Diagonaldi Very well executed

FuzzyTagz If the ambition is to provide two hours of instantly forgettable, popcorn-munching escapism, it succeeds.

Neive Bellamy Excellent and certainly provocative... If nothing else, the film is a real conversation starter.

Dana An old-fashioned movie made with new-fashioned finesse.

krocheav After seeing this mess of a movie I can imagine how hard to take the book might be. Writer/director Dito Montiel writes dialogue as if he's still penning 'songs' for his punk rock bands; Major Conflict or Gutterboy. Dito and some New Yorkers might use gutter language as every other word in all their sentences but it makes them look as if they don't have the imagination to think of any pronouns or adjectives (maybe their vocabulary truly is devoid?).Dito even has his senior detectives use abusive words when trying to gain the 'trust' of very young children...give us a break!. Not only are we thrown endless low life words - the general situations in this screenplay are too often as grotty as a clogged sewer pipe. Add to this, shaky camera shots supplied by generally talented french D.O.P Benoit Delhomme and it could be enough to make some viewers quite nauseous. If ugly story and situations leave you feeling entertained you might just be able to make it to the convoluted and somewhat implausible finale.The presence of big cast names from yesteryear doesn't help and won't improve their reputations. When the best performances come from a young Jake Cherry (who works well at his thankless role) and his dog Tiger, there's something amiss (only trouble is a thug violently kicks Tiger to death early in the piece). Someone will always find something to 'like' about grunge of this type but, from the look of the reviews and the box office returns there hasn't been all that many. When the lights come up the only ones left in the audience might be Tarantino and Scorsese on their industry complementary's.

Bene Cumb The best part of the movie is the cast: both adults and children are great , although it seems to me Channing Tatum has had better roles than this. I liked most Al Pacino as Detective Stanford and Jake Cherry as young Jonathan "Milk" White, but the others were also equal to their task. Directing and especially plot leave a lot to be desired. Background obsessing/pestering is always there, but some turns are strange and illogical. The solution scene is good (although nothing special), but the very ending is rather disappointing. When the credits appeared I just realized that I had seen another oppressive movie with the aim to let the viewers ponder upon guilt, forgiveness, remorse and other differently perceived feelings.

Doha Film "The Son of No One", the new film by director Dito Montiel, who began a very promising career with "A Guide to Recognizing Your Saints" in 2006, boasts, on paper at least, a talented cast. Veterans such as Al Pacino, Ray Liotta and Juliette Binoche share screen time with younger actors like Channing Tatum and Katie Holmes. What emerges, however, is a series of occasionally memorable scenes ruined by a flat and sometimes incomprehensible storyline The film opens in 1986 when a young Jonathan White, played as an adult by Channing Tatum, shoots and kills two drug dealers in an apartment building in New York. As we see it, he fears for his life. His best friend Vinny, played by Tracy Morgan, witnesses the whole scene.White, however, has a guardian angel – Detective Charles Stanford. He is White's godfather and was once partner to the young man's father. Stanford covers up the killings, justice is never meted out. The film reopens in 2002 with White now a police officer in the same area. As he starts work, an anonymous source starts sending letters to a local newspaper, edited by Juliette Binoche. The front page letters claim to know the identity of the police officer who covered up the 1986 killings.If all this feels a little rushed, please bear in mind that I have only described the first twenty minutes of "The Son of No One". What follows is that White is tormented by his crimes – he suspects his old friend Vinny is writing the letters. His superior officer, Captain Marion Mathers (Ray Liotta), is reluctant to revisit an old case. White's wife, played by Katie Holmes, senses her husband is dealing with personal demons.Throughout "The Son of No One", I couldn't help but think that several promising angles were allowed to vanish without pursuit. Why, for instance, would a senior police officer risk his own reputation in covering up the murders – when there was a perfectly justifiable juvenile defense by White? Equally, the film hints at a police force under pressure after the events of September 11, 2001. But again, that is never explored. More baffling is the local community newspaper edited by Binoche. No explanation is offered for the anonymous notes – and why she would publish them without checking their veracity.If all this sounds risible – it isn't. The cast and crew acquit themselves well. Ageing lions Liotta and Pacino are on fine form. Katie Holmes is given some moving dialogue. Even Tracy Morgan is able to dampen his manic energy and delivers a muted performance. In the end, though, there simply isn't enough to hold our attention. Good acting is one thing – flawless storytelling is a greater challenge.

Thomas Aitken I simply can't agree with the other reviewers who gave this film a scathing review.I suspect a lot of the bad reviews came from people expecting a crime thriller, rather than what this film actually was - a crime drama.This was a classic slow burn police drama about a cop who is once again haunted by a past he thought he had successfully left behind him years ago.It is well acted, well scripted, well shot, well scored - almost like an indie movie, rather than a crime drama.In theory this film was supposed to be about redemption, but the failure to actually create a proper redemption narrative is exactly where it all came apart, and where I believe it slipped from being a great film to something that was worth the watch, but not a keeper.Ironically, it's only in the last moments of the film that things are ruined - and rather oddly I have to say, because everything is building towards the lead character taking that final step towards redemption by making a very public confession about his past, and the corruption within his police department, but nothing even remotely like this happens.The film simply ends with him getting on with his life, as if no heinous act of murder and corruption has just taken place, and thus allowed him to carry on with life as usual in the burbs.From a technical perspective it actually feels like they either ran out of money, or time, or they didn't know how to end this film so they just finished with an el-cheapo stock footage 'newspaper with important headline on the table in foreground' shot.In fact, the previous couple of minutes before that were a little bit problematic as well - the way Ray Liotta died was highly contrived and clichéd, and totally counter to where the film had been heading, and what it had built up to over the previous 80 minutes or so.Some of you may be thinking; 'but didn't they do the same sort of thing in 'No Country for Old Men?' - yes, but the very reason they did that was to make a point about suffering and evil in the world. If this film was trying to do the same thing it failed quite badly I'm afraid.Real shame, because other than that this was a good film.