MovieChat Forums > The Next Three Days (2010) Discussion > What I didn't like about the movie.

What I didn't like about the movie.

posted 13 years ago by Timescrew
79 replies | jump to latest

Granted, the movie wasn't terrible, I've seen worse. It could have been better and there were many areas it could improve upon, most notably casting and acting.

However, here are the things that killed it for me:

1. College teacher is smarter then the police?
Not just any police either, but I got the impression from the film that the lead cop was someone high up on the food chain.

2. Brennan plans very carefully, but neglects to notice that the birthday party will be at the zoo? Dude, read the freaking invitation.

3. Brennan wields a gun with some skill, and gathers enough gumption to do a one man raid on a meth lab. Really? That's a little far out there.

4. Said meth lab is only protected by a wily dog, some big guy, and a dude who stupidly promises to kill Brennan. Here's a hint, when a guy is really desperate and has a gun in your face, don't promise to hunt him down and kill him. If that were me I just might shoot you in the face and save myself from the sequel.

5. After going through all that, his wife wants to throw herself out of the car?
That was absolutely terrible writing.

6. Then, finally, we are treated to an epilogue where the detective, who obviously couldn't care enough in the beginning of the movie, decides to look for the button, and doesn't even find it even though we get to see it. I mean, what was the point of that scene? Was it to prove to us that she didn't do it? After everything Brennan went through, I honestly don't care if she did it or not. the scene only serves to give us some satisfaction that - hey - she was a good guy all along and deserved to be free.

Is that suppose to make me feel better? Brennan still had to kill someone (even if he deserved it) so that makes only one murderer on the loose.

Now, if the detective had found the button then it would have served as some Gift of the Magi type of irony. That she might have been set free after all so all of his efforts were in vein, yet none of which would not have come to pass if he had not set those events in motion in the first place.

Although, I don't see how a single button would have exonerated her, regardless of who it fell off of.

Now that I'm on a rant...

7. What's with that girl asking if that is what the detective calls coffee? Is that the same girl from the beginning of the movie at the restaurant? If so, who gives a crap. Its a pointless scene. That should have been on the cutting room floor.

8. Speaking of pointless, the other mother - Karen's mom what was her name... Nicole? Whatever, too much camera time for an unimportant character.

9. She? Yes, that is what Brennan's wife said when he came back to the car and reported that "she" had taken their son to the zoo. The tone in which implies jealousy. Really? The man just popped a meth producer, dumped a dead meth dealer, robbed a meth lab, doctored records, B&E, struck in officer, BROKE YOU OUT OF CUSTODY, and then dragged your whiny useless ass through the streets to save you and your family and you want to inquire about a supposed relationship with a woman you don't know.

And then throw yourself out of a car?

Poor acting.
Poor casting.
Poor writing.
Poor directing.

There is no flavor text!

[–] gawightman 13 years ago

I liked the movie for what it was, so I'll give it a shot:

1. Yes College Professors probably are smarter than the cops. Most cops are not college educated and learn on the job. Remember too. Crowe had help/guidance from a man who acutally outsmarted the cops. The most important information being: Think what they'd do. I'm pretty sure the part about picking up the old couple was part of the plan btw. He knew they would cast a wide net early at airports and train stations and he could yoke someone stranded at the station to take a ride and throw off the search at the border..again, think like the cops.

2. I am guilty of stuff like this all the time. It shows how prepared you can be but forget the little stuff. It said zoo party on it and obviously had the girls home address on it (or how would he know how to get there). People do that all the time.

3. not really. the whole time he knew what he had to do and throughout the film he goes a little farther...first recon, then buying drugs, then, B & E, etc...that usually how criminals progress - in stages.

4. Criminals are stupid by nature, especially drug dealers and users. in what seemed like a *beep* part of town, in a run down house - thats about what i'd expect. could of been a one man delivery, relatively low budget operation.

5. actually from the hospital scene alone you realize she wants nothing more than for Crowe to just go home and let her be - but once she realizes that cant happen anymore - or their kid won't have any parents, she runs with him. Then when it looks like they might not get away - or at least them get the kid - she took the only way out she could think of - bad idea yes, but she was short on razor blades, pills, etc. In any given moment - if you think everything you ever loved is going to be destroyed; what would you do? No-one can say - but that's not necessarily bad writing.

6. Agreed - I liked not ever knowing if she was guilty. I also thought it would have been a good plot line had she been guilty, but crowe didnt care. He never believed she was guilty; but it would have been interesting had she been guilty, Crowe knew it, and still did what he did.

