Sometimes, great actors end up in pointless movies. I'm a faithful fan of Daniel Radcliffe, which is why I watched this movie. Whoever convinced him to do this movie is a desperate con artist. It barely makes any sense, and most of the setting is obscure and boring. The directing was awful, and the ending was just a bunch of concepts thrown together. Don't bother with this title, Daniel has plenty of better material for your viewing pleasure.
48 Reviews
Mediocre Burden
nebk24 February 2018
Warning: Spoilers
Daniel Radcliffe stars in Beast Of Burden, a movie about a dishonorably discharged Air Force pilot (Sean Haggerty) who is flying a Cessna filled with contraband from Mexico and into the USA. It becomes apparent early on that while he is flying for a Mexican drug cartel he is also cooperating with the DEA who offered him a spot in the witness protection program and funding for the medical treatment of his wife who is seriously ill. This is basically the premise of the movie even though the plot thickens when the landing plans are changed and the DEA wants to intercept the shipment.
Most of the movie occurs in the cockpit of the Cessna and with Haggerty receiving phone calls from his wife, his cartel contact and the agent he is working for. Whilst the movie was promising in the beginning it starts dragging half way through and becomes less believable near the end. At times the movie tries to resemble Locke (with Tom Hardy) but the material here is not engaging enough to continue throughout the whole film. The ending takes the movie down even further and it appears very lazily written with a tied hostage left alone in the vehicle, driving herself, escaping her kidnappers and then helping her husband. The acting by Radcliffe is fine but the rest of the cast is not really memorable as they have no real screen time or character. Overall a weak 5/10.
Most of the movie occurs in the cockpit of the Cessna and with Haggerty receiving phone calls from his wife, his cartel contact and the agent he is working for. Whilst the movie was promising in the beginning it starts dragging half way through and becomes less believable near the end. At times the movie tries to resemble Locke (with Tom Hardy) but the material here is not engaging enough to continue throughout the whole film. The ending takes the movie down even further and it appears very lazily written with a tied hostage left alone in the vehicle, driving herself, escaping her kidnappers and then helping her husband. The acting by Radcliffe is fine but the rest of the cast is not really memorable as they have no real screen time or character. Overall a weak 5/10.
Feels more like a student film (Minor Spoilers)
taxicabaldwin17 April 2018
Warning: Spoilers
Having just watched this with my family, I commented at the end that it felt more like a student filmmaker's thesis, as opposed to a full-length feature film. After reviewing the director's bio, I think that comparison can be safely made. The director, Jesper Ganslandt, is a Swedish film maker whose credits to date consist of 3 music videos for the Swedish pop/dance group Alcazar; 2 short films; a semi-autobiographical film (Falkenberg Farewell) in which the director and other cast members portray people with the same names as the actors,and which takes place in Falkenberg, Sweden (Mr. Ganslandt's birthplace); a documentary about an unknown Swedish topic; and 4 feature films, including this one.
With that in mind, the film was fairly well acted, in my opinion. I found Sean's (Daniel Radcliffe's) reactions to be fairly believable, given his circumstances and relative helplessness, while DEA agent's are typical of someone who's trying to climb the corporate/bureaucratic ladder (not caring who gets hurt in the process), and Mallory's actions are those of someone who's just carrying out a job (Mallory is an "troubleshooter"/assassin for a third group). Mallory has been tasked with kidnapping Sean's wife, Jen, to ensure "compliance. He's not sadistic about it, although it would have been easy to write him that way; instead, he's cool and professional, calmly informing Sean of what will happen to Jen if compliance is not met.
I did have a few (minor) quibbles with the story though, even keeping in mind the looseness of the plot. First, I disagreed with the simplistic ending Mallory meets at Sean's and Jen's hands; instead of simply drowning Mallory; use the last 2 bullets in your gun (received earlier) to SHOOT the SOB!!! Sean and Jen end up bum rushing Mallory and holding his head under water; how often have we seen "death" faked that way? If you're close enough to hold his head under water, put those last 2 bullets in HIS HEAD and MAKE SURE he's not faking!! Also, the final scene is one where Sean's watching Jen and a toddler (who the audience is led to believe is their daughter) cross the street to meet them in an unnamed location. Without spoilers, how did they get there, where IS "there", and how did they finance this move? I felt this ending left the story open to a future (hopefully better written) sequel.
Here's what happened..
alyssa_allaine10 July 2018
It all started with him flying the plane..
I got up and grabbed a few snacks, made a drink, did my brother's homework, went to college and graduated, got mrried, had 4 kids, and boom. He was still flying the plane...
Beast of Boredom
chumgriffin2 March 2018
The plot is simplistic, the dialogue is the same, the acting just so so..
Whoever convinced Daniel that sitting in a cockpit of a plane for most of a movie would be riveting viewing should be fired.
It was boring , silly, and the end of the movie just hammered the final nail into this utterly disappointing attempt at a thriller.
Do not waste your time even out of curiosity.
Why bother?
