Very disappointing...

It's the kind of movie you'll want to see a second time with someone who hasn't seen it yet, to remember what it was like to watch it for the first time.

This is a dark and sometimes deeply uncomfortable drama

Actress is magnificent and exudes a hypnotic screen presence in this affecting drama.

I love police thrillers, and find films about police corruption often intriguing. The supposed- to-be good guys and our protectors having bad sides, going badder as closer to their secrets you get. I quite liked the start of this one. The first minutes are mildly and annoyingly confusing, but then the film gets interesting. The book, which is written by the director, has an interesting plot. But somehow the storytelling fails along the way.I think Ray Liotta and Al Pacino is very good here, as almost always. Channing Tatum is supposed to be bottled up, and plays like it. Juliette Binoche, Katie Hlmes, all make a good job. But then they are all great actors.It's not tat it's slow paced. I really din't mind, as long as acting is good. But it's obvious that this script should have been sharpened quite a lot. When the nerve s on top, the movie fails to prevail. I think, as often is case, that a writer should get another's help when bringing a book or a script to screen. The direction is OK, but the storytelling is lacking. This might be due to a writer knowing his stuff and manuscript all too well, and taking the wrong decisions when to get it on screen.So after 1 hour and 20 minutes, the film stumbles finally. Too many flashbacks, and the twists comes out lame.

The best part of the movie is the cast: both adults and children are great , although it seems to me Channing Tatum has had better roles than this. I liked most Al Pacino as Detective Stanford and Jake Cherry as young Jonathan "Milk" White, but the others were also equal to their task. Directing and especially plot leave a lot to be desired. Background obsessing/pestering is always there, but some turns are strange and illogical. The solution scene is good (although nothing special), but the very ending is rather disappointing. When the credits appeared I just realized that I had seen another oppressive movie with the aim to let the viewers ponder upon guilt, forgiveness, remorse and other differently perceived feelings.

I simply can't agree with the other reviewers who gave this film a scathing review.I suspect a lot of the bad reviews came from people expecting a crime thriller, rather than what this film actually was - a crime drama.This was a classic slow burn police drama about a cop who is once again haunted by a past he thought he had successfully left behind him years ago.It is well acted, well scripted, well shot, well scored - almost like an indie movie, rather than a crime drama.In theory this film was supposed to be about redemption, but the failure to actually create a proper redemption narrative is exactly where it all came apart, and where I believe it slipped from being a great film to something that was worth the watch, but not a keeper.Ironically, it's only in the last moments of the film that things are ruined - and rather oddly I have to say, because everything is building towards the lead character taking that final step towards redemption by making a very public confession about his past, and the corruption within his police department, but nothing even remotely like this happens.The film simply ends with him getting on with his life, as if no heinous act of murder and corruption has just taken place, and thus allowed him to carry on with life as usual in the burbs.From a technical perspective it actually feels like they either ran out of money, or time, or they didn't know how to end this film so they just finished with an el-cheapo stock footage 'newspaper with important headline on the table in foreground' shot.In fact, the previous couple of minutes before that were a little bit problematic as well - the way Ray Liotta died was highly contrived and clichéd, and totally counter to where the film had been heading, and what it had built up to over the previous 80 minutes or so.Some of you may be thinking; 'but didn't they do the same sort of thing in 'No Country for Old Men?' - yes, but the very reason they did that was to make a point about suffering and evil in the world. If this film was trying to do the same thing it failed quite badly I'm afraid.Real shame, because other than that this was a good film.

I don't normally write reviews but I felt compelled to write this one because of all the criticism this movie has received. Believe none of it. The Son of No One is an intriguing, superbly acted, crime/drama/thriller/mystery. It is rather slow paced, and there aren't a lot of shootouts etc but that doesn't make it any the less compelling. I was hooked from start to finish. The movie is told both from a current perspective and from a series of flashbacks. Two murders that occur in the flashbacks remain unsolved and that has repercussions for the present part of the movie. Someone is talking and someone wants the talk to stop. Channing Tatum's character is a cop caught in the middle of all this. Gradually the story unfolds and the tension rises. Channing Tatum is especially good in his role, but Katie Holmes also shows some acting chops.