Buy The Entitled Movie. Watch online or Download
Genres: Thril
Starring: Laura Vandervoort, Ray Liotta, Dustin Milligan, Victor Garber, Tatiana Maslany, Stephen McHattie, Kevin Zegers
Director(s): Aaron Woodley
Available Quality: Hi Def
Country: Canada
Year: 2011
Available Quality: iPod, Hi Def, Hi Def
IMDB Rating: 6.2 out of 10 (2082 votes)
Paul Dynans life is turned upside down when he decides to kidnap three young socialites and hold them ransom to save his family. Things spiral out of control when his psychotic partners get trigger happy and his victims come with their own surprises. When blood is shed and his perfect plan goes horribly wrong, Dynan must fight to stay one step ahead of his own twisted game.
 |
The Entitled (iPod) | Resolution: 480x208 px | Total Size: 233 Mb |
|
|
 |
The Entitled (Hi Def) | Resolution: 852x352 px | Total Size: 384 Mb |
|
|
 |
The Entitled (Hi Def) | Resolution: 1920x800 px | Total Size: 6707 Mb |
|
Movie Photos:
We have taken some photos of "The Entitled". They represent actual movie quality.
Visitors Review
innocuous (20 May 2012)
Much better than your typical indie.
This is a worthwhile movie. The story is clever, the dialogue isinteresting, and the acting is way above average for an indie film.Liotta and McHattie really make the film work and you wish that youcould see more of them. Some of the story is telegraphed early in thefilm, but it still takes a few unforeseen turns. I was reminded of"Brick." The only reason that I didn't give this 8 or 9 stars is thatthere were a few "clang" moments when things didn't ring true or thereseemed to be continuity errors. For example, when one of the maincharacters, who has been fastidious about wearing gloves to avoidleaving fingerprints, suddenly decides to handle several hard plasticitems while he's not wearing gloves and then leaves them at the crimescene. Perhaps he went back to get them, or wiped them clean, but wedon't see him do either one and the lack of concern seems startlinglyout of place in an otherwise well-planned crime.Give it a try. I think you'll enjoy it.
troy-manatunga (17 May 2012)
Smart!
Paul, Jenna and unstable Dean are busy in conjuring up a devious planto make some fast cash. Paul, Jenna and Dean who are not even close tobeing rich as Jeff, Nick and Hailey manage to kidnap the lattermentioned trio and hold them up for ransom at Nick's dads holiday homein the countryside. Richard, Clifford and Bob the rich business tycoondads of the victims are taken by surprise when they receive a ransomcall about their abducted teenage kids. Richard and Clifford are theonly ones around when Paul call them up and make demands for 3 millionsUSD for the safety of their children. Bob is never punctual. Today hisbad habit results in Jenna shooting down his son Jeff. The moneytransfer would be a walk in the park we think since the families arerich; however this does not turn out to be so. Richard runs short andis unable to fund the cash and neither is Clifford able to help sincehe uses his cash reserves for his part of the payment of the ransom.Their only hope is Bob who turns up late. Bobs son is already dead; howwill he handle this news? Will he help his long time friends? Or willthe children suffer the ill fate of death?Canadian director Aaron Woodley does a great job with this script.Although a common plot, a movie that is thoroughly enjoyable if youappreciate the newbie cast with the exception of Ray Liotta and VictorGaber. Newbie does not necessarily imply that the cast is in theirdebut production. However it implies that they are not Matt Damon,Gwyneth Paltrow and Kate Winslet. My passion for Ray Liottas work mademe stumble upon this limited budget Canadian production; THE ENTITLED.I am hoping that my piece along with many others who have written onthis movie aid her to reach out to viewers who don't watch movieswithout a star cast. In fact I just did watch a movie with a star castthat was not as entertaining as THE ENTITLED; however she is morewidely accepted. What if the cast of THE ENTITLED is interchanged withCONTAGION? Both movies would have made the news. Instead only one does.Woodley's direction and the resources he uses work for him at times andon the other hand do not work at all. The areal angled footage of thedrive to the woods, the pleasant scenery and the gloomy lake house setsthe perfect tone for the perfect thriller. Kevin Zegers convincing andprecision performance that is supported by Devon Bostick all gels inalarmingly well for quite new faces. The veterans across on the end ofthe forest are equally doing well with Ray Liotta, Victor Gaber &Stephen McHatttie. What Woodley misses is what goes on in between the 2locations. No pun intended but what Woodleys misses and loses pointsare the moments in the woods. This sudden drop of the thrills kind ofmakes one wonder if they should continue with the movie any longer. Asmuch as the finale is a surprising treat the climax to it does needmore tweaking and fine tuning. A commercial soundtrack most certainlywould win more points in the right direction. Nothing More Nothing LessTitle: The Entitled Directed by: Aaron Woodley Starring: Kevin Zegers,Devon Bostick, Tatiana Maslany, Stephen McHattie, VIctor Gaber & RayLiotta. Rated: R for language some violence and brief drug use. Rating:6.5/10