Leofwine_draca11 February 2020
Warning: Spoilers
BEAST OF BURDEN is another one of those idiotic single location thrillers that tries to evoke suspense despite having its sole protagonist trapped in a small location for the entire running time. This one has a few flashbacks and extraneous moments and moves outside of the cockpit for the climax, but otherwise it's dark and gloomy and very, very boring. Truth be told, I've not liked any films in this genre, from Tom Hardy's LOCKE to Ryan Reynolds in BURIED, although the ones in which a handful of characters are trapped are more fun (see CUBE or ELEVATOR). I do like Daniel Radcliffe as an actor (he's very good in the right material like MY BOY JACK) but his performance matches the script in this one, i.e. it simply isn't good.
What were they thinking ?
ahmedjalbani24 February 2018
Waste of Time!
Suziesworld26 February 2018
This movie caught my eye plainly because I am always curious to see what Daniel Radcliffe is up to and what roles he is choosing to do. This movie, in my opinion, is beneath him. Actually, I think this movie is beneath any actor wanting to expand their art of acting.
Don't waste your time on this movie. The plot is lame and the acting is not believable whatsoever.
I rated this movie a 3 simply because I finished it. Of course, I was doing another activity at the same time. If you choose to do that, just look up occasionally, you will still know what is going on simply by listening to it.
Don't waste your time on this movie. The plot is lame and the acting is not believable whatsoever.
I rated this movie a 3 simply because I finished it. Of course, I was doing another activity at the same time. If you choose to do that, just look up occasionally, you will still know what is going on simply by listening to it.
A Bastard Child of Locke and American Made
nitejoker62 March 2018
A poor and pathetic attempt to copy the style of Tom Hardy's Locke with a run of the mill story. Falls flat on its face. Maybe I would have given it 2 or 3 starts, if I had not seen Locke, but as it is.....one star will do.
just wasted 1 and a half hour of my fkn life
am_hussam23 February 2018
Its the worst fkn movie that I've ever watched.
a movie with a budget of $15 including the actors wages.
my stupid friends and brother forced me to watch it all.. trust me guys skip it and report the producer even before watching
my stupid friends and brother forced me to watch it all.. trust me guys skip it and report the producer even before watching
Unfortunate title for a good movie
cekadah4 March 2018
Personally I really enjoyed this movie because it had suspense, thrills, drama, plot and a story! What these other reviews are about I have no idea. Did they watch the same movie? I think not.
Daniel Radcliffe offers up a fine performance as the lone pilot of a small plane flying through ominous night skies to deliver contraband to underworld thugs in exchange for much needed cash. While piloting this plane he is forced to carry on three separate conversations without any of his callers knowing about the other. And then his flight path is changed and he discovers he is being followed.
Will he make it? It is well worth watching to see.
Daniel Radcliffe offers up a fine performance as the lone pilot of a small plane flying through ominous night skies to deliver contraband to underworld thugs in exchange for much needed cash. While piloting this plane he is forced to carry on three separate conversations without any of his callers knowing about the other. And then his flight path is changed and he discovers he is being followed.
Will he make it? It is well worth watching to see.
Good
dbabineau-767-63206314 April 2018
After Wheelman they did it again, but this time in a plane.
deloudelouvain26 March 2018
Earlier this year I watched Wheelman that got not too bad ratings on here and I still wonder why. That movie was about a guy in a car phoning different people every five seconds, and this for the entire movie. Apparently I didn't get it because I thought it was one of the most boring movies I saw this year. If you don't like cars but you do like planes, and you do like movies where people are just phoning during the entire movie then you should watch Beast Of Burden. Because that's basically it, Daniel Radcliffe in a plane phoning different people for the entire movie. 95% of the movie is just a guy in a plane phoning. You have to be a masochist to like that kind of garbage. The only reason I started watching this movie was because of Daniel Radcliffe. I wonder if he regrets accepting this role, because that's obviously a serious downer in his career. If you want to die from boredom watch Wheelman and Beast Of Burden consecutively.
The Burden of this Beast Is Not Worth Bearing
zardoz-1330 November 2020
Warning: Spoilers
Poor Daniel Radcliffe finds himself between an aerial rock and a hard place in director Jesper Ganslandt's "Beast of Burden" as a DEA informant who is flying contraband narcotics from Mexico across the U.S. border. A dishonorably discharged USAF pilot who has cut a deal with the Feds to rat out the cartel, our conflicted hero Sean spends most of his time airborne struggling to sort things out. If he cooperates with the DEA, he can get medical help for his ailing wife. The Cartel and the DEA keep exerting pressure on him as he flies through stormy weather. Far from being heroic, Sean is sympathetic, but he has gotten himself into a quandary from which he cannot extricate himself. The pressure mounts but "Beast of Burden" becomes a beastly burden more for the spectator than for our hero. Despite its minimum 90 minute run time, this tiresome movie seems to drag on forever. Whatever potential this intriguing saga had, it loses by confining itself primarily to Sean in the air. Clearly, whether they knew it or not, "Beast of Burden" resembles the Tom Hardy movie "Locke," but the Hardy hero was admirable whereas the Radcliffle protagonist is far from admirable. The worst thing about this awful law and order movie is that you know everything is either shot with miniatures and/or green screen. We're this not bad enough, Ganslandt jumbles the action in non-linear fashion to heighten the action, but it just adds to the confusion. Skip this shallow, second-rate saga.
