You must create a Free Account
in order to STREAM or DOWNLOAD this video
Courier X

Courier X

Oct. 22, 2016 138 Min.
Your rating: 0
8.4 1,395 votes

Video trailer



Udo Kier isNathan Vogel
Nathan Vogel
James C. Burns isWalter Broadnax
Walter Broadnax
Bron Boier isTrenlin Polenski
Trenlin Polenski
Richard Gleason isJack Mitchell
Jack Mitchell
Lee Shepherd isJames Hatch
James Hatch
Chris Boas isOliver Wickie
Oliver Wickie
Jay Disney isGary Webb
Gary Webb


A surreptitious smuggler gets solicited by the CIA to help cover-up the Nicaraguan blackmail attempt on the CIA, after the release of “Dark Alliance”, by Pulitzer Prize winning journalist, Gary Webb. – Karl Wachsmann

Original titleCourier X
IMDb Rating5.8 127 votes
TMDb Rating7 1 votes

(8) comments

  • Damian GDecember 23, 2016Reply

    This movie wants to be more

    *** This review may contain spoilers ***

  • BasicLogicDecember 24, 2016Reply

    This is actually a quite watchable film

    with cloak-and-dagger suspense, betrayal and backstabbing, political
    conspiring, shyster-mobster and intertwined human relationship all
    woven and fabricated together, allowing you to know some truth and
    facts behind Iran-Contra scandal during Reagon administration.

    The movie could be much much better, if 1) The script could be more
    condensed, the tempo from scene to scene, setting to setting, locality
    to locality much much faster, 2) with more production budget, 3) a
    better director, 4) more appropriate casting 5) better post-production

    But in real world, this film just turned out to be snail-crawling slow,
    loosely relayed sequence, and boring acting. A film produced in 2016
    couldn’t even catch up the tensed paces like what we saw in ”Three Days
    of the Condor (1975)”. Lot of scenes showed the shortage of limited
    budget. The CIA headquarters just looked like some small company’s
    office, only with several key characters, all worked in tight small
    offices, the CIA director’s office got a staircase that made his office
    looked very funny. The journalist’s scenes, simply looked primitive and
    unrealistic…There are lot of segments that should be paced 300%
    faster, yet simply turned to be like the speed of the locomotive when
    we pioneered from the east to the west coast.

    There’s only one thing that I have to point out: The dialog sometimes
    quite strong and top-notched with depth and cynicism, but due to the
    loose script, the mediocre directing and extremely low budget, making
    this film looked more like adapted from John Le-Carre’s deadbeat boring
    espionage novels. A 2016 movie’s tempo is 1000 times slower than a 1975
    one, an absolutely shame!

  • mallaverackDecember 29, 2016Reply

    A slow cooking espionage thriller

    Unfortunately, I have to agree with the reviews so far written about
    this movie. It seems the budget was fairly limited; the pace of the
    movie was very slow in the main; acting was not of a particularly high
    caliber throughout. However, the pace picked up towards the end making
    this a watchable espionage tale. For those interested in the CIA
    involvement and the implications of criminal activity by a government
    agency, this movie should whet your appetite to perhaps seek out better
    movies/reading material about this period in US history. Still a
    worthwhile production. Two of the characters who made a creditable
    impression were Nathan Volgel and Charles Alexander’ It seems almost
    ironic that the closing credits describe Trenlin as an operative whose
    ability to ”..remain calm in stressful conditions made him a preferred
    ‘contractee’ of the CIA” In all honesty I found this character to be
    almost lacking emotion and maudlin in the extreme.

  • tellyw13January 14, 2017Reply

    Excellent Low-Budget Film

    I thought that this was an excellent movie.

    Acting: The acting could have been lacking in some respects, however, I
    thought that the style of acting and actors used here added to the
    realism of the story (if I can use that word ”realism”). The acting
    seemed, to me, to be more on the natural side of how things would go in
    these sorts of situations.

    Camera-work: Excellent camera work. I didn’t have to steady my eyes on
    any of the scenes because it was moving around too much. The panning
    was fantastic.

    Music: Great music. The fit wasn’t perfect, but, I could see that a
    great deal of effort was put into the music selection.

    Ambiance: I loved it. Many areas of the movie were quiet, which I
    liked. I felt like it let me simply absorb the natural environment and
    focus more on the characters.

    Visual: Great visual appeal, considering that this was what I consider
    to be a ”low budget” film. Did some of the environments look outdated?
    Yeah, I thought so. But, I think that bigger question is, ”does the
    film get its point across to the viewer”? I think that it did. So what
    that the office looked funny. An office is an office, no matter what it
    looks like. Why does there _need_ to be a ”CIA-type” office? Any office
    will do.

    Story: fantastic story. I loved it all. I loved the pace given with the
    movie. I liked the main character’s acting, though, I could see why
    some would call it ”less than stellar”. I especially liked the section
    before the credits that helped to answer some questions.

    Overall, I loved this movie. I think that, for the budget these
    individuals had, that they did a fantastic job. I will always look
    forward to intense and detailed movies such as this. Fantastic job.

  • Steven RootJanuary 20, 2017Reply

    Intense, Intelligent, Intriguing

    Ignorant and Impatient would be the words to describe individuals who
    do not like this movie. Why do I say thisÂ…, because this movie is very,
    very slow in contrast to all the hyper-cut Hollywood horseshit that is
    being cranked out by the major studios. And since I am an older
    audience member (57 years old) I appreciate a slower paced movie that
    actually has very intelligent dialog and a lot of information. And this
    movie certainly has a lot of information, to the point that the average
    person is not going to have the bandwidth to keep up with it. This is
    simply a function of all the Hollywood movies being written at an 8th
    grade level, which is grooming society to be ignorant.