Eddie (17 May 2012)
Ridiculous and Disapponting
The Entitled began well, with excellent cinematography helped by someaerial shots for the opening.The characters are all, unfortunately, written very shallowly, withalmost no information provided beyond what is seen on screen.The plot concerns a young man, Paul, who is seen at the beginningstruggling to get a job (even though he is perfectly qualified) andproviding for his ill mother.Very quickly, the movie introduces Paul's plot to kidnap thesilver-spoon-fed children of a trio of rich men. He himself looks likethe rich men's children (college age, attractive, great hair), butapparently without the money.His accomplices are another college-age guy and girl. One seems to behis girlfriend (who doesn't seem to be his type) and the other is aColumbine-killer type.The movie begins to fail very quickly once the three young people arekidnapped. The main kidnapper is portrayed as very detail-oriented andtogether, very purposeful, but he makes mistake after mistake thatdrive the rest of the story, making it very contrived.SPOILERS FOLLOW The main kidnapper, Paul, is describes as verydetail-oriented and his plot is intricate and involves a bit ofpreparation, but once the plot begins, he sits around letting thingshappen which threaten his success unnecessarily.His two cohorts are unstable, which he purposely knows, but he makesalmost no effort to stop them from doing things to screw things up.Some of this unstable behavior turns out to have been acceptable, butthere are some things that they do that he couldn't have foreseen butare played off as being foreseen by him.For example, he tells his Goth cohorts that there is an explosivedevice at the location where the fathers of his kidnap victims arewaiting for the return of their kids. His goth girlfriend sneaks downto where the 3 kids are being held and tells them of this. Later itturns out that there is no such explosive device. 2 of the kidnappedkids escape (because -- duh -- no one was watching them) and make abee-line for where the parents are waiting to warn them of theimpending detonation. This beeline keeps them off the road so that theydon't see the main kidnapper driving on the road. SO -- we are expectedto buy that Paul planned on lying to his cohorts about the deviceknowing that they will spill its existence to the kidnappees, knowingthat they will escape with enough time to hope to get to their parents'location, knowing that they will have to go through through the forestbecause 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 itmattering because there really was no explosive device and if they hadjust been kept locked up there would have been no need for thesubterfuge.Paul makes a point of giving his male cohort a 9mm with blanks, knowingthat he would be trigger-happy. All of this is played off as havingbeen part of his plan, that the intended to blame all of what happenedon the two cohorts. But it is beyond intelligent belief to accept thathe would have planned everything will so many details relying on theout-of-control behavior of the other two.The kidnapping is effected by the girl standing in the middle of theroad. Coming up on a girl standing threateningly in the middle of theroad, the driver is, of course, inclined to stop his car and walk up toher, 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 richparents, which is just 2 miles from where the rich parents are stayingin the other mountain home. They are put in a storage space beneath thehouse. They are tied up and basically NOT WATCHED. Occasional visitsare made to them to provide proof of life and to intimidate them.The kidnappers spend their time staring at an unchanging computerscreen and playing violent First-Person Shooter video games. NO ONE istasked with watching to make sure their kidnap victims do not escape.Paul knows that his two accomplices are mentally unhinged, and makes apoint of loading blanks into the pistol he gives the guy, but the guyat other times has the shotgun that IS properly loaded, and Paul handsthe 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 glaringplot 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 fallsback as if hit but then gets up and runs away. He could have killedsomeone with it not realizing it was loaded with blanks by pressing itagainst their body or head. It simply should have been loaded withdummy 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, andwith good performances from the actors (although the kidnap victims areseverely underutilized, especially Laura Vandervoort) it is decidedlydisappointing that the story fails completely. With a running time of 1hour, 25 minutes (without the end credits), there was ample time toflesh out the characters and fix the numerous plot holes. It seems tocome down to lazy story-telling in the end.The end result is a bad film, not worth watching.
