Raetsonwe Redundant and unnecessary.

Arianna Moses Let me be very fair here, this is not the best movie in my opinion. But, this movie is fun, it has purpose and is very enjoyable to watch.

Erica Derrick By the time the dramatic fireworks start popping off, each one feels earned.

Geraldine The story, direction, characters, and writing/dialogue is akin to taking a tranquilizer shot to the neck, but everything else was so well done.

Andres-Camara Watching this movie, I wonder if I'm watching a movie or a movie for television, I think I'm watching a movie for television, which is not bad if it's good but it's also not. It has a luxury cast that stays halfway and little more because it is not well worn.Julianne Moore as always seems to me wonderful, I have not seen this woman a bad interpretation. But the rest of the cast, I'm sorry but it does not tell me anything.Julianne Moore as always seems to me wonderful, I have not seen this woman a bad interpretation. But the rest of the cast, I'm sorry but it does not tell me anything.You know quickly where the film is going, the racial issues, what happens is that afterwards it is so dispersed and touches so many things but it does not explain anything that does not catch you in any moment.The last sequence of the film remains, but I imagine that for production issues, it would have to be put.It has a beautiful photograph, yes, it is a photograph that helps you to get into that world, the problem is that the rest takes you out.The address does not tell me anything. She does not get hooked, scatters me, does not know how to make plans that narrate, is not good.A movie to forget

complications123 I had heard nothing of this film before viewing it. I was going through movies on TV one night and stumbled across this purely because I noticed Samuel L. Jackson as the star. While it held my interest well enough, was competently made, and had a fairly cohesive script, something about this film doesn't work. "Freedomland" eschews action for some pedantic sociological musings on race, but fails to get anywhere or reach any conclusions because none of the provocative subject matter is really examined; just simply presented in the context of a tired, tired missing child story.The missing child scenario is nothing new. In fact, it's the subject of so many TV crime dramas as well as hour long forensic crime documentaries that frankly the very premise of this film has been beaten to death both from an entertainment and informational standpoint. What is meant to be the "big reveal" that heads up the third act is pretty well hammered into the viewer within the first however. There is no subtlety once the idea of Brenda being responsible is first (or subsequently) broached and there is never a bit of exposition to lead us to any other conclusion. Maybe this was intentional, but I tend to think not since the entirety of the third act is dedicated to understanding the details of the child's death and disposal. But even if the point was not to be engaged in the mystery, what we're left with is an unexplored and overblown study of where race, crime, and authority meet.Plenty of films have dealt with whites vs. blacks. A decent few have even explored reverse discrimination. What the purpose of this film was I could not say. The material wasn't presented in any sort of thought-provoking way. Instead, we get this completely overblown representation of how white cops deal with a black neighborhood where a black criminal might be hiding out. The housing project is laughably treated in a way reminiscent of fascist Germany with the white cops nothing more than mindless, bloodthirsty goons. Jackson attempts to be a sort of liaison between the two but ends up as some kind of pariah for both camps. His character's role in all the racial tension is very murky and undefined; I'm not really sure what he added as he did nothing to ease tensions or even get anyone to think about what the hell it was they were doing. To top it off, nothing is gained, learned, or even really lost at the end of it all. There's no way to even begin to think about the issue (not that it was terribly complex in the first place) due to the cartoonish detention of an entire housing project.Up until now, we just have a movie without a message. Not that it's a bad thing, but it also fails to entertain on a visceral level. Worst of all it wants to have a message, or make some kind of statement, but doesn't even come close. Sometimes, the performance of the actors is so engaging that it need not be flawless when it comes to things like "the plot." Here is where I am most disturbed by this movie; I cannot stand Julianne Moore's performance as Brenda. I don't know if I dislike it because the role is unnerving and supposed to be unnerving, or if it's bad acting. Moore is over the top and difficult to watch and impossible to like, but part of me thinks that all of this may actually be the point of her performance. Jackson is numbingly dull in his role as whatever he is. He generally has a knack for uttering hilarious lines at least once per movie (scratch Cleaner) but in Freedomland he is a perfunctory character making no use of his acting skills.I won't say the film has actual plot holes, but it does leave a lot of things unresolved that are specifically brought to the viewer's attention. Lorenzo's asthma, Brenda's history of drug use, her brother's Over Zealous 5000 role, the relevance of the 'Freedomland' location, and so on. Sure, you can watch this film and make sense of it. It's not unwatchable, it's just a poorly made film on top of a script rife with poor social commentary. I don't think it's the actors' faults for their shortcomings as characters, it's that the screenwriter couldn't do any better than these one dimensional characters. Even with all of Moore's outlandish acting, she only ever exhibited this sort of nervous panic despite her varying situations. Watch it if you won't, but certainly don't pay to see this.

dbdumonteil This is a curious name for what used to be a reform school were children were mistreated .The place plays a minor role in the movie anyway but it adds some mystery to the scenes where people are looking for the disappeared child.The screenplay is terribly derivative ,and only the two actors 'performance make it a passably watchable work.Particularly Julianne Moore,an extremely ambitious actress who shines when she is given decent material to work with ("the hours" "far from heaven").Her performance as a confused distraught mum is really impressive; Samuel L .Jackson's character avoids the clichés: he is not really a superhero,his son is not the brilliant kid at the university,and we are spared the usual divorce from a wife who's sick and tired of waiting for an always absent cop.The big problem of the movie is that the writers could not (or would not) properly connect the two stories (the mother ,her child and her friends is one thing,the black community is another one ,the latter serving as a very vague and thin background ).

whpratt1 Samuel L. Jackson plays the role as Lorenzo Council a detective in charge of a bad housing project and one night the racial tensions were ready to explode. A young lady, Julianne Moore, (Brenda Martin) approaches Lorenzo and is in a frantic condition, saying that someone stole her young boy of 4 years. There is immediate concern for this child and this sparks off problems in the project, because many Black children do not get this kind of attention. Day in and day out the search continues in many parks and then their attention is focused on an abandoned orphanage in a place called Freedomland. Lorenzo begins to get upset with all the trouble this situation is causing among the people and harm can come to all these people. You will never be able to guess the ending and if you like Samuel L. Jackson and Julianne Moore, don't miss this film, they both were great.