You won't be disappointed!

Don't listen to the Hype. It's awful

Fun premise, good actors, bad writing. This film seemed to have potential at the beginning but it quickly devolves into a trite action film. Ultimately it's very boring.

The film never slows down or bores, plunging from one harrowing sequence to the next.

I just saw this movie tonight, The acting was outstanding. Rosamind Pike is beautiful.Some parts of the plot were absolutely brilliant. Other parts, not so much.First, you are led to believe that double jeopardy applied to "attempted murder" and attempted murder only. Since the wife was taken off life support, Willy said the charge is now murder and the double jeopardy doesn't apply.The problem here is twofold. First, if there was a living will, the husband legally executed his duty. Second, with or without a living will, it was the doctors and hospital staff that did the plug pulling not the husband. The double jeopardy still applied.The second mistake is huge and seemingly overlooked. Nunnaly had the shells swapped by his friend in the evidence room before he taped the bogus gun to a lawn mower blade the night before the trial reconvened.Willy said he had the bullet from the head of the wife after she died.. Guess what? Since the shells were switched. that shell wouldn't match in a ballistic test. And even further, the shells in the evidence room won't match the bullet from the Nunnaly suicide. Those bullets will only match the gun taped to the lawn mower blade.

I quite enjoyed this movie. There have been complaints about plot holes, most of which are not really holes at all. My explanation follows: (I've put the "holes" in quotes.)"I didn't understand why Crawford fired the pistol through the window. What was the purpose of that and didn't this provide ballistic evidence when those bullets were retrieved?"The point of shooting through the window, (after he heard the voice of the landscaper) was to create an situation requiring the calling of the police."Crawford had to check the make of the Nunally's sidearm well in advance to purchase an identical pistol." It's not that difficult to find out what sort of guns cops carry. He had undoubtedly used a private investigator to find out that:(a) his wife was cheating (b) who she was cheating with (c) find out all he can about the guy she was cheating withHe had been in their room the day of the shooting. It's not a stretch to assume he might have been there on an earlier occasion, and thus could find out exactly what kind of gun the cop carries."Is it possible that Nunally might have noticed a difference between his personal sidearm (nicks, scratches, general feel) and the "identical" replacement weapon?"The gun was in a holster. When he picks it up, it is in the holster. Most of the gun is concealed in that holster, with only the butt exposed. He sees what he expects to see. He would have no reason to expect that it is not his gun."Why didn't Nunally (or anyone else) think it unusual that the murder weapon was the exact same pistol that he himself carried?"Glocks are popular."How did Crawford know that his wife would not have divulged her identity to Nunally at some point in their liaison?"He didn't. This could be considered a hole."Assuming that the only ballistic evidence was in the wife's head, how could Crawford know in advance of the shooting that it would not simply pass thru, at such close range, or that the bullet could not be surgically removed or that his wife would not have died from the shooting? Any would provide ballistic evidence that Nunally's pistol was the murder weapon."They would have no reason to compare the bullet to Nunally's pistol. He did take a gamble on this, which he ultimately lost."The big, big hole. How did Crawford know that Nunally would be the officer arriving on the scene? Is he the only homicide detective in town? It all falls apart if anyone else shows up."Nunally wasn't just a detective. He was a hostage negotiator. This position requires additional training/skill. He undoubtedly discovered this fact when he had him investigated. This is why he shot through the windows, to create what would have been perceived as a "hostage situation"."Raised by Gosling, but unanswered in the plot, why did Crawford remove his wife from life support when he could have simply left the country for good as a free man."He erroneously believed he was home-free, after having been acquitted.Another reviewer posited the following:1) A man and a woman have an affair, and never get each other's last names. One happens to be a police hostage negotiator who happens to show up when the woman he's been seeing has been murdered.He doesn't "happen" to show up. He is brought to the scene because of a potential hostage situation. Prior to Nunnaly seeing the body, the police do not know that she has been murdered.2) There are two guns on the scene when the body is discovered by police. For the entire length of the movie the investigators never think to check out one of those guns to see if it's the murder weapon.This is because one of those two guns belongs to the cop. They didn't think of the switch. They're not all Columbos.3) The district attorney's office is given a single long weekend to come up with extra evidence in an attempted murder case when a witness is compromised. Anyone who's ever been involved in any aspect of a real murder case knows how laughable this is.I can't argue this one, since I'm not familiar with California law. I would imagine, though, that if you have no admissible evidence in a case, the case might well go south.4) A hospital agrees to a man's Do Not Resuscitate request for his wife the day after the man has been acquitted for attempting to murder her. No one intervenes on behalf of the wife, no family, no friends, no victim's advocates, no one.We don't know if there was any family. The hospital adjudged her case as hopeless. He might also have had some power of attorney for medical decisions.5) A man who has planned out a brilliant scheme for getting away with murder, covering every last detail with psychotic foresight, neglects to read the fine print in the Double Jeopardy laws and carelessly re-implicates himself.The reviewer is correct on this one. It is difficult to imagine that he would not be aware of this. I knew, as soon as he pulled the plug on her, that this would be his undoing.One reviewer complained that the double jeopardy law would have protected him. That is not the case. Attempted murder and murder are two different sections of law, with different statute numbers. When the wife died, a different charge applied, and he could be retried.Just my $0.02.

WTH? One of these movies made for business: To make an older movie star share screen time with a young talent in order to legitimize the younger star for audiences. Anthony Hopkins plays a man who kills his wife and sorta defends himself at trial against a young prosecutor who needs to be humbled before ehe can be great. Horrible. Not much courtroom scenes for a courtroom movie, and the reversals all through the film are a disgrace. Why did I watch this awful movie? SMH.

(Flash Review)What would you do if you caught your significant other fooling around on the side? I bet it wouldn't be as intricate as what Hopkin's character does! Thus this film is cat and mouse to see if brilliant- minded Hopkins will he be able to get away with his revenge and if Gosling, the successful yet young trial lawyer, can uncover his true actions. The story held your attention despite dragging near the middle, was well acted, had some professional plot reveals yet overall wasn't memorable and moderately formulaic. That being said, it's a quality film for the genre with big name actors. Oh and there was an underdeveloped romantic angle that didn't pass the mustard.