The Next Three Days and The Shawshank Redemption are two dark films that deal with prison and prison escape. They follow men and women in and out of prison and tread the lines between innocence and guilt. John Brennan in The Next Three Days is desperately trying to free his wife from prison. Andrew "Andy" Dufresne in The Shawshank Redemption is desperately trying not to lose his mind and spirit in prison. The wife in The Next Three Days goes thorough a similar ordeal in prison as Andy and his prison friend Red, although her movie doesn’t go anywhere near as in-depth in prison and her sentence ends up being much shorter. Both films deal with normal people in deeply rough times as they go through spirit-crushing experiences.
Isolation is a large theme in the films. The characters don’t have that many people who they can depend on. The movies’ heroes are ones who we root for because they are sympathetic and have to survive the worst of this world’s challenges by themselves. The Shawshank Redemption is longer so there is more time for dense character development. It also delves farther into what prison-life is like. I believe that is something that The Next Three Days could’ve benefited from. We would’ve rooted more for Lara, John’s wife, if we had known more about what she went through exactly. Both Andy and John endure intense bodily harm, but ironically Andy is the one who doesn’t respond with much violence even though he is inside prison walls and John isn’t. Andy uses his wit to find ways to solve his problems all by himself. John, without using anyone to consult solves his own problem. He gets money by killing instead of being overly creative. You’d think he would figure another way because he is a college professor, but desperate people can do desperate things.
Both movies are compelling at times, but I constantly found myself more compelled with The Shawshank Redemption because of the clever storytelling and unusual characters. Both are definitely comparable because of the settings and the desperate situations. There are also prison escapes in both. Hope, victimization and time running out are the three most memorable themes I believe that the films have in common. The prison system and its faults, just like many things, are rough facts of life that art will continue to imitate. It’s a good thing it will because it always keeps films grounded in the tough truths of humanity.
12.11.2010
12.10.2010
The Next Three Days
Review Contains Spoilers!
The final new film we saw in the Film Criticism and Review class was “The Next Three Days.” Russell Crowe plays John Brennan, a man who becomes desperate to break his wife Lara out of prison. Lara, played by Elizabeth Banks, stresses to John that she is innocent of murdering her boss after a fight with him at work. He believes her all the way and takes on a hefty plan of action to break her out. He evens consults a man, played by Liam Neeson, who successfully broke out of prison more than once and wrote a book about it. The film takes place in present-day Pittsburgh. It’s directed by acclaimed director and screenwriter Paul Haggis, who was the director of 2005’s Best Picture winner Crash. The Next Three days is a tense drama that is based on 2007 French film Pour Elle by Fred Cavayé.
John goes through some hard, life-changing situations on his quest to set his wife free. He tries to get passports and ends up getting beat down for it. Lucky enough, a man who was in a bar earlier, when he was just beginning to track down some people who could help him, later finds him and gets him what he needs. I thought this was a little convenient. I mean, who knows, but a solution came to his doorstep only a little ways into his endeavor and it just seemed a little too fast for me. He also finds solutions to his other problems fairly quickly, including his money problem. The man that had broken out of prison before had told John that he would need a truckload of money in order to build a new life somewhere far away. He steals a ton of money after a shootout with a gang in a methamphetamine lab that he barely keeps from blowing up, even though the place erupts in flames. John falsifies medical evidence with medical info that he gets from a truck he breaks into by using a hot tennis ball trick, which has actually been disproven by the television show Mythbusters. His wife is transferred to a hospital because of this. He then amazingly subdues a guard outside where his wife is and escapes with her. The suspense throughout the film is good, but I just think that more time should’ve been spent on him trying to figure his plan out. I would’ve loved for details to have been perfected for believability’s sake and for John to have been more of a nervous wreck so that Russell Crowe’s acting could’ve shined.
The acting in the film is good, but I feel that several phenomenal actors were wasted in large part due to the script. Things move too quickly and the characters don’t feel too well developed. The wife has a fit near the beginning, but other than that she doesn’t get to express herself very much. Russell Crowe does a fitting job, but like I mentioned earlier, he doesn’t come off as anyone that really pulls you into the story the way he could’ve. Another actor with an extremely small part is James Ransone who plays Harv, one of the thugs that beats up John early on. Mr. Ransone has been handed amazing roles in Ken Park, The Wire and Generation Kill, but he is totally wasted as a dirtbag who has just about one line.
All in all I wasn’t terribly impressed. Paul Haggis should know better too, being the skilled filmmaker that he is. I haven’t seen the original French movie, but I bet you anything it’s better. That tends to be the case and I’m not sure why. I suppose most remakes are just made out of laziness instead of real intent to make a film better. My final ruling is a 1.5 out of 5.
The final new film we saw in the Film Criticism and Review class was “The Next Three Days.” Russell Crowe plays John Brennan, a man who becomes desperate to break his wife Lara out of prison. Lara, played by Elizabeth Banks, stresses to John that she is innocent of murdering her boss after a fight with him at work. He believes her all the way and takes on a hefty plan of action to break her out. He evens consults a man, played by Liam Neeson, who successfully broke out of prison more than once and wrote a book about it. The film takes place in present-day Pittsburgh. It’s directed by acclaimed director and screenwriter Paul Haggis, who was the director of 2005’s Best Picture winner Crash. The Next Three days is a tense drama that is based on 2007 French film Pour Elle by Fred Cavayé.
John goes through some hard, life-changing situations on his quest to set his wife free. He tries to get passports and ends up getting beat down for it. Lucky enough, a man who was in a bar earlier, when he was just beginning to track down some people who could help him, later finds him and gets him what he needs. I thought this was a little convenient. I mean, who knows, but a solution came to his doorstep only a little ways into his endeavor and it just seemed a little too fast for me. He also finds solutions to his other problems fairly quickly, including his money problem. The man that had broken out of prison before had told John that he would need a truckload of money in order to build a new life somewhere far away. He steals a ton of money after a shootout with a gang in a methamphetamine lab that he barely keeps from blowing up, even though the place erupts in flames. John falsifies medical evidence with medical info that he gets from a truck he breaks into by using a hot tennis ball trick, which has actually been disproven by the television show Mythbusters. His wife is transferred to a hospital because of this. He then amazingly subdues a guard outside where his wife is and escapes with her. The suspense throughout the film is good, but I just think that more time should’ve been spent on him trying to figure his plan out. I would’ve loved for details to have been perfected for believability’s sake and for John to have been more of a nervous wreck so that Russell Crowe’s acting could’ve shined.
The acting in the film is good, but I feel that several phenomenal actors were wasted in large part due to the script. Things move too quickly and the characters don’t feel too well developed. The wife has a fit near the beginning, but other than that she doesn’t get to express herself very much. Russell Crowe does a fitting job, but like I mentioned earlier, he doesn’t come off as anyone that really pulls you into the story the way he could’ve. Another actor with an extremely small part is James Ransone who plays Harv, one of the thugs that beats up John early on. Mr. Ransone has been handed amazing roles in Ken Park, The Wire and Generation Kill, but he is totally wasted as a dirtbag who has just about one line.
All in all I wasn’t terribly impressed. Paul Haggis should know better too, being the skilled filmmaker that he is. I haven’t seen the original French movie, but I bet you anything it’s better. That tends to be the case and I’m not sure why. I suppose most remakes are just made out of laziness instead of real intent to make a film better. My final ruling is a 1.5 out of 5.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)