Film

What's on at the cinema plus reviews of the latest movie and DVD releases

The Next Three Days (2010)

Director: Paul Haggis

Time Out rating

Average user rating

20 reviews

Movie review

From Time Out London

Fred Cavayé’s popular 2008 French prison-break melodrama ‘Anything for Her’ becomes a terse, overly serious, character-driven potboiler in the hands of Paul Haggis, the writer-director of ‘Crash’ and ‘In the Valley of Elah’. The plot – Russell Crowe’s browbeaten family man finds his life falling apart when his wife (Elizabeth Banks) is convicted of murder and decides to bust her out – promises high-stakes drama and high-octane action, so it’s a shame that it takes ‘The Next Three Days’ well over an hour to get going. When it does, the film is gripping, intense and highly enjoyable. But it’s a long, tough slog to get there.

It doesn’t help that Haggis has chosen to set the film in the wintry industrial wasteland of Pittsburgh, restricting his palette to concrete grey and muddy brown. He reins in his actors to a frustrating degree: what should feel like tight-lipped realism comes off as merely half-hearted, leaving some early scenes – such as one in which Crowe meets multiple escapee Liam Neeson for coffee and deep research – feeling flat and perfunctory.

But in the third act, both Haggis and his actors kick it into high gear, leading to a breathless chase sequence, the outcome of which is unpredictable to the last moments. We know Haggis is a filmmaker who takes his craft terribly seriously. But in ‘The Next Three Days’, a sense of portentous joylessness cripples what could have been a satisfying genre thriller.

Author: Tom Huddleston

Time Out London issue 2107, Jan 6-12 2011

Email Tweet Share

User reviews of this film

That is NOT why they voun said...

Posted on Feb 29 2012 05:16 That is NOT why they vounlteered - they SERVE to protect our freedom - not to be wrapped in cotton batting and never allowed to do what they are trained to do. It's like building a boat and letting sit in your garage. ---------------------------------I'd like to see them come home, to be looked after, be nurtured,

Report as inappropriate
I was blown away by how e said...

Posted on Feb 27 2012 18:34 I was blown away by how enairttening this film was considering how much of the film takes place with characters talking to one another on a cell phone. A good movie, but as you mention, a movie made with exceptional skill.

Report as inappropriate
Jack1Ace said...

Posted on Nov 12 2011 00:53 Tom Huddleston's review was spot on. Very slow and poorly directed and badly cut for the first hour. Then it picks up the pace a bit, but Banks' character is hard to believe anyone would care enough to jailbreak, and Crowe looks too dull and flabby to really have the wit or passion to care so much. The kid was a brat. Needed a lean, mean, intelligent-looking lead as in the far superior French original, and perhaps Olivia Wilde as the wife, along with much slicker direction. The supporting cast i.e. the hoodlums were a joke, though Dennehy, as always was good, as way the lead detective. Three stars at a stretch.

Report as inappropriate
cassius said...

Posted on Aug 17 2011 05:57 Pretty accurate review, although I enjoyed the drab wintery setting myself. The first 2/3 plod along unimpressively, but the last third is gripping enough to give this film four stars (just).

Report as inappropriate
andy said...

Posted on Jun 05 2011 23:05 Quite tense towards the end,but didn't really engage me on an emotional level.Something about the acting or direction that was a little flat.I aggree with the review above that it could have or should have been better.

Report as inappropriate
ed said...

Posted on Apr 14 2011 16:10 Russell Crowe needs to shape up. HisRobin Hood film was flatulent and this thriller was missing actors like Ice T and Michael Madsen (although Liam Neeson pops up for a joke!)... I never got to see the orignal film from 2008 but how that can have a better plot is beyond me... The whole thing hung on characters you cared about, and the two leads were entirely unsympathetic... The whole thing with the cops and the button was corny... I was expecting a good rounded thriller like RANSOM but was far from impressed with a plot that hung on som much coincidence and plot stretches. In a film like UNKNOWN or TAKEN you half expect the stupidity and go along for the ride. Suspended disbelief is standard... Next Three Days pretends to have a weight and gravity with the presence of Russell Crowe and write director Paul Haggis (Million Dollar Baby / Crash / In The Valley Of Elah)..
The whole thing is as thrilling as 10yrs of the Queen's Speech on Christmas Day... In a word, Meh!