7. I think that was an editing flaw - a short while later they show her and the brother in the interrogation room. At first I had no idea who she was either.

8. I disagree - first, Olivia Wilde is a sem-popular actress, though it was a small part. I think the script, director, and cast thought this was a good film early on. Crash (also by Haggis) was similar in that there was a host of well know actors with small roles. Brian Dennehy is a very well know actor - and had, what 4 lines total.

More importantly - that one scene where Crowe agress to walk with her gives that little moment in the viewer's head as - will he abandon this crazy idea, maybe start a new life with the single mom. I think that could/should have been more developed in the story to give crowe a bigger conflict when the time came to bust out the wife - but it was either cut or never intented. But you can tell from Olivia wild's character, whenever she meets crowe that she thinks it just might work for them, while all along, crowe was just using all the angles he could to save his wife.

9. It could have been jealousy - or just surprise (did she know about the breakout? or more to the point "She" could have meant "some lady has our kid somewhere?"

I disagree completely with your assessment of the acting/casting/writing/directing; great no – solid, yes. What specifically was poor in each of those categories for you?

All in all, you bring up interesting points, but most of which can be argued (for or against) - but they’re certainly not a reason to condemn this film for me

[–] im_in 13 years ago

you really summed up exactly how i viewed the movie ...

i completely agree ...

[–] Timescrew 13 years ago

Firstly I would like to both thank you and compliment you on replying to my rant in an intelligent and polite manner that I probably didn't deserve.. Truth be told, I was having a really bad day and I took it out on this movie. I realized when telling my friend about it that it really wasn't all that bad. The things I mentioned still bother me, but to a lesser degree.

Now, with a clearer head I would like to discuss your counterpoints.

1. I disagree. To the best of my knowledge in order to progress to a detective, a police officer is required to obtain a degree in Criminal Justice, or something of the like. Whether its an Associates or a Bachelors I don't know. The point here is that a detective, not just a regular beat cop, is suppose to smarter and more educated then your average criminal.

So here we are led to believe that Crowe is not your average bear. Taking that for granted we see that Crowe can raid a meth lab, mastermind a prison-break he pulls off single-handedly, utilizes and exploits the city's lockdown plan (which apparently has been updated since Neeson's escape) and we see from the movie that his greatest resource is... Youtube.

All I'm saying is that it seems a little far fetched.

2. Granted. Point conceded.

3. Granted. Point conceded. And to further add there was a sense of progression, the most compelling being when he is outside of the bank and debates whether he should hold it up. I much preferred the meth raiding option. Honestly, I felt like jumping through the screen and helping him.

4. I think you missed my point here. Yes, criminals are stupid and often fall victim to their own arrogance. My gripe here though is the overly trite and cliche way in which the boss threatens to kill Crowe, while he has a gun pointed at him. I guess maybe we could write that off as the boss having some internal sense that Crowe was a novice and thought he would apologize and politely leave.

5. Here is the biggest flaw in the movie though. So far, Crowe has made good on every promise he has given her. He has stayed strong and true to her throughout the entire ordeal. He said he was going to break her out. He did. So, when he says he'll come back for their son I would think she would finally give him the credit he deserves.

If she had been assertive in her demand that they fetch the boy, I would have understood. If she even had grabbed the wheel and forced their car off the road I would have understood. But to just throw herself out of the car like that? I still say that this is a weak point in the movie.

On the other hand... it did get her point across.

6. I'm glad we agree on the epilogue. Further, if she had killed her boss and Crowe didn't care I would still be rooting for him. My reason was because it appeared to be a crime of passion, as opposed to cold calculated murder. Yes, its still wrong, but given the fact that the future of his family and the sanity of his son was at stake I think other forms of attrition were necessary. In his eyes anyway.

I still feel bad that, ultimately, Crowe is the one who becomes the murderer.

7. Agreed. Editing flaw. However it also proves that the character was forgettable and unnecessary.

8. I disagree with your disagreement. :P My issue here has nothing to do with the actress, her talent/skill, or her popularity. Just that I feel like the director, using cinematography subtly hints to us that this character is a possible love interest. Honestly, if the character were real and had read that as well he would be offended. One of Crowe's characters most endearing qualities is his undying faith and devotion. To think that he would even entertain the notion, (okay, maybe once - he's only human) but then it appears to be pushed (subtly) over and over. Erroneous. This and the car thing are my biggest peeves, so it might be best if we agree to disagree. :)

9. I don't think so, although I know what you mean. However I got the impression from her tone of voice that it was more surprise/incredulity that there was a "she" in his life. I think this line should have either been dropped or delivered differently.