andreaskarlsson185 (07 May 2012)
Watchable but no 'movie of the year'
After seeing the trailer I was super stoked, the trailer was so darkand it looked like it was going to be an amazing movie. The moviestarted off in a little bit of confusion for me, wasn't inchronological at all, which in some movies add suspense and mystery,however it mostly made me confused. Further on in movie I felt that aclassic story like this, the poor jealous against the rich cockypeople, but yet with a little twist. The story in my mind could havemade this movie one of the best this year but yet they came up prettyshort. For the acting, I was extremely surprised about the performance of theformer 'gossip girl'-actor Keven Zegers, he was the one thing that keptthe movie good. He was perfect for the role as the dark yet intelligentconspirator. As for the others I do feel that some of them had anadequate performance but a lot of the times the dialogues seemedstrained. Laura Vandervoort was obviously in it only to play thespoiled, helpless beauty, which was done okay. To sum it up, it was an enjoyable movie, definitely watchable for aregular night but don't expect anything close to 'the movie of theyear' or month for that matter. But I still give it 6, much due to thefundamental story, smartness and yet again surprisingly convincingacting from Zegers.
Tony Heck (07 May 2012)
A good cast, plot & acting make it a good movie, but not great. I liked it a lot, could've been a little better though. I say B+
"I played by the rules. I wanted to play by the rules, but that's thebig lie. It's not enough anymore so maybe, just once, you gotta breakthem...right?" After Paul (Zegers) gets turned down for a job and hissick mom gets a foreclosure notice on the house he becomes desperate.His plan is to kidnap three kids of rich families and hold them for amillion each. When the plan goes wrong he must find a way to stay cleanand get the money. This is a very surprising movie. This is the type ofmovie where you put it because of the cast and end up really enjoyingit. I'm not saying this is an Oscar type movie, but it is veryentertaining and fun to watch. This movie also had an ending that fitthe movie and is one that is hard to totally figure out before thereveal, which makes it that much better. A realistic look at what a kidon the edge can do if he is pushed. Very much worth watching. Overall,a very entertaining thriller that leaves you wondering who to pull for.I liked it a lot. I give it a B+.Would I watch again? - I think I would, to catch clues about theending.*Also try - Endure & Hostage
dusan-22 (02 May 2012)
Good
That was a pretty decent movie. What makes it decent is a combinationof usual Hollywood film that brings you the amusement by the amount ofshock applied and good old drama school. The shocking atmosphere ismostly preserved by certain amount of brutality and twist. As fordrama, I really loved the way the director used the theater stage inthe house were fathers were gathered to imply tension and veryinvolving plot development. Balanced and interacted with the core plotin the movie, it made a very watchable feature film. Also, the moviedoes not bring the usual American picture of good and bad guys, butleaving you think about that yourself. It might be just my impression,but I think that the senior actors were better than junior. I do notsay that the young actors were bad, just acting of the fathers was moresuperb!
Zlik (01 May 2012)
Thumbs up!