Report as inappropriate
Justin Berkovi said...

Posted on Mar 13 2011 23:51 Ignore the critics and DO go and see this brilliant film. This is almost like a modern day 'Shawshank Redemption', not in plot but in film style and escapism. It fuses incredible tension with fantasy in a way that made 'Shawshank' a remarkable piece of cinema.
Engrossing, full of high tension and brilliantly executed. This is what you go to the cinema for.

Report as inappropriate
Thomas Noctor said...

Posted on Feb 26 2011 13:12 This was ok at best, took a long time to get to the actual freeing of his Wife, yet I liked it at times. I just watched 'The Social Network' and 'Buried', so after those borefests, this was a nice change!

Report as inappropriate
Jane said...

Posted on Jan 23 2011 11:56 wish that Hollywood stops copying others films... they never make it as good as the original...
taxi, the tourist, anything for her, Tanguy...the list is long

Report as inappropriate
Mike said...

Posted on Jan 20 2011 07:31 I really liked the original 2009 French film “Anything for Her” upon which this Crowe version is based. I guess that this film was commissioned so quickly after AFH is a compliment to the original story, but something gets lost in translation. Though the pace picks up at the end of TNTD, a couple of times I found myself looking at my watch.
.
That large (knife?) scar on Liam Neeson’s face was laughable – you don’t need a scar on your face to prove you’re an ex-con. And it’s exactly this type of detail/direction that makes you feel the director/producer's intention was that this should be the English-spoken version for people who aren’t very bright, couldn’t cope with the subtitles in AFH, and need very obvious props in order to make sense of the story. Patronising, perhaps. Likewise, the whole bump key/broken key scene wasn’t in the original, and didn’t work in this film – it would have raised too much attention for Crowe’s character, especially as his character was identified on CCTV. There was no follow up. There’s no way the authorities would have let that go. Good performances by Crowe and Elizabeth Banks, but not their best.
.
Two stars, three if I was feeling very generous. I can’t see this version picking up Oscars or other gongs.

Report as inappropriate
critique said...

Posted on Jan 19 2011 10:53 Solid thriller.

Report as inappropriate
Linda Brown said...

Posted on Jan 13 2011 17:32 Although I thought the acting by Russell Crowe and Elizabeth Banks was outstanding, I found the plot too fantastical to fully enjoy this film. The way in which the police suddenly started taking an interest in Crowe with no reason to do so and the sudden ratcheting up to maximum tension just because his jailed wife owned a car of the same type as one used in a drugs murder didn't ring true to me. (Not that I found some of Crowe's actions very believable either!) Overall I thought the pacing too slow and the plot holes could have been overlooked if the director had restricted himself to a 90 minute film and kept the story moving at a fast and rhythmic pace. Imagine how good this film could have been if made by the late, great Alfred Hitchcock!

Report as inappropriate
scrumpyjack said...

Posted on Jan 10 2011 21:58 I thought it was pacey, well acted and enjoyable. pity about a few belief stretching scenes. still, good. 7/10

Report as inappropriate
ric said...

Posted on Jan 10 2011 16:51 This is a fantastic movie but to DRAG out the storyline it was given was outrageous. 5:20 start(albeit adverts) end time 8.10

Report as inappropriate
Mike said...

Posted on Jan 09 2011 14:24 For the life of me I can't think why this film was made. "Anything for Her" was only released in 2008, and it's superb. Is this Russell Crowe version pandering to those who can't cope with subtitles? Avoid the Russell Crowe version, and buy the real thing on DVD. Like Time Out says (above), the original was very good, and this version less so.

Report as inappropriate