There is no flavor text!

[–] shurbanm 12 years ago

So what is your point exactly? That ALL teachers are dumber than ALL detectives? If so then you probably will never get round to enjoying any movie. That is the whole point of entertainment - to be surprised somewhat. If we know how anybody will fair based on their social status / profession there would be no characters. We would just have policemen, teachers, engineers etc. Then the criminal justice system would be much simpler too. Judges would base decisions on the profession of a defendant. If they are a teacher they couldn't have done the crime as their intelligence level would not be sufficient for that....

[–] JayRZay 9 years ago

I agree with most points. In particular I felt the same about his wife. The way she was portrayed it really raised the question of why on earth her husband, who knew her well before, should ever do all this to get her out.

Now I understand that she was going through a hard time, but a movie really should see keep the audience's viewpoint in mind. And the only redeeming quality we ever learn of her is her good looks. The movie starts with a scene where she gets into a bitchy argument with another woman; she explains that also she has arguments with her boss; she starts a fight with Crowe during a visit in jail; she starts an argument when he tries to convince her to escape; she tries to kill herself (and risks his life as well) after all he has done for her; and she asks "she??" in that bitchy voice that - in my opinion - actually *does* imply what the OP believes.

While individual parts of this may be understandable (in particular the latter, in my opinion, is not at all), the sheer amount of these scenes should get filmmakers to wonder "guys, who are we portraying here?". All other scenes with her are more or less neutral. Even the female black cop had more character than her, even though her part in the movie was almost irrelevant. Even the "she" at least was shown to have a sense of humor. Did his wife? We don't know.

I really think the movie should have cut the suicide attempt and the "she??" line. And maybe, just maybe added a few details that conveys the idea why Crowe would even want her out. The way it went, I really was rooting for him to bring her back to jail.

Also I have to agree that the ending was unnecessary and it would have made the movie considerably stronger if it had taken the stance that the viewers should make up their own mind whether she's guilty or not.

[–] paramitch 8 years ago

The way she was portrayed it really raised the question of why on earth her husband, who knew her well before, should ever do all this to get her out.

Because he knew she would never hurt or kill someone, and his instinct was eventually proven right? Because she was a good, generous and passionate person wrongly convicted, and a good mother to their child?

Prison, imprisonment, loss of life, family, and freedom (and a sentence of hard prison time for life) for a crime she didn't commit aren't exactly just "having a hard time." It's hell on earth.

Meanwhile, the irony is that Laura actually only fought with her husband:

1. When attempting to upset him on purpose, to help him abandon her in prison and start a new life without her after her appeal was turned down. She knew what her imprisonment was doing to him.

2. When she was horrified at his escape attempt and wanted to stop him from making a mistake that would ruin his life. (It was also further evidence that she was not someone who broke the rules or would normally agree with hurting others.)

Last but not least, while I'm not in favor of suicide, I understood her reasons (and definitely don't understand how either one makes her "bitchy"). We'd already seen that life in prison was hell for her and she'd already attempted suicide once. So it made sense to me from a character standpoint that she couldn't live without her child.

And for me, that was also what made it interesting -- the prison-breaker (Liam Neeson) literally tells Crowe, "Ask yourself, are you willing to walk away from your family? Your child?"

The interesting thing is that Crow WAS willing to walk away from his son but not his wife (knowing his parents would be taking good care of the child for them). His wife however could not live without her son. She could not walk away from the son, even if it doomed them all. I thought it was an interesting and believably complex characterization.

Ultimately, within the realm of movie-fantasy at least, I enjoyed this movie and that he was able to rescue her and to reunite their family.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I keep thinking I'm a grownup, but I'm not.

[–] trifocal_skink 13 years ago

Finally, someone with some intelligence posting on this board!

Very refreshing.

[–] dsmerri 13 years ago

Agree with most of the criticisms, especially the wife being annoying. A couple of minor things I thought were ridiculous: Opening a car door with a tennis ball, really?? Thats been disproved on Mythbusters already--he can get three fake passports but not a slimjim like AAA uses? Also, what are the chances the customs agent would take his break right when their pictures go on the alert notice? OK I'll go with that but wouldn't he recognize them later and find out what their destination was? Plus, customs agents tend to be suspicious when you're carrying what looked to be at least $100K in a child's backpack. If anyone asked him to open it they would be caught.

