All member reviews for Paranoia

About our rating system

  • ON: Content is age-appropriate for kids this age.
  • PAUSE: Know your child; some content may not be right for some kids.
  • OFF: Not age-appropriate for kids this age.
  • NOT FOR KIDS: Not appropriate for kids of any age.

Find out more

Quality

Our star rating assesses the media's overall quality.

Find out more

Learning ratings

  • Best: Really engaging; great learning approach.
  • Very Good: Engaging; good learning approach.
  • Good: Pretty engaging; good learning approach.
  • Fair: Somewhat engaging; OK learning approach.
  • Not for Learning: Not recommended for learning.
  • Not for Kids: Not age-appropriate for kids; not recommended for learning.

Find out more

Kids say

(out of 6 reviews)
AGE
11
QUALITY
 
Review this title!
Kid, 8 years old August 17, 2013
AGE
8
QUALITY
 

i liked it

happy
What other families should know
Great messages
Great role models
Teen, 14 years old Written bySomeoneYouDon'tKnow November 30, 2013
AGE
12
QUALITY
 

A slick, stylish, and star-studded techno thriller

Let's start out by saying that I have been hyped to see Paranoia for a good long while. Why? Because I loved the book from which it is based. Yes, I'm one of the few people on this planet who actually read the 2004 novel by Joseph Finder, and it was very good. What with the extremely negative reviews and box office failure, I did not expect the film adaptation to be very good, but I was nonetheless highly interested in seeing it. I finally rented it a mere three days after its DVD release. And, I must say, it was an extremely pleasant surprise. Paranoia follows a young man named Adam Cassidy, who makes a financial fraud at his business, Wyatt Telecommunications, to throw a big party. When he is caught by the company's ruthless and extremely British CEO Nicolas Wyatt, he gives him two choices: face up to twenty years in prison, or work as a double-agent for his competitor, Jock Goddard. Adam accepts, and at first he is living the good life, but later begins to question who he should trust and who his allies are, and bad stuff starts happening really fast. This basic plot setup is the only thing that is virtually exactly as it was in the book. Aside from that, the film strays A LOT from its source material, both for better and for worse. There are a lot of odd minor changes that are made; for example, in the book the love interest is named Alana Jennings, in the movie she is Emma Jennings. In the book, Nick Wyatt's hitman is named Arnold Meachum, in the movie he is Miles Meachum. In the book, Jock Goddard's dead son is named Elijah, in the movie he is Dylan. In the book, Jock Goddard's company is called Trion, in the movie it is Eikon. These small changes didn't really bug me or anything, but they just seemed kind of out of place. But I've gone on long enough about the plot. One thing I can say for sure is that I think a SIGNIFICANT factor in my liking for this movie is the fact that I read the book. There are several scenes in the movie that involve certain techno-talks and espionage elements that are rather unexplained, and are best understood if you read the book. If I hadn't read the book, this probably would have been a 7/10, or something along those lines. It's lucky that I read the book, because now I can safely say that this is a very serviceable adaptation. The movie is directed by Robert Luketic, the director of Legally Blonde and Monster-in-Law. When I saw that he was directing the adaptation, I was completely baffled, because even though he made a somewhat successful thriller (21) he just didn't seem cut out to direct a film like this. But, to say the least, I was just being paranoid (ha ha), because Luketic actually proves to be a very slick director here. The film has gorgeous cinematography that really provides candy for the eyes, and there are some very tense and well-paced thrills. The film also has an excellent techno-musical score that blends well with the film's pace. The editing is brisk and clean-cut, and the production values are nice to look at as well. The casting for this movie is absolutely spot-on. Maybe this is just because I knew the cast before I read the book, but they came out on screen almost exactly as I saw them in the book. Liam Hemsworth (who gives a pitch-perfect American accent) is likeable and relatable as the everyday person, and even though he is king of arrogant and full of himself at times, you really identify with him and understand the situation he's in. Amber Heard is also very likeable as the love interest, even if her character setup is rather generic. And Richard Dreyfuss is funny and entertaining as Adam's father. But, of course, the real show-stealers here are Gary Oldman and Harrison Ford. They freaking SELL their roles as the ruthless and cold-hearted businessmen, and as an Air Force One fanboy, I got such a rush of excitement seeing them tear into each other like wild animals. And while we've all seen Oldman play villains in the past, this is the first time I've ever seen Ford play such a cold-hearted guy. His characters are always menacing, yes, but they are always heroes. Here, he completely breaks character and gives us one hell of a jerk. And you never truly know who the greater villain is, Oldman or Ford, and the movie keeps pushing the twists with these characters. In fact, there are a LOT of character twists. As a matter of fact, there were even more in the book, to the point of absurdity, but the movie narrows it down to just the right level, and it's very satisfying. One thing that I really didn't like about the book was the ending. It was unexplained, extremely abrupt, and very bland. Plus, it was just a bit too open-ended. The movie, however, fixes it up SUPERBLY. In fact, the movie ended just about EXACTLY the way I wanted the book to end. It was much more gratifying, better explained, and not at all open-ended. This is such a great praise to offer, and it left me with a smile on my face. I certainly have problems with the movie (such as unexplained pot devices, a few bits of clichéd dialogue, and general unoriginality to the premise), but it was a very entertaining and thrilling movie to watch, and a very good adaptation that may equal the book in quality, if not exceed it. It's well acted, wonderfully shot, very thrilling, at times quite intriguing, and full of twists and turns. It's one of the most underrated films of the year, and it most definitely lives up to its title.
What other families should know
Great messages
Great role models
Too much violence
Too much sex
Too much swearing
Too much consumerism
Too much drinking/drugs/smoking
Teen, 14 years old Written byironkid21 November 12, 2013
AGE
12
QUALITY
 