"Are you kidding me" ? Ray L. in top form and overall superb acting byevery one else too. I could sit through entire movie, and that issomething. The character development was laid out very nicely. With theopening statements from the lead character, I could see without mucheffort, that perhaps This movie is a "real" down to earth film with thekind of depth most folks can easily consume. Also delivered in alanguage that is easily understood. Somewhat organized dialog butneeded be for the act of justice, in a growing unjust world. Plot- Takeyour dream up a notch and chance it. The well thought out plan has amuch better chance of coming through because , well your worth it.Expect the unexpected too, and also factor it in. As Ray put well inhis business ethics talk in mid movie. We are all getting squeezedanyway. Some Great Flick here! Thanks.
dhenry68 (01 May 2012)
Well done!
What happens when spoiled rich kids go to uni and make enemies? Watchand see! This movie is not a run of the mill rehash like so many putout today. This psychological thriller kept me on the edge of my seatfor its entirety. It tells the story of an average young man and hisfamily struggles. It also shows a bit behind the veil of students withlow/no self esteem, as well as the effects of various social stressorssuch a financial difficulty, jealousy, and the effects of being asocial outcast due to antisocial traits. Hence it provides a plausibleexplanation for the genesis of such evil acts. The plot twist is notone you will see coming! I must admit that the scary part of this movieis in its similarity to real life! Well worth the time to watch thisflick.
gigalocool (30 April 2012)
Wow!
Wow! This movie is going to do well. I kept waiting for the typicalHollywood formula but it never happened. I went into it with mixedexpectations, first I figured it would be another low budget piece ofcrap with an interesting premise, and second I figured it could be anexcellently executed production and script because Ray Liotta neverbacks a movie that he doesn't fully believe in, and I have learned totrust his judgement.My second expectation proved to be correct. This movie really is aglimmer of light in a sea of formulaic garbage. Everything wasaccomplished with the perfectionism I have come to expect from a RayLiotta project. It is both timely and extremely plausible with theoriginality you would expect from a Hollywood that disappeared seventyyears ago.If you are a true fan of cinema like me I highly recommend this movie.
(26 April 2012)
Despite it's downfalls, I would give this a chance.
Overall the plot was quite interesting with numerous twists thrown into keep you attentive. The characters were well portrayed and theacting was where it needed to be. Though there were a few scenes whereemotions came across as forced (this could be my harsh critical viewover-bearing). The storyline was well paced and I didn't feel bored atany point apart from a few noticeable errors in the continuity whichput me off slightly. The small discrepancies in the storyline that,been explained or left out, would have made the film at least a 7/10.The protagonist (Kevin Zegers) for me was the star of the film. Thecharacter was believable and engaging and along with the narration,provided a great deal of insight into the mind of someone on a mission.
jack000-3 (26 April 2012)
100% better than expected!
I watched this film with the fear that I was going to encounter yetanother budget movie thrown together with a loose plot and mediocreacting. Well, needless to say, I was proved wrong on all counts. Thebackground story was built up nicely and the plot laid out for you tosee clearly, but then it twists and makes you think, then twists againmaking you doubt your theories of what is really going on. Liotta,Garber and McHattie were brilliant and worked perfectly together. Iwouldn't mind seeing this trio working together in the future. DustinMilligan was a surprisingly competent and believable actor which was abreath of fresh air as I don't recall ever seeing him in film beforenow. All in all a very good thriller/suspense that kept me entertained.Give it a watch is all I can say, hope this helps!