Blows
bennadauld24 February 2018
I never write reviews but this film stunk. Radcliffe must have been out on the piss before he read this script. We all make mistakes but watching this movie is like having your teeth pulled out - cant end soon enough.
0 Stars
dianarasbid31 January 2019
Tolerable, but not rewarding one man thriller
just_in_case7 June 2020
Its less than 85 minutes long and was still a pretty dull ride. As stated in the premise its around 70 minutes of just daniel ratcliff in a cessna talking into a phone and trying to emote to the audience whats happening. All Is Lost did roughly the same thing but where that was amazing this struggled to get to the finish line. It was ok, just watchable. I think it ,weirdly, was too talkie and most of that was the same theme repeatable over and over. Nothing is really explored, neither his relationship to the other characters nor the environmental danger hes in.
Additionally I dont know anything about flying but there were multiple laws of physics and rules of aviation that were broken and really obvious where in even a layman would go "uumm I dont think thats how that works". It kinda ruined the immersion.
Didnt hate it but I cant think of a reason to recommend it.
Additionally I dont know anything about flying but there were multiple laws of physics and rules of aviation that were broken and really obvious where in even a layman would go "uumm I dont think thats how that works". It kinda ruined the immersion.
Didnt hate it but I cant think of a reason to recommend it.
Worst movie ever
ciupicaa24 February 2018
Ruined my good day...!!!
friedo-5883326 February 2018
excruciating bad
pilot100922 September 2018
Not Worth your time
othering1 March 2018
Warning: Spoilers
This did not have depth to the plot in any way, shape or form. It was badly directed and frankly, badly acted.
Without giving spoilers other than one which is revealed at the start anyway, there was a thin and vague back story which the film took you back to throughout story, but what you was taken back to was so rubbish and uninteresting, and repetitive, combined with not actually explaining anything besides his wife was ill, that it really was a bit pointless. The lead actor could not carry the film with the focus being of him in the cockpit, his reactions to the situation were one dimensional and unrealistic, as were his wife's. There was no explanation about how each player came into the 'plot', and the vague pointers to it were uninteretsing and did not make sense and there was no conclusion.
It was as though someone scribbled the very basics for a movie on the back of small napkin, but forgot to finish it and then the director assumed it was finished and just said, read your lines, it's Ok, I don't think I'll direct today, I'm having a cuppa instead..
Annoyed I wasted my time. I think Radcliffe may do better when he has others to bounce off and maybe some direction and plot.With so many talented writers and directors out there, I don't understand why so much rubbish has money thrown at it or is given airtime.
The lighting is done so ridiculously dark, that one cant even see how bad this movie is.
imseeg18 April 2019
Watch it for free, never make the mistake to pay for this, because this movie is a incredibly cheap budget movie, with lighting settings so incredibly dark that I honestly couldnt even so how bad this movie was most of the time. Dark lighting settings are always a good way of trying to cover up a cheap decor. They succeeded at that, but the story and acting are just without any real drama or suspense.
I guess this director wanted to experiment with a movie that is showing Daniel Ratcliff in 1 single room ALL the time. Well, almost all of the time, since he is constantly flying a plane, in almost total darkness. But this 1 room experiment has been done before in "Locke", where a man was filmed contineously while he was driving a car. But "Locke" has got a terrific dynamic storyline, with great acting, while "Beast of Burden" is no beast at all, it isnt even a mouse, dramatically speaking.
This is an experimental low budget film, which flopped.
I guess this director wanted to experiment with a movie that is showing Daniel Ratcliff in 1 single room ALL the time. Well, almost all of the time, since he is constantly flying a plane, in almost total darkness. But this 1 room experiment has been done before in "Locke", where a man was filmed contineously while he was driving a car. But "Locke" has got a terrific dynamic storyline, with great acting, while "Beast of Burden" is no beast at all, it isnt even a mouse, dramatically speaking.
This is an experimental low budget film, which flopped.
That's 40 minutes of my life that I will never get back.
paulbooker190429 January 2019
I really should learn to look at the IMDb ratings before I watch a film.
I very rarely watch anything below 5, and after 40 minutes of this dross I checked the rating to see that it was a 3. No surprise whatsoever. To be honest in my opinion it was lucky to get a 3. At that point I turned off.
I honestly thought that if it starred Daniel Radcliffe it wouldn't be too bad, how wrong I was. Whatever possessed him to take on this role after reading the Script is a complete mystery.
Tedious tedious tedious. Really don't bother.
I very rarely watch anything below 5, and after 40 minutes of this dross I checked the rating to see that it was a 3. No surprise whatsoever. To be honest in my opinion it was lucky to get a 3. At that point I turned off.
I honestly thought that if it starred Daniel Radcliffe it wouldn't be too bad, how wrong I was. Whatever possessed him to take on this role after reading the Script is a complete mystery.
Tedious tedious tedious. Really don't bother.
See also
Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews
