Watch Rancid For Free

Strong and Moving!

Excellent adaptation.

if their story seems completely bonkers, almost like a feverish work of fiction, you ain't heard nothing yet.

It is encouraging that the film ends so strongly.Otherwise, it wouldn't have been a particularly memorable film

I am tired of seeing cutie-pie-guys who never comb their hair and have a see-thru beard. Matthew Settle (leading actor): of course is also a slob: with a messy apartment, dirty dishes, and who drinks instant coffee. But the teenyboppers will love him.Now you've got to amplify his character by making him a loser (and with bad dialogue; trying to make good on sentences like: puke on the floor, and, hole in the head). He's a goof who has previously expressed to people that he desires to be a writer, but when his past friends inquire about his progress, (6 years later), he covers up about still being on page one.Page one!Yes … page one is revealed by a former girlfriend, now extramarital affair partner, making this viewer wonder if he is … who knows … maybe a chronic masturbator because of his lack of writing?This movie could be considered as a learning film for the young just to show them an imbecile adult. With a good example being when he destroys valuable glass figurines from a mantle in a playful way; probably in order to put the blame on someone else for his own ineptness. Although he does accept blame when he and his former girlfriend talk about the abortion that he failed to do correctly several years before, resulting in her inability to have children in future attempts. Nevertheless, they deem their screw-ups as minor compared to the millionaire husband, who gets condemned for just making some illegal business ventures, and for slapping his unfaithful conniving wife.So now we've got an immature woman involved, only caring about money, revenge, and participating in the two (yes two) affairs she's involved with. And you will see Mr. Inept parking right in front of the house he wants to enter to commit murder, along with seeing him mosey to an entrance while security guards are patrolling the grounds.Lots more take place; which includes detectives: one of which is an old buddy of the inept writer, and who has a great deal of problems himself. That detective (Patrik Ersgard) was sort of okay. I did like the millionaire, Currie Graham. And if you can manage to gruel out Mr. inept writer's disposition, you can actually see a decent story take place - WITH A FEW UNEXPECTED TURN OF EVENTS.

I wanted to watch this movie, because I'm European and was anticipating a real avant-guard thriller. No frills, no special effects just some good film making. I was shocked, it was wooden and the camera zoom became just annoying in the end. The acting was light, the character development ? let me say I didn't find it. The plot was so empty, the 'bad' guy never got a chance to rise above his stereotype, the 'good' guy was so weak and the 'twist' so clumsily enacted. Well what can I say, there are no spoilers because the movie spoils itself. A ill managed collage of bad dialogue, weakly acted, strung together with an amateur plot and directed by someone who should better stick to 'home movies'. It cannot get any worse.

Rancid is an average thriller with a quite good story. There's not anything that's really bad with this movie, rather it's that nothing is quite great. As someone said, you're left with a small feeling of nothing. Now, this can be said of thousands of Hollywood films, too. The reason why they get a higher score is probably because they got a cast that's more mainstream and probably some cool action scene! The performance in Rancid is good. Well-casted and well-acted. Matthew Settle, Fay Masterson, Currie Graham and Patrik Ersgård are all doing a good job. Personally, I think Patrik Ersgårds character and acting lifts the movie a bit. Michael Wiseman and Siena Goines are the weaker links in this chain. The characters are interesting enough.The dialog is without marks, actually quite good I'd say. The movie is rather fast-paced, compared to most Hollywood-thrillers. The editing is so-so. Music and overall "look and feel" is about average.There's no reason to choose another thriller over this one. It feels authentic, and maybe that's the downside to it? It's just not enough "Hollywood" to give you that adrenaline. Personally, I prefer Rancid over any action-packed thriller. And that feeling of nothing I mentioned? Well, it's not a feeling of bad, is it? Go see it, rent it or whatever. It's worth it, if only to rest your eyes from all mainstream actors! 7/10

I saw this film at it's world premier on the Stockholm International Film Festival 2004. It's a Swedish film made in English with (mostly) American actors, funded and produced in Sweden and (despite the New York-setting) mostly shot in Sweden as well. For me this was an incentive in seeing the film as i am always curious when it comes to Swedish film (even though it continually offers mostly disappointments).The film is about a writer who has trouble with his inspiration ever since his loved one abandoned him for his school-time antagonist. Now there is a class reunion coming up and it seems he has a chance at getting her back, but nothing is what it seems and things soon spiral out of control.Many times when i review films i think about what is actually worse: hating a film or feeling nothing at all about it. Because movies you loathe still had something that at least made you feel strongly about it one way or the other. Some films just don't have that, you don't really think they are that bad, but they're not really that good either. And Rancid is definitely one of those films.Technically Rancid is well made. It's about as good looking a Swedish film as i have ever seen. The production values are high at the, in Hollywood terms, quite meager budget of $6 million. Among the cast there is one actor that really stands out. Matthew Settle really does a nice job in the lead and actually manages to lift the film a notch in my eyes.The story is where i have a problem with this film. It simply doesn't grab a hold of you. I felt uninterested in most of the characters and their problems. Also the story felt rushed and some of the time spent with flowing overhead shots of New York could instead have been spent on making the script more cohesive. More background and more elaborated explanations on why the characters acted the way they did would have helped considerably. The way things happen now you can never really predict anyones actions, which is a bad thing since it makes the characters a lot less believable.So is this bad? Not really. Is it good? Not really that either. This is simply one of those films that i don't feel very strongly about one way or the other. Watch it if you feel another "innocent-man-accused-of-murder"/cop-thriller is what you need. I rate it 4/10.