Vashirdfel Simply A Masterpiece

Nessieldwi Very interesting film. Was caught on the premise when seeing the trailer but unsure as to what the outcome would be for the showing. As it turns out, it was a very good film.

TrueHello Fun premise, good actors, bad writing. This film seemed to have potential at the beginning but it quickly devolves into a trite action film. Ultimately it's very boring.

Francene Odetta It's simply great fun, a winsome film and an occasionally over-the-top luxury fantasy that never flags.

nomad472002 I quite enjoyed this movie. There have been complaints about plot holes, most of which are not really holes at all. My explanation follows: (I've put the "holes" in quotes.)"I didn't understand why Crawford fired the pistol through the window. What was the purpose of that and didn't this provide ballistic evidence when those bullets were retrieved?"The point of shooting through the window, (after he heard the voice of the landscaper) was to create an situation requiring the calling of the police."Crawford had to check the make of the Nunally's sidearm well in advance to purchase an identical pistol." It's not that difficult to find out what sort of guns cops carry. He had undoubtedly used a private investigator to find out that:(a) his wife was cheating (b) who she was cheating with (c) find out all he can about the guy she was cheating withHe had been in their room the day of the shooting. It's not a stretch to assume he might have been there on an earlier occasion, and thus could find out exactly what kind of gun the cop carries."Is it possible that Nunally might have noticed a difference between his personal sidearm (nicks, scratches, general feel) and the "identical" replacement weapon?"The gun was in a holster. When he picks it up, it is in the holster. Most of the gun is concealed in that holster, with only the butt exposed. He sees what he expects to see. He would have no reason to expect that it is not his gun."Why didn't Nunally (or anyone else) think it unusual that the murder weapon was the exact same pistol that he himself carried?"Glocks are popular."How did Crawford know that his wife would not have divulged her identity to Nunally at some point in their liaison?"He didn't. This could be considered a hole."Assuming that the only ballistic evidence was in the wife's head, how could Crawford know in advance of the shooting that it would not simply pass thru, at such close range, or that the bullet could not be surgically removed or that his wife would not have died from the shooting? Any would provide ballistic evidence that Nunally's pistol was the murder weapon."They would have no reason to compare the bullet to Nunally's pistol. He did take a gamble on this, which he ultimately lost."The big, big hole. How did Crawford know that Nunally would be the officer arriving on the scene? Is he the only homicide detective in town? It all falls apart if anyone else shows up."Nunally wasn't just a detective. He was a hostage negotiator. This position requires additional training/skill. He undoubtedly discovered this fact when he had him investigated. This is why he shot through the windows, to create what would have been perceived as a "hostage situation"."Raised by Gosling, but unanswered in the plot, why did Crawford remove his wife from life support when he could have simply left the country for good as a free man."He erroneously believed he was home-free, after having been acquitted.Another reviewer posited the following:1) A man and a woman have an affair, and never get each other's last names. One happens to be a police hostage negotiator who happens to show up when the woman he's been seeing has been murdered.He doesn't "happen" to show up. He is brought to the scene because of a potential hostage situation. Prior to Nunnaly seeing the body, the police do not know that she has been murdered.2) There are two guns on the scene when the body is discovered by police. For the entire length of the movie the investigators never think to check out one of those guns to see if it's the murder weapon.This is because one of those two guns belongs to the cop. They didn't think of the switch. They're not all Columbos.3) The district attorney's office is given a single long weekend to come up with extra evidence in an attempted murder case when a witness is compromised. Anyone who's ever been involved in any aspect of a real murder case knows how laughable this is.I can't argue this one, since I'm not familiar with California law. I would imagine, though, that if you have no admissible evidence in a case, the case might well go south.4) A hospital agrees to a man's Do Not Resuscitate request for his wife the day after the man has been acquitted for attempting to murder her. No one intervenes on behalf of the wife, no family, no friends, no victim's advocates, no one.We don't know if there was any family. The hospital adjudged her case as hopeless. He might also have had some power of attorney for medical decisions.5) A man who has planned out a brilliant scheme for getting away with murder, covering every last detail with psychotic foresight, neglects to read the fine print in the Double Jeopardy laws and carelessly re-implicates himself.The reviewer is correct on this one. It is difficult to imagine that he would not be aware of this. I knew, as soon as he pulled the plug on her, that this would be his undoing.One reviewer complained that the double jeopardy law would have protected him. That is not the case. Attempted murder and murder are two different sections of law, with different statute numbers. When the wife died, a different charge applied, and he could be retried.Just my $0.02.