napierslogs (24 April 2012)
Rich kids, poor kids, their parents, and all their attitudes locked in a house
A group of under-privileged kids starving for money and attention; agroup of over-privileged kids starving for action and attention; agroup of over-privileged adults trying to be content with their currentstate of life. That's "The Entitled." One group wants what the othershave and the others just plain want. If you want an intelligent,thought-out thriller, you've got it.The film starts out a little pedestrian and juvenile with pointlessscenes and then a few scenes continuously pointing out that our mainhero was poor. But as it turns out, those scenes weren't pointless orover-done, you just had to wait until the end to figure it out.Everything contributes to the final result.Our main hero is Paul Dynan (Kevin Zegers) Â broke, jobless, defeated,and almost option-less. A last ditch effort to save his mother andtheir house, he abducts three local rich kids, uses two misfit friendsto torture them, and tries to get money out of their fathers.The brilliant aspects of this film which they did so well were thedifferent relationship dynamics. The group of rich, entitled kidsconsisted of two males and one female. One couple but all three werefriends. The group of poor, angry kids was exactly the same (just minusthe money). The three fathers had the same relationships that theirkids had, just a taller, older version.Continuing in the vein of brilliant relationship dynamics, the plot ofthe kidnapping was propelled forward by how everybody acted withintheir own group. Apparently the key to a successful crime (or notsuccessful) is knowing how all the individuals will act. The key to asuccessful crime thriller is making sure that your characters act ininteresting ways.The lead acting was very impressive, just as I was frequently in awe ofhow impressively smart the turns were in this thriller, I was amazed byhow natural and creepy Zegers could be. Ray Liotta and the two otheractors playing the fathers were equally as arresting.The minor actors couldn't overcome the sometimes awkward and painfuldialogue. Now don't get me wrong, the screenplay by William Morrisey isactually pretty good story-wise, he just doesn't give a good voice tothe over-privileged, entitled rich kids. But then again, who does? Istill think the opening sequences could have been tightened up to helpme realize how important they actually are to the story. But above allelse, "The Entitled" made me think and I like watching films about somecharacters who do think and some characters who don't think. And I'lllet you figure out which groups they belong to.
Bludd (24 April 2012)
Immoral message
If you ignore the message this film has, it is quite enjoyable. Thereis suspense, a few interesting twists and some good performances.However, this all pales in comparison to the film's message.Spoilers incoming: Here we have a smart young man who wants to be oneof the rich elite, but does instead come from a family on the precipiceof poverty due to the mothers illness. Their house is being foreclosedand the protagonist can't get a job he feels he is worthy of.The protagonist then hatches a plan to get rich. He plans to screw overhis "girlfriend" and her friend, two unstable poor people, one an emochick and the other an anarchist. He plans to kidnap the grown childrenof some very rich people and ransom them for millions of dollars.The kidnapping goes smoothly up until the emo chick kills one of thevictims. Then the victims escape and the emo chick and the anarchistboth end up dead; chick killed by the anarchist in a fit of rage aftershe couldn't find escapees and the anarchist by the protagonist tocover his tracks; the anarchist has a history of suicide attempts.So the film ends with the protagonist, a murderer (anarchist),kidnapper and accessory to murder (rich kid, emo chick arguably),scot-free with millions of dollars in hand.Message is basically the right-wing political dream: screw over thepoor and defenceless (the emo chick and the anarchist needed help, butwere instead unscrupulously used in a terrible manner), protect therich (whoops one got killed, that is the real tragedy in this film) andrun grinning to the bank. I hate this film with all my heart. 1/10
mosleh-1 (22 April 2012)
Respectable
Like others have mentioned is not the movie of the year, but it isrespectable. Good director & good story.The acting and the script lack enthusiasm and spark. Fortunately theworst actor gets eliminated early on. I think he was perhaps the son ofthe producer or whoever financed this movie, or made it happen. Thestory has an elegant twist, but the story could have been developedmuch better to make this an excellent suspense movie.The director created enough suspense with what's given in the script,but the fact is that the story needed to be developed more to whereeveryone could be a real suspect. Overall, it's a pretty good moviecompared to what is being produced out there, and considering there arenot any big stars in this movies.
