6/10
The ending ruined the initial enthusiasm.
25 August 2005
The movie is almost entirely based on the verbal exchange between the two outstanding lead actors: Freeman and Hackman. Freeman plays an investigation officer, Victor who has invited wealthy tax attorney Henry (Hackman) for clearing up some doubts about his testimony about two brutal murders, in which he is also a suspect. Thanks to the dramatic screenplay and director Hopkins's interesting style of showing flashbacks, the movie builds the tension right from the beginning. The story also explores the complex relationship between Henry and his attractive young wife Chantal, played nicely by Monica Bellucci.

To tell the truth, the whole interrogation procedure is made just magnificently enjoyable by the writer and performance of the actors. There's no point in comparison, but it must be said that Hackman's got the more complex and versatile role and he explored every bit of it with extreme passion. Apart from the two, same can be said about Bellucci. Some may complain that she should have expressed more emotion, I don't think so. The character herself is cold. And she captures that nicely. Thomas Jane played the 'young bad cop' role rather two-dimensionally. His character could be an interesting side point for the film but it doesn't seem so with him. Another question of mine: Why is the film set in Puerto Rico? None of the lead characters are from there. The story doesn't feature the country exclusively, so why?

But all these speculations and remarks fail when you end the movie like that. Yes, we understand why it was necessary. But it could have been shown more slowly, the truth could get the time to grow. In this case, the ending is utterly average and seemed like the filmmakers were suddenly in a rush to end the film. And that ruined everything the film was building upon so far.
22 out of 38 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Recently Viewed