Watch The Next Three Days For Free
The Next Three Days
A married couple's life is turned upside down when the wife is accused of a murder. Lara Brennan is arrested for murdering her boss with whom she had an argument. It seems she was seen leaving the scene of the crime and her fingerprints were on the murder weapon. Her husband, John would spend the next few years trying to get her released, but there's no evidence that negates the evidence against her. And when the strain of being separated from her family, especially her son, gets to her, John decides to break her out. So he does a lot of research to find a way.
|Studio :||Lionsgate, Fidélité Films, Hwy61,|
|Crew :||Production Design, Director of Photography,|
|Cast :||RZA Russell Crowe Lennie James Liam Neeson James Ransone|
|Genre :||Drama Thriller Crime Romance|
If Paul Haggis is going to keep on making movies, would somebody do us all a favor and sign him up for a basic screenwriting class? I mean, please, this film could be a lesson all on its own on how not to write a decent screenplay. Its all in here: one-dimensional characters, supremely poor pacing, multiple threads that go absolutely nowhere and completely implausible action sequences.And, you know, it's just a B-thriller. It's not like I haven't seen these mistakes time and time again. What really bothers me is just how highly it thinks of itself. It not only thinks it's interesting (which it isn't whatsoever), but it thinks it's smart, edgy, and it probably even thinks it's clever. I mean, there are so many characters who function for exactly one plot point and are then left behind in the dust. For example, this one chick who's name I forget (did they ever even say her name?) is introduced fairly early on in the film, and looks even like Russell Crowe's love interest. We see the very, very beginnings of a meaningful relationship forming and then it turns out that she was only a device to fill in a little potential plot hole (trying not to spoil the movie.) The same with Russell Crowe's parents, there are a handful of scattered scenes with them showing little glimpses of a meaningful relationship, and then the same exact friggin' thing is done, they're used as a simple (and illogical) plot mechanism.It's almost like one of Paul Haggis's friends was reading the script and said "hey, Paul, this is completely ridiculous, how could they possibly manage to _________" and Haggis wrote in these characters as devices to satisfy the issue, realized they were one-dimensional, and wrote in a pseudo-intelligent relationship (which doesn't in reality make them any better.) And this is how the first 2/3 of the movie moves so dreadfully slowly. I mean, I'm absolutely confident that with a decent editor, the first hour and fifteen minutes could be whittled down to maybe half an hour.They could have especially left out the symbols that don't actually symbolize anything. Which seems silly to say, but the jar of quarters that keeps recurring in the movie not only has no plot significance, but has zero metaphorical significance. They barely explained what they were doing in their house. They were quite literally only in the film to make it look a little deeper. Not to make it more meaningful, but to make it look more meaningful. To make it "smart," and "edgy," and "clever." I don't usually have a problem with making it through a movie but I had to push to make it through this ludicrous, self-righteous mess.
An above average thriller that I enjoyed---Russel crowe is one of the most recognisable names in Hollywood so I'm interested in anything he is in and I thought this was an alright film. The premise sees a school teacher try and break his wife out of prison and reunite his family. Now this movie only works because of the fantastic performance from russel crowe. He is a truly damaged character who just wants to have his family and his old life back and he will do anything to get it. You root for him but at the same time realise that maybe he is going to far. Elizabeth banks was good as his wife and there was allot of intrigue about the character and their chemistry worked for me. The kid was also pretty good in this movie. There are quite a few characters in this movie that are pointless and unnecessary such as the cops, crowes parents and Olivia Wilde's character that dragged down the film. I like the premise of the story, it is really interesting and I also really like the character development that crowe has. But like I said before there are just too many pointless filler plot threads in this movie and also I think the ending could have been done in a better way. The script wasn't that interesting at all with the dialogue being the main weakness of the film and also some things that characters do comes across as illogical. The style was really cool, I loved the suspense in the film and the action scenes that happened were really cool too. Overall this is a decent movie but I don't really care to see it again.