    I read numerous reviews, many of which said the acting was bad, but I
    adamantly disagree. I found all the performances in this film to be
    very ‘genuine’. But again, everyone is so accustomed to all the bad
    acting and over-acting in Hollywood (and TV for that matter) that
    people are now getting so accustomed to these sub-standard performances
    that they actually think it is good acting.

    This film is very robust, from modern day crime figures (who act with
    intellect and reason) versus the ‘bada-bing’ Jersey type mob figures we
    always see, along with extremely calculating, manipulative and
    underhanded CIA agents, who exercise with cunning tactics, intellect
    and leverage against one another (versus violence) to accomplish their
    task. All of this is how it actually happens in real life (as a retired
    FED I know this) versus the guns and car explosions that Hollywood
    continues to use as a crutch.

    There are many, many colorful characters in this film, all of whom have
    their own individual personalities and subtle nuances that keep them
    distinct from one other. And with the exception of some seriously drab,
    lackluster CIA offices; the other locations (many more than most indie
    films) are extensive and very good.

    At the end of the day this movie is only for a very mature and educated
    audience (over 55) who are going to appreciate a film with a real
    story, with very sensitive material that is handled in a professional
    manner, without all the gratuitous sex, violence and explosions, which
    seems to be the only thing Hollywood can do. For future watchers of
    this film, I must warn you that this film is very much an indie-flick
    with an ultra-low budget, so you should not expect anything ‘slick’. Be
    prepared to sit in a quiet room and pay very close attention; otherwise
    you will get lost and then frustrated. This movie will not spoon-feed
    you information like Hollywood does to keep you engaged. Even I had to
    watch it, twice, to fully grasp the breadth of information. And a
    little on-line research, after you watch the film, will help you put
    the elements into perspective as well. It will be interesting to see
    what these filmmakers can do when they actually get a real budget to
    work with.

  • BoristhemoggyJanuary 22, 2017Reply

    Imagine being dragged backwards by your ears for 100 yards, inch by inch…

    …that’s how I felt watching this film. At the outset I thought Bron
    Boier’s character was insignificant as the diminutive, thin lipped,
    double chinned is about as menacing as Mr Tumble, has the acting
    ability of a Queen Anne chair, the personality of a large beach rock
    and the presence of the Invisible Man. His face never changed
    throughout the entire film: no expression, no emotion, just deadpan
    looks throughout from someone as threatening as the paper boy. The
    direction was dire, the pace of the movie going at such a snails pace
    that at times I had to rewind to pick up a lost plot point. I’m still
    unsure of what I watched even by the end. The only one who seemed to
    know how to act was Ben van Bergen who played Ivan. However he wasn’t
    on screen enough to make a big difference. The tagline is ”The film the
    CIA tried to stop.” I am very sure that the CIA had no interest at all
    in this film and if they even knew it existed the tagline should read
    ”The film the CIA tried to stop laughing at.” Once again I’m
    disappointed at wasting so much of my precious time on garbage.

  • wrobert1February 10, 2017Reply

    Somewhat slow paced but very good

    This movie provides a view of the underbelly of our government in no
    shy terms. It is not for folks who need the pacing and eye-candy of a
    big Hollywood production. But it is very persuasive in and of itself.
    Very disillusioning to any idealistic American. But the subject-matter
    would not be served by a more polished presentation. It is a good
    demonstration of Arendt’s concept of ”the banality of evil”. A very
    slow unfolding low boil thriller — much more satisfying than the
    dramatizations of your run of the mill spy or espionage movie. Closely
    connected with actual historical event of recent American history.
    Close to a dramatic documentary. I did not have a problem with the
    actors. I can’t imagine CIA and such sorts as being very histrionic.
    Again: The banality of evil.

  • Michael MeoFebruary 16, 2017Reply

    Popular History

    This movie makes a raft of sensational charges against the CIA, a
    statement which I don’t think needs to be considered a spoiler, given
    the advertising line, ”The movie the CIA didn’t want you to see.”

    Both of the charges it levels against the Agency are now in the distant
    past, as far as the national news media are concerned, and are in the
    course of being forgotten altogether, say, like the civil war in
    Lebanon, which used to be headline news. These charges are definitely
    in the realm of conspiracy theory, since the Agency is depicted as
    consisting of a bunch of amoral killers who have no qualms about wiping
    out innocent people. They don’t even grieve when their coworkers are

    Thus we have, thanks to the virtually one-man efforts of Thomas
    Gulamerian, an effort at popular history, a fictionalized dramatization
    of an episode in our history that may have happened the way it was
    shown here, and deserves to be remembered as part of the crimes the
    government commits against its own people.

    The extraordinary control shown by the ”courier” was a life-saving
    trait. The acting reflected that. The most gripping part of the movie
    were the claims made at the very end, where the characters are revealed
    as real people whose stories have been dramatized; if any of that is
    even close to true, this is indeed a sensational claim of malfeasance
    by our Deep State.

    Alas, the reviewers want to groan that the Internet speeds are too fast
    for the 1990s, and the offices shown in the CIA building are too small
    and crowded.

Leave a comment

Name *
Add a display name
Email *
Your email address will not be published