[–] shurbanm 12 years ago

Mythbusters are crap. It works on my car door.

[–] breilaella 9 years ago

Really? (the latter) (and maybe the former?)

[–] shurbanm 9 years ago

it's 3 year old thread. what are you asking about exactly?

[–] breilaella 9 years ago

a) what does the lenght of time since you posted have ANYTHING to do with my question, and b) I literally asked if the two parts of your response were true.

Should I spell it out?

Just nevermind.

[–] shurbanm 9 years ago

it has to do with it as i don't even recall what was discussed. if you want a response you can tell me. if not fine but you won't get an answer.

[–] JayRZay 9 years ago

Odd, dude. Odd.

[–] pikalive 8 years ago

Well, it's now 2016 and I understood the question. If you don't remember what you posted years ago (understandably), JUST READ THE THREAD.

so, did it really work? LOL

[–] shurbanm 8 years ago

moved on long ago. get a life

[–] pikalive 8 years ago

well, I just saw the movie today for the first time. So I am now reading the boards and posting. And I will respond and post to who or what I feel like. Thanks for your time.

[–] shurbanm 8 years ago

no problem

[–] mizhou-99-68324 10 years ago

imo it would make perfect sense if john at some point has doubts about his wife's innocence and considers to give up his rescue plan and start a new life with nicole. although i can see why they didn't choose to do this. because if he ever starts going down this road, what could possibly bring him back?

[–] jxh13 13 years ago

Nice rant. I share most of your concerns, and I'll add a few of my own. Plodding. Unlikable. Manipulative. Unpleasant. Overlong. Daniel Stern as a lawyer? No. In the final analysis, there are some effective moments, and the last reel has some suspense, and some of the actors do rather well (Dennehy, Liam Neeson), but I didn't really care if they got away or not, and that is what really broke the movie for me.

This is one of those cases where I get the people who liked it, who were involved in the details of the caper and family stuff, more power to you, but it just left me cold.

[–] mitsub001-1 13 years ago

I disagree with everything the OP said except #9. The wife annoyed me, big time. He just gave up his life for a wife that didn't deserve a back rub. Plus, #9 made me laugh...thanks.

Marion Cotillard, Keira Knightley and Rie Rasmussen are the most beautiful women on Earth.

[–] DeanWin 13 years ago

You didnt make any sense. The stuff you described can actually happen, dont blame the movie.

[–] TheHealthyEconomist 13 years ago

Complaining that a Hollywood script is far fetched? Whatever next!

I accept that you retracted your venom later in the discussion, but I really enjoyed this the way I enjoyed Taken...a highly charged action/thriller that requires you to suspend disbelief and sit on the edge of your seat.

Yes, the whole throwing herself out of the car (5) and the reappearance of the woman from the opening scene (7) does detract from the overall success of the film, but I will try to gloss of those points and be satisfied with my 2 hrs or so of viewing!

[–] joanna164 12 years ago

i agree with most of it i knw going into this that the moivie was going to be unrealistic but i just didnt care about the characters to give it a chance

daniel stern as a lawyer!!!!!!

[–] TheHealthyEconomist 13 years ago

Oooh, another thing I didnt like about the film was the part where they decided to search the house on the basis that the black Prius was registered to someone in prison for murder. Something like 7,000 were registered in the state but the decided to pounce on the fact that the Prius belonged to someone who was in prison? That sounded a bit silly and inefficient, but I am of course not a policeman and lack the instincts to ever be one!

[–] benosalankelley 13 years ago

Make it as we long along ending, like someone else finds it in a fantasy world ending, and keeps it, but ends up in the son of the black cop's hands, and yeah, then she is innocent.

But guess that means that the cops still find the wife guilty.

[–] cGrantLimbo 13 years ago

Of the OP's problems, number 5 resonated the most with me. I could take all the implausibility, and as a whole, found the movie really entertaining. I understand that she even wanted to commit suicide at another point in the film. It was just the way this scene was filmed that completely took me out of the picture. Opens car door and attempts to jump out, then car spins around for what seems like 3 times and a truck almost hits them. Car stops, no scratch on it....hmm, scene just escalated and didn't seem very necessary after all of that.

[–] shurbanm 12 years ago

why did you expect a scratch on the car. it didn't roll. the scratches would be on the tires as that is the surface that was in contact with the road. as a matter of fact i've seen this happen live and that car also did not have a scratch on it.