Waste of time and money---This is a Hollywood remake of French movie "Pour elle" with Diane Kruger. From what I've heard the French thriller is great . This one is an almost carbon copy and it sucks . It's not strange , since it was written and directed by Paul Haggis – famous for the dreadful "Crash".This movie is perfect example how NOT to make a thriller . The movie is full of stars that are wasted . OK , Russell Crowe ("Gladiator") is nice as the main hero and he definitely tries hard. Liam Nesson ("Schindler's list") appears for less than 5 minutes in a role that could have been played by anyone . Same goes for Olivia Wilde ("House MD") who gives a bland performance , but can you really blame her since she is stuck in bland role of "the girl next door" ? Daniel Stern ("Home alone") is nice as the advocate , but has about 5 minutes of screen time . It's also sad to see veteran actor Brian Dennehy ("Rambo : First blood") in a role of father of main hero . He has like 4 lines in the whole movie ! Pretty much screen time is given to Elizabeth Banks who plays the wife and is rather awful.All the characters are sketchily written and uninteresting . Only Crowe and Dennehy give their characters an illusion of depth . Haggis also shows us some terribly clichéd FBI agents who are always one step behind our hero. It's not surprising that the smartest FBI agent is black – political correctness is s**t.The movie is 2 hours long . 2 ANNOYING hours long . Nothing really happens during that time . The movie is routine , step by step generic thriller that isn't one bit surprising or exciting. We have to sit and watch uninteresting characters talk uninteresting dialogue . Even the action scenes suck . There is also some stupidity here . The transformation of Crowe's character from teacher to action hero is laughable and completely unbelievable. His plan and the way he tricks the authorities is hardly believable.The fact that this dull imitation of good thriller has good rating (7.3) makes me think that modern generation of viewers never have seen any good thriller in their life. I wasted 2 hours of my precious time on this dull , boring and irritating movie . I give it 1/10.
Star Wars is more believable than this movie!!---I had heard good things about this movie but when I saw that Elizabeth Banks was in it, I should have known it was going to suck. And If I had known that Paul Haggis wrote and directed it, I never would have watched it. The only likable and talented person in the mix is Russell Crowe and I feel bad that he got stuck in this unbelievable mess!!You could tell that Haggis thought he was making a "smart" edgy thriller but in the end it was contrived and "dumbed-down" with too many convenient accidents and coincidences that made me frustrated and angry with the film. It had the potential and seemed like it was trying to be like "The Fugitive" or films like that where we are to suspend our disbelief but this was too far over the edge to believe any of it.......especially the part at the end with the medical test and her transport to the hospital........really?? really?? Actually that could be my whole review for this film: REALLY??
Hollywood goes and stamps it's uninspired foot-print all over another foreign original---STAR RATING: ***** Saturday Night **** Friday Night *** Friday Morning ** Sunday Night * Monday Morning A re-make of a recent French thriller, involving a man called John Brennan (Russell Crowe), an English teacher whose wife Lara (Elizabeth Banks) is suddenly arrested on suspicion of murdering her boss. She goes on to be convicted of the crime and, when her final appeal fails, she becomes suicidal. Seeing no other way out, John begins to plot an elaborate escape plan that will require all his cunning.It's weird (and a little ironic) that I would probably have enjoyed The Next Three Days more if I hadn't seen the original (and especially so recently) and probably wouldn't have enjoyed films like Insomnia and The Vanishing so much if I'd seen the original foreign versions of those first. For that is the category the film falls snap bang into, that of being a glossy Hollywood re-make of a smaller budget European production (which they seem to love doing, even more so in these recessionary times) that doesn't have the luxury of the last two films I mentioned. And as so, I am only left to gawp at how shallow and inferior it feels to it's inspirational source, despite the best efforts of lead star Crowe to inject it with some gravitas and dynamism. A fine actor, he is left to carry a lot of the film on his own, while co stars including Liam Neeson as 'the man with the plan' and Brit star Lennie James get very minor, secondary roles.It's certainly slick and glossy enough, but director Paul Haggis can't infuse it with the same sort of gripping intensity that he did with his superior In the Valley of Elah. Fundamentally, the film's doing nothing wrong, pacing the story appropriately and generating the right degree of tension and suspense in the right doses. The trouble is, it plays out in exactly the same manner and style as the original and there's nothing you see in this that you couldn't see in the original. And why should you let the Hollywood cookie cutter machine dazzle you with it's glitzy lights when foreign, independent cinema could offer you something much more original and inspired? **