Sil (22 April 2012)
disappointing
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 helpyou? Of course 2 dumb losers. And as a loser how dumb do you have to beto not question you being chosen for a 3 million dollar high riskkidnapping?Then you go on kidnapping people but of course without mask it's waybetter this way. It is certainly not telling your hostages that youintend to kill them in the end.You then expect the money to be wired in a few hours but of course thisdoesn't mean someone should guard the hostages: a million dollar anhour certainly is too low a compensation. Let's play video games veryloudly instead so as not to hear anything.And when the leader is going to talk with the hostages he is wearing amask but this doesn't surprise his 2 associates who were mask-less fromstart to finish? Nothing ticks in their minds that something could befishy?And why not kill a hostage while being on the phone negotiating theransom? Why not let the killed hostage where he is and not move it awayfrom the other two? Also of course a shot in this neighborhood is verycommon and no one will call the police telling them they heard a gunshot.Why not being so dumb a leader that you allow the killer womanassociate to wander as she wants? And sure she's got to taunt the 2remaining hostages and explain the plan from a to z. because they'reworth it. This smells like a bad scenario trying to insert a weakjustification for later and of course it is.The money is finally wired and received, your leader tells you to meethim at a gas station (why not at the house you might ask) and let thehostages go. As 2 associates whose faces were never hidden you arehappy to let the hostages go because the money was wired? You don't fora single moment fear the hostages will recognize you and you'd betterkill them before? You don't ask yourself why the leader would come withsuch an order?But then your gun has fake bullets because your leader doesn't trustyou. He did when you killed an hostage but not anymore. So he probablystealthily changed the bullets in front of everybody. Also in the forest as 2 hostages against a kidnapper without bulletsyou don't try to fight? And as an associate who hates rich kids andjust understand you had fake bullets, you don't try to catch the kidsor at least one of them and inflict maximum pain & kill? Or is it onlypossible to kill someone with bullets?It turns out the leader planned all along to kill the two antisocialdumb associates and planned the whole thing with his father, amajordomo to the rich people whose kids are hostages. The leader afterexplaining everything to his associate (to show how the screen writerwas smart)shoots said associate point blank between the 2 eyes becauseit's the easiest way not to get blood on himself and also becausepeople who want to suicide generally aim between their eyes.And now we discover even more incoherences. Why could the hostagesescape through the forest? Why didn't they just run to the nearestneighbor especially when the kid knows the neighborhood so well becauseit turns out he was kidnapped in his father's home? The sub-story withthe laptop that could explode isn't believable and even if it did, itwouldn't explain why the kidnappers wouldn't remotely explode it if thehostages escaped.The story with the leader coming to the ransomed's house doesn't add upeither. If the wife really did worry after her husband, why did she notcall? When the police analyzes the crime it won't be difficult to checkthat the wife neither called the house nor called his son to tell himshe was worried after her husband but also to check that the son didcall the ransomed. The leader will then have to explain why he lied andwhy he called the ransomed. He will also have to explain what he wasdoing at the gas station. And how he could hit an armed man and escapewithout the slightest scratch and why the armed man decided to commitsuicide after that instead of running for his life.Finally checking many time the bank account status per internet makesit very difficult to locate the ransomer does it not?
scoup (19 April 2012)
Very enjoyable mystery thriller
Entitled takes your basic movie kidnapping ransom plot and freshens itup through good acting, plot twists and accessibility.Excellent casting. Each actor felt natural in their part and with somerestraint to avoid overacting they gel nicely. The first characterdeath is almost welcome due to the annoyance of his behavior.Here's the best part of the movie: As the plot moves along and theviewer watches with anticipation of the stereotypical progression, weare happily dealt nice little twists. No twist is over the top orpushing the limits of belief. A subtle film noir feel is mixed with aneveryman identification.I'd like to see another movie like this one...
vcgraves (18 April 2012)
A New Low...had to fumigate the room after watching this
This "film" is simply awful. The writing stinks, the whole concept isstupid and sadly, totally uninteresting. But that's only half theproblem. It appears as though this was shot with Dad's hand-heldcamcorder he bought from Best Buy last Christmas. Ever heard of atripod? How about a steady cam? And maybe next time you could hire aneditor. The non-clever dialog just runs on and on as Liotta and theother guy trade lines that are so uninspired it seems like they'rereading them off cue cards for the first time, or perhaps just makingthem up as they go along. You can imagine Ray saying to Dad (who'sholding the Sony) "Camcorder rolling? O.K., I'm gonna start yammeringnow. Be sure not to hold the camera too steady!" I beg you, dear IMDbreader, do not rent this movie. It's not worth anywhere near the $1.07I spent at Redbox. I could have bought gum instead, damn!
Review total: 17, showing from 1 to 17