ThrillMessage There are better movies of two hours length. I loved the actress'performance.

StyleSk8r At first rather annoying in its heavy emphasis on reenactments, this movie ultimately proves fascinating, simply because the complicated, highly dramatic tale it tells still almost defies belief.

Bluebell Alcock Ok... Let's be honest. It cannot be the best movie but is quite enjoyable. The movie has the potential to develop a great plot for future movies

Blake Rivera If you like to be scared, if you like to laugh, and if you like to learn a thing or two at the movies, this absolutely cannot be missed.

rbrb This is a first rate kidnap thriller. Made more intriguing by the fact that the movie seems to advocate that rightness is on the side of the kidnapper.An apparently caring young male with problems including a very sick mother et al decides to kidnap three spoilt brat "entitled" privileged college kids. They are the offspring of three fairly repulsive rich and undeserving businessmen....The kidnapper has accomplices who also have an agenda.This film races along with pace and excitement and in my opinion the acting and production is top notch.Of course there may be some holes in the plot but who cares as this picture is highly entertaining and almost believable; it had me engrossed throughout.8/10.

Brakathor This review is essentially for anyone who has already seen the film, and thought it was amazingly intelligent, well done, and coherently put together. The end of the film presents us with a picture of finality, that our main protagonist pulled off the perfect crime, and got away with it without any suspicion or investigation against him, and made a slick easy 2 million dollars that was untraceable. If you accept this premise, then you accept that all the law enforcement investigating the case, as well as those involved had the intelligence of 5 year olds.One of the most damning aspects I think, is the idea that no link could be established between the main protagonist and his 2 accomplices who he was friends with, the girl, who he was in a relationship with. To believe this, you have to believe that of the many people who had seen his 2 accomplices on university campus which is where he met them, NO ONE had seen him with them, and more than that, think about how they would have had to have not mentioned him to ANYONE they know; no mention of him to ANY of their friends or family, or on sites like facebook, twitter, phone records even; NOTHING; no link whatsoever. All it would have taken was a tiny link which is hard to believe didn't exist, especially in the case of his female accomplice who was in love with him, and he would be facing a very fervent investigation down his throat.With that impossible hurdle aside, we come to the many flaws in the execution of the crime itself. Firstly, he gives his male accomplice a gun with blanks, yet he gives his female accomplice a gun with real bullets, and it just so happens she ends up shooting one of the 3 hostages, contrary to his plan. This firstly, looks very staged, and secondly it makes no sense that he would risk giving one of them an armed gun, and the other not. In terms of evidence of him being in the house, you see him gloveless touching quite a lot of things and the house does NOT get burned down, not to mention tire tracks of his own car in the surrounding dirt road areas which would have made his story inconsistent. In addition to this, the 2 remaining hostages DO hear the protagonist talking over the phone, yet they don't recognize his voice when he comes to the door. Picture being blindfolded, terrorized, and the only thing you hear is this man's voice. I guarantee that voice will be running through your head for weeks.Now the incidentals, the worst of which is the female accomplice being killed by the male accomplice. Even though the guy was unstable, supposedly she was still his best friend, so although not impossible, it doesn't make any sense that he would kill her so glibly. Why this is important, is because if HE didn't kill her, the protagonist who is somewhat being presented in a sympathetic way would have had to kill his own girlfriend. This seems too staged and convenient, and none of it really seems to mesh. As a side note, I found it somewhat tacky how the third father ends up forking over a million dollars, when at this point he has seen or heard NO actual evidence of what his friends are saying. THEY could be scamming him for all he knows.I am just a random idiot of average intelligence, so if these glaringly obvious inconsistencies are obvious to ME, just imagine how much more evidence and suspicion a highly intelligent crime investigator would have against our protagonist, and keeping in mind only a SINGLE ONE of my points would have had to catch someones attention for a large investigation to be launched against our protagonist causing them to realize "AHA! He was the son of the butler, now we have a connection. Now we have a motive. Now we know how he acquired access to the house. Now we know how he knew about this gathering". We the viewers in the end are supposed to believe that he was foolish enough to commit so many very simple errors, yet clever enough to work out an elaborate money laundering scheme and phone location rerouting system. I think not, and then the worst thing films like these can ever do is done by dipping the viewer's nose in the "cleverness" of this very flawed plot premise in the closing narration, rather than serving up a more ambiguous ending.

napierslogs A group of under-privileged kids starving for money and attention; a group of over-privileged kids starving for action and attention; a group of over-privileged adults trying to be content with their current state of life. That's "The Entitled." One group wants what the others have 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 pointless scenes and then a few scenes continuously pointing out that our main hero was poor. But as it turns out, those scenes weren't pointless or over-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) — broke, jobless, defeated, and almost option-less. A last ditch effort to save his mother and their house, he abducts three local rich kids, uses two misfit friends to torture them, and tries to get money out of their fathers.The brilliant aspects of this film which they did so well were the different relationship dynamics. The group of rich, entitled kids consisted of two males and one female. One couple but all three were friends. The group of poor, angry kids was exactly the same (just minus the money). The three fathers had the same relationships that their kids had, just a taller, older version.Continuing in the vein of brilliant relationship dynamics, the plot of the kidnapping was propelled forward by how everybody acted within their own group. Apparently the key to a successful crime (or not successful) is knowing how all the individuals will act. The key to a successful crime thriller is making sure that your characters act in interesting ways.The lead acting was very impressive, just as I was frequently in awe of how impressively smart the turns were in this thriller, I was amazed by how natural and creepy Zegers could be. Ray Liotta and the two other actors playing the fathers were equally as arresting.The minor actors couldn't overcome the sometimes awkward and painful dialogue. Now don't get me wrong, the screenplay by William Morrisey is actually pretty good story-wise, he just doesn't give a good voice to the over-privileged, entitled rich kids. But then again, who does? I still think the opening sequences could have been tightened up to help me realize how important they actually are to the story. But above all else, "The Entitled" made me think and I like watching films about some characters who do think and some characters who don't think. And I'll let you figure out which groups they belong to.

mosleh-1 Like others have mentioned is not the movie of the year, but it is respectable. Good director & good story.The acting and the script lack enthusiasm and spark. Fortunately the worst actor gets eliminated early on. I think he was perhaps the son of the producer or whoever financed this movie, or made it happen. The story has an elegant twist, but the story could have been developed much 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 where everyone could be a real suspect. Overall, it's a pretty good movie compared to what is being produced out there, and considering there are not any big stars in this movies.