Ian (Flash Review)What would you do if you caught your significant other fooling around on the side? I bet it wouldn't be as intricate as what Hopkin's character does! Thus this film is cat and mouse to see if brilliant- minded Hopkins will he be able to get away with his revenge and if Gosling, the successful yet young trial lawyer, can uncover his true actions. The story held your attention despite dragging near the middle, was well acted, had some professional plot reveals yet overall wasn't memorable and moderately formulaic. That being said, it's a quality film for the genre with big name actors. Oh and there was an underdeveloped romantic angle that didn't pass the mustard.

nikkitakatana Only to watch it again a few years later and think, "what a load of nonsense!!" This is definitely one of those films. I'm almost starting to feel a bit sorry for Rosamund Pike cos I seem to be making a habit of giving low scores to films she's in. But then perhaps she likes being in films with plots that rely on seriously bad police work. And a bad apple that thinks they're way too clever. Did anyone else wonder exactly which accent Anthony Hopkins was meant to be using? Cos there was definitely some Scottish and Irish thrown in with the Welsh along the way. That was very distracting.Anyway, first time I saw it I thought it was a rather well put together stylish thriller. Second time around it just appears to be a complete slating on the inadequacies of a legal and justice system.Then again, perhaps I'll watch it again another day and the cops falling for the cons "cons" might all make sense. But somehow I doubt that very much. A clever thriller should really have at least one really sharp criminal. Not one that's so clever he gets away with it first time only to give the cops all the evidence they need to put him away for a bigger crime later on. And, ideally, cops who can figure out if the murder weapon isn't at the crime scene then they need to eliminate possibilities and do some proper detecting work. And a guy who works his way up to lieutenant has a) no idea on the identity of the woman he's having an affair with and b) manages to get his gun swapped twice in the same day?With some films, the deeper you look, the bigger the fractures. I think I've probably just talked myself out of giving it a third viewing.

dierregi Finally a courtroom drama-psychological thriller with some substance. Hopkins is Ted Crawford, a malevolent, clever guy who prefers homicide to divorce. Gosling is Willy Beachum, a smug young lawyer on his way to a bright career in the private sector who ends up playing a cat and mouse game he could do without.Crawford shots his wife Jennifer, because she has an affair with Lt. Nunally, and Homicide cop and then sets a crazy plan in motion. Jennifer ends up in a coma and the distraught Nunally sort of looses it.I am not a Gosling fan, but contrary to most other reviewers I found his character strangely endearing. Maybe because of his integrity, a quality so rarely seen in modern day movies' characters. Willy' s smugness is mitigated by his determinationWilly sees Jennifer as a victim, not as somebody who "had it coming" and visits her at the hospital, hoping for a miracle recovery.What I found disturbing are the comments about Crawford deserving to get away with murder because he is clever. Some people must still have a hard on for Hannibal Lecter or think that a woman deserves to die if she is unfaithful - which is worrying.There are a few plot holes, the biggest being the affair between Jennifer and Nunally. In fact, the whole movie stands on the premise that Nunally is blissfully ignorant about Jennifer's identity. I found it weird that a Homicide cop did not try to find out who is lover was. It is very unlikely cop behavior, since she could have been linked to terrorism or crime and cops like to investigate.Anyway, the pace is fast but not frantic, with some luscious settings that do not hurt the eye and witty dialogues. My favorite quote:"Maybe I can find some new evidence by tomorrow" "Where? Are you going to buy it at the evidence store?"