4/10
A Decent Movie That Disappoints By Giving Us Absolutely No Closure
9 May 2017
Warning: Spoilers
When you watch a movie like this, you do so knowing that there's a twist coming; that not all is as it seems. So you spend the bulk of the movie trying to figure it out, looking at details, asking yourself what's not making sense - because you're being too obviously led to believe in the guilt of one character. Henry Hearst (played by Gene Hackman) is a rich and powerful attorney living in Puerto Rico. He's married to young and beautiful Chantal (played by Monica Bellucci.) All seems well - except that recently two young girls have been raped and murdered, and almost from the beginning Hearst is pulled aside by Police Captain Benezet (played by Morgan Freeman) because he's the prime suspect. The movie proceeds basically as a depiction of Hearst's interrogation by Benezet, with the scene sometimes shifting to Chantal being interrogated.

The evidence seems overwhelming. Everything points to Hearst. Then, in the course of the interrogation, a lot of unsavoury things are revealed about Hearst. His marriage is unhappy - he and his wife have separate bedrooms and haven't shared intimacy in quite a while. He met her when she was 11 years old (although they didn't get involved until later) - but the point was made that there's something about young girls. He admits that he likes young women. He watches pornography. He spends a fair bit of time with prostitutes apparently. Chantal relates what she believed to be a suspicious encounter between Henry and their 13 year old niece. (Actually one interesting part of this movie is how Chantal and Henry have very different perspectives on the very same things - and it's possible that neither of them are lying; they just see things differently.) In any event, there's a lot about Henry that makes him seem like someone who would commit these crimes. He seems guilty. It seems open and shut. Which makes you think - "I don't know. That's just too obvious. There has to be something more."

There is - although it's left to the last few minutes, which did have me wondering if the twist was going to be that there was no twist. As the movie comes to its close, Henry confesses to one of the murders at least. He breaks down, he sobs. Then it's revealed that the killer has been captured. It's not him - and so he's released. Was this a depiction of police making assumptions about the guilt of someone and then breaking them down bit by bit and piece by piece until they wring a confession out of an innocent man? That's what it seems like. But the end was unsatisfying. It left too many questions. There were questions about the relationship between Chantal and Henry and how that turned out. It was never revealed who did it - and the ending suggests that there was no way that the viewer could have figured it out - apparently it was no one who had been feature din the movie. (I actually thought I had figured out the twist and who committed the murders - or at least who wanted us to believe that Henry had committed the murders, but none of that was ever revealed.) This left me unsatisfied, with a bit of an empty feeling. There was no closure. Which was a shame.

This had actually been a pretty decent movie. Bellucci didn't really capture me (and Thomas Jane was unnecessarily cast as a police detective who really wasn't needed) but Hackman and Freeman were both extremely good in their roles - as you'd expect from such veteran actors - and the story was compelling. It kept me interested up to the end - but then it just crashed and burned with that extremely unsatisfying ending. (4/10)
4 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Recently Viewed