Really bad, poorly written, mostly boring, unintentionally hilarious "thriller"

Dear Heavens, where do I start? Now, lots of critics said this movie has no thrills. There's many times where I've disagreed with a statement like that because of course if it's an action or a thriller, it has to have a little bit of thrills. This time, they're correct! Paranoia is one of the most unsuspenseful, poorly written, poorly executed, laughably bad "thrillers" I've seen in quite a while. It starts off with a scene that's obviously gonna happen later with an awkward narration by Liam Hemsworth's character running from somebody/something but it's not quite clear yet since obviously it's the beginning and it flashes back to what happened before. That scene, when it does happen, is one of the most laughably ridiculous scenes in the movie. In fact, come to think of it, what scene in this movie doesn't have a character making a dumb decision, a cheesy facial expression or close up, or something happening that makes no sense. Why does Liam Hemsworth's character's friend get hit by a car? Is Liam Hemsworth's character shallow enough to start trying to break all the cameras he knows are watching him? How in the deep blue heck does Liam Hemsworth get in a suit when he was wearing a jacket to go to a lunch event after a guy just tried to kidnap him next to his car!? Was he shallow enough to go back? I know it sounds like I'm overanalyzing but I'm really not. It's all a big mess! And the "thrills" are really cheap. The scenes include, Liam Hemsworth at a train station where he thinks someone is watching him and Liam Hemsworth looking through something at a party and then Harrison Ford just pops up. These moments sound pretty suspenseful when you explain them but they're just simply not executed well. The closest this movie gets to a "suspenseful" scene is where Liam Hemsworth is trying to take a file from Amber Heard's computer before she gets out of the shower. Even that is extremely rushed the point where it just cuts from him close the laptop to him back in the bed. But while it's quite bad, it's not a total disaster. The actors do try their best through it all though. Liam Hemsworth does a really good job and is very good leading man material but the material he's given just wastes him. Same thing with Amber Heard, who's also really good. On the positive side, her character isn't given the typical damsel-in-distress role but rather knows how to take action without the lead hero's approval. And Harrison Ford and Gary Oldman try their best, even though their characters are the most underdeveloped in the movie. But Julian McMahon...I can't say it's his fault but his character is the cheesiest, most ridiculous character in the movie. He doesn't even re appear, well, in any way that makes sense, after Liam Hemsworth punched him in the face and ran. Why did he just pop up at the lunch party and pop out? But if there's any positives to this movie, Liam Hemsworth and Amber Heard's chemistry is really well developed and when their characters are on screen together, they play off of each other really well, and have some of the best moments in the film. And of course, it has a happy ending but I just really love those kinds of endings, so I just thought I'd put that out there. Also, it's a bad movie but I didn't leave the theater feeling sad or underwhelmed or anything because thinking about it, I actually kind of chuckled. But otherwise, Paranoia is just a big mess...
What other families should know
Too much violence
Too much sex
Too much swearing
Too much drinking/drugs/smoking
Kid, 12 years old October 12, 2014
AGE
13
QUALITY
 

Some inapropriate things

in the first scene the main character and his friend are not being allowed into a club, and the guy running the club says no virgins allowed, and the main character says 'I just saw my friend get laid in the street' even though that didn't happen. They don't end up going in and they come back later with more friends. They go into the club, and the main character finds a girl and goes home with her. Nothing is shown, but sex is implied. she kicks him out of the house in the morning, them not knowing each others names. Later in the day he finds the girl and asks for her number but she says no. as shes pulling away in a taxi he yells 'but didn't we just have sex?!' the girl replies 'I tend to do that when I get drunk' I think this would be fine for mature 13 year olds or 14 year olds. There are quite a few swears but no too many. The movie does have some positive messages ,and I would definitely recommend it! There are 1-3 club scenes with drinking and smoking and people are taking many shots, but no one gets too drunk.
What other families should know
Great messages
Too much sex
Too much drinking/drugs/smoking
Teen, 15 years old Written byStevie111 September 30, 2013
AGE
12
QUALITY
 

Very interesting thriller is actually pretty good

What other families should know
Too much swearing
Teen, 15 years old Written byiPunk August 16, 2013
AGE
11
QUALITY
 

Hunger Games' Liam Hemsworth plays tech-savvy guy

There was a part that confused me. Adam (Liam Hemsworth) meets a girl in a club (Amber Heard). They hit it off and have sex that night, then the next morning she kicks him out of her house. The next day, he buys coffee and offers it to her and tries to get her name. She refuses to disclose her name but accepts the coffee. I found that to be confusing. Adam says to a group "People tweet more than they meet" and that's true. Social networking is the number one way people communicate right now. But there is science saying that there is benefit in seeing people's facial expressions and body language. I'm not sure what made that come up, but it may be true.
What other families should know
Too much drinking/drugs/smoking