Scanialara You won't be disappointed!

BootDigest Such a frustrating disappointment

Micitype Pretty Good

SnoReptilePlenty Memorable, crazy movie

geenam I recently saw this movie again after first seeing it in the movies when it first came out.The premise of the story was good - what would you do if you suspected a family member of creating a terrible crime. Would you try and cover it up or would you turn the person in and tell the truth. These are some of the questions Liam Neeson and Meryl Streep as the parents have to contend with. I enjoy both of their acting and felt that Liam Neeson as the father was more realistic, while I felt that Meryl Streep seemed a little wishy washy. I didn't care for the son, played by Edward Furlong at all. I thought he was too blah and mopey and I didn't have much sympathy for him at all. There were also good performances by Alfred Molina as the defense attorney and Julia Wheldon, who played Liam and Meryl's daughter. The movie moved along well and I felt that the ending was satisfactory. I was glad that the movie showed that people must take responsibility for their actions. All in all a good movie.

Hitchcoc I'm probably repeating some of the issues already put forward concerning this film. The father in this movie is an utter ass. He acts only in his own self interest. If such a creep exists, we can see why the kid is a bit messed up. The plot follows the discovery of a young girl's body and a link to a young man (the son) who is connected to her. Once the father, played by Liam Neeson, goes bananas and starts destroying evidence, the die is cast. Meryl Streep's doctor/mother tries to look at things in a sane way, but she is constantly overpowered by her brutish husband. She is a realist and knows what needs to be done. The father makes it so much worse than it could have been that options are really limited. Also, Alfred Molina's lawyer role is so full of it. He chomps on a sandwich while talking about the most serious issue in the world. This is supposed to fill us with confidence (he may be eccentric but I'll bet he's really good). The script and the formulation of the events in this film, not to mention much of the acting just doesn't cut it very well.

Boba_Fett1138 It's hard to understand why some movies ever got made. Who ever green-lighted this unconvincing and formulaic story to be filmed? And even bigger question, why did all of these great and established names committed themselves to this project? Thing with this movie its story is that it never reaches a level above average. No shocking surprises or twists, no real convincing emotions, no tension. It feels just like a very empty and distant movie. The story unfolds itself as a very unconvincing one, since some very unlikely things start to happen in the movie. I just never understood the fact why the parents weren't desperate to get the truth from their son. They just eat together as an happy family, when the son is being nothing but death silent about the whole situation. This would had ticked me off as a parent and would had driven me insane. Just imaging your son being the main suspect in a murder case but he doesn't say anything to you about what happened. I would feel so mad at him and terribly unsure but not Liam Neeson and Meryl Streep. Also the way how the entire suddenly seemed to be against the family seemed so incredibly forced and silly that it all became incredibly unconvincing. The movie doesn't make you sympathize enough for any of its characters or with its drama. It would had perhaps also helped if the boy was really innocent and had nothing to do with the death of the young girl at all.Yes, there definitely are far worse movies out there but that doesn't make this movie a good one. Even though the movie never gets above the level of average it also never goes below the level of horrible. It's just a very average movie, by the numbers.Meryl Streep, Liam Neeson, Alfred Molina, Edward Furlong and John Heard are all actors that appear in this movie and it really makes you wonder why. I just can't imaging after reading the script that they seriously thought this would make a great, powerful and effective movie, that would leave a lasting impression on people and could even sweep some awards. All actors make some mistake in their careers and this movie seems to be one for all of them. Also some actors just get terrible underused in this movie. What was the point of the John Heard character? And why is Alfred Molina role so small in this. His role seemed like it could had played a far more important one for the movie. It could at least had given the story some more depth with its entire court proceedings.Not an horrible movie but I just can't think of any reasons why you should ever watch it.5/10http://bobafett1138.blogspot.com/

Wood-20 .Spoilers.There was a lot of good things about this movie. It was a compelling and interesting story right from the beginning. The acting was seemingly well played...... until the third act. What on earth happened to the direction of this film? I have not read the book, so I don't know if it has the same direction as this movie played out... but the third act did not even seem like the same movie. The acting took a nose-dive, and the melodrama began flowing freely like ipecac down the throat.From the beginning, I thought: Hey, sure, it's plausible that the Father wanted to save his son, and that these goofy things with the cover-up, and the family binding together to uphold the lie, were certainly no stretch of reason. Then we get to mom's, and Eddie's character's confession, and the whole thing is a puke-fest of gotchas and ridiculous moral claims about right and wrong which are, at best, pointless opposing claims about whether right or wrong and the law are the same thing.Don't misread me, though. I really enjoyed the beginning of this movie. I just hated the end.6/10