In a war between kings even a pawn can change the game.
An entry-level employee at a powerful corporation finds himself occupying a corner office, but at a dangerous price: he must spy on his boss's old mentor to secure for him a multi-billion dollar advantage.
I came to 'Paranoia' fully knowing it had been universally panned by critics and viewers alike. However, I found myself watching a very straightforward drama-thriller about corporate espionage and morality that reminded me of the corporate thrillers from the 80s and 90s. The acting is good and the movie looks good.
So, is the movie dated and boring then? You could see it that way. The standards for a movie in this genre have obviously become quite high. Audiences are waiting for several interconnecting layers in the story and want plot twists after plot twists. And with a cast as formidable as this, the movie must come from the biggest money and therefore the most exhilaratingly modern script, right? Well, it doesn't.
It seems that 'Paranoia' is a just another mediocre movie that you really don't need to see. It's sometimes implausible but sometimes it's decent drama. Just because the audience was disappointed in their own expectations, doesn't mean it deserves all this bashing. 32 on Metacritic and 4.9 on IMDb (2013-11-10)? That's pretty damn low.
I read that Stephen Holden of The New York Times said about the lead actor, Liam Hemsworth: "Not since Taylor Lautner has Hollywood ogled a pretty boy this vacant and poorly prepared." Again I'm reminded of the 80s and one Tom Cruise. Was his substance and skill any better?