Italians)are fine, as is the casting (with the exception of Flynn's young wooden protege, also an "Italiano"). The direction and pacing are also good. The film bravely insinuates (in)famous anarchists such as Emma Goldman and Sacco and Vanzetti. But the script moves away from detectivework and finding the culprits (there is very little detail given, to preaching about the dangers of nativism, and treats the anarchists as one-dimensional heroes, instead of the violent murderers they very possibly were, which I found insulting and spoiled the movie. Don't expect a detective movie; expect a cringey sermon.