[–] mockingbirdfreak 13 years ago

I thought all your points were dead on... very much a suspension of belief for this movie.. tho i found it weird that Stings wife, Trudy Styler was in it... as the nurse... what? she was bad, too......

[–] shurbanm 12 years ago

You missed the fact they honed in on the criminals and there were only 2 of those with Priuses

[–] Vanessa248 13 years ago

It's not really for an academy award movie but it does put me at the edge of my seat. It was entertaining that I can day.

* Natural vitamins http://www.naturalcholesterolsupplements.com *

[–] suicidalpidgeon 13 years ago

Did not read anyone's response.

1. Cops are very well versed in their respected field: solve crimes. But do you have any idea how hard it is to solve one? One must piece together clues and evidences that would most likely make every day people dumbfounded (WITHOUT HINDSIGHT). Cops are human beings, too. They cannot make the most out of everything they find on such short notice on every case they get, like in this movie. If you read around, there are plenty of unsolved cases with a plethora, albeit inconclusive, array of evidences. You'd be surprised how the person you'd least expect evade and escape law enforcement officers.

Not to mention he had three years of planning (researched at the library) and expert help (Liam). In some cases he got lucky as well (Delivery guy gets sidetrack with the lady). I wasn't the least be surprised that Crowe's character was able to think the way the detective can, as a professional and as a human prone to occasional decision errors (following tossed lab coats).

2. Again, human error. He's a college professor with a family who's never done anything of this sort. Of course he'll miss something with the distraction of this magnitude. Ever plan a long special trip and forget your cell phone charger? I know very well qualified people who's done that.

3.People will do the most extraordinary things for the ones they love (mother lifting a car off a trapped son, father goes into burning building, etc). As for his performance with the glock, that's up for debate. Either he practiced some after purchase, or like anyone who's seen a few action movies, imitate. And don't tell me you wouldn't do the same on the imitation part if you knew you had no prior experience with a firearm.

4. The guy's dumb, why do you think he has only that much things in a crap house? Smart and composed ones will be living like Frank Lucas.

5. The woman was just broken out of custody. With all the adrenaline, people tend to make irrational decisions (especially when inexperienced/unprepared). My one gripe was that the trucker just left after seeing a woman hang out of a car. Then again, he was a trucker.

6. This part was up to the people who made the movie. I would find it difficult in their position to try to satisfy every single member of the audience. I don't recall who was actually on the case (nor if it was originally the guy who was looking for the button at the end). .But I'm fine the way it ended, as well as if it ended the way you wanted. I know some who liked the ending and some who didn't, just like you. Like I said, it would be difficult to find the ultimate ending. With this movie and everything that has led up to it, it would be hard to find the perfect ending because to me there was two sides to cheer for (Crowe's righteousness vs Police's justice, which I actually kinda rooted for as well). Choosing between what ending to use is like picking your poison. A possible cliffhanger would have been tedious anyways, this one wasn't as directional as say, Inception. Two very different things, yes, but in terms of how this was suppose to fit perfectly is where I'm trying to address. Overall, I'm just satisfied that they escaped. The anti-heroes/"bad guys" gotta win sometimes.

Even if the detective found the button, it wouldn't automatically exonerate her. It just means that there was the possibility of another person at the scene. Brennan still could have killed her boss and that the encounter with the other person was coincidental. Finding that button would have thrown a monkey wrench into the police investigation.

7. I think the point of that part was irony on behalf of Crowe's brother's significant other being all condescending and arrogant in the beginning of the movie. How she kept bragging how otherworldly she is and irresistible became a knife to the ego when the detective gave her the cold shoulder rather than get her a new, better brew, as she might have expected to happen. If anything, this part could have been left out.

8. Had no problem with her being a part of the movie. If anything her situation added more leeway for Crowe (a place to hold the kid while doing the break out, on top of the fact the police wouldn't have the slightest idea that he would be in her custody, since Nicole and Brennan have a platonic relationship and nothing more). It also added the quandary of having the Zoo situation which led up to Mrs Brennan being all suicidal again. To me, it added a little more "oomph" to the movie.

9. Unexpected news on top of everything else that's happened. Curiosity. I don't know myself. This part was meh.

A lot of my answers are based off the fact that Paul Haggis style of directing this movie is the portrayal of human emotion and interactions in the light very stressful, and very tenuous situations. After all, he is the writer of Crash, Flags of Our Fathers, Letters from Iwo Jima, Million Dollar Baby, and the recent James Bond movies. And all of those were pretty damn strong in the emotions department.