Directed by:
Paul HaggisCinematography:
Stéphane FontaineComposer:
Danny ElfmanCast:
Russell Crowe, Elizabeth Banks, Brian Dennehy, Lennie James, Olivia Wilde, Ty Simpkins, Helen Carey, Liam Neeson, Daniel Stern, Kevin Corrigan, Jason Beghe (more)VOD (2)
Plots(1)
Life for John and Lara Brennan (Russell Crowe, Elizabeth Banks) is miserable after she is convicted of a murder she says she did not commit. Three years later while struggling with the demands of work and raising his son alone, John is still trying to establish her innocence. When her final appeal is rejected, Lara becomes suicidal, forcing John to exercise the only option he has left: Break her out of prison. (Reel Entertainment)
(more)Videos (4)
Reviews (10)
A remake better than the original. That’s mainly because Haggis is much better at family tension than Cavayé. He succeeds mainly because the American family is much more accessible. The burden of the husband's fate is not almost existential, but instead is driven by a clear daddy motivation and offers more audience-appealing elements (the tennis ball tick, the bumpkey, the time press). My only criticism is towards the lack of more vigorous chasers (Quinn’s character is basically made for it!). Otherwise, it’s the best "escape" film since The Fugitive. 4 ½.
()
Two stars for Russell Crowe and Liam Neeson, otherwise there is nothing extravagant about The Next Three Days. For example, unlike other people, I was terribly bothered by the way the two halves of the film (the calm and action parts) impacted each other, and as a diabetic I was not at all happy with the unprecedented stupidity related to the transfer of Brennan's wife from the prison to the hospital... And in general - the film seemed to me terribly unbelievable, although it was probably supposed to be believable. Overall a disappointment.
()
Despite being a remake, it’s good. Because this role is just right for Crowe; Haggis keeps up the tempo and tension level in respectable waters, so the only complaint can be about the not so good chemistry between the central duo; the original is significantly superior in this respect. However, Haggis scores extra point for powerful emotional moments. Especially the silent interludes on the freeway... That got me more than anything has in a long time. The French version is more “intimate" (the relationship with the father and mainly with her brother is far more important) and overall better in the preparation phase, the American version again works better in the adrenaline parts. But why think about what is better/worse when in both cases these are primarily exceptional pictures.
()
Paul Haggis seems to always focus on a topic where he is the strongest: social empathy, in this case, family. A very unique film, packed with emotions and very realistic scenes. The leading duo is phenomenal from beginning to the end. Some scenes are so realistic that make your blood freeze, surprisingly, usually adorned with fascinating dialogues. The preparation for the escape is captivating, but the real inferno only begins when it comes to a breaking point. Ironically, the film, with very little action, is much faster and more lively than most action flicks. A truly monstrous masterpiece, with an incredibly fucking cool, without a single flaw.
()
A very thrilling civilian thriller with an ending that irons out all moral dilemmas and doubts to the detriment of the whole. Russell Crowe is beginning to find himself in the roles of overweight intellectual gladiators. And he's definitely doing better than the dashing outlaws. Overall, a pleasant surprise that will not disappoint fans of "escape" movies. If it wasn't for that excessive schematic ending, I'd give it a clean four stars, so I'm pointing out that on star is a little less than full.
()
Ads