Breakinger
A Brilliant Conflict
Fairaher
The film makes a home in your brain and the only cure is to see it again.
Skyler
Great movie. Not sure what people expected but I found it highly entertaining.
Boba_Fett1138
It's hard to understand why some movies ever got made. Who ever green-lighted this unconvincing and formulaic story to be filmed? And even bigger question, why did all of these great and established names committed themselves to this project? Thing with this movie its story is that it never reaches a level above average. No shocking surprises or twists, no real convincing emotions, no tension. It feels just like a very empty and distant movie. The story unfolds itself as a very unconvincing one, since some very unlikely things start to happen in the movie. I just never understood the fact why the parents weren't desperate to get the truth from their son. They just eat together as an happy family, when the son is being nothing but death silent about the whole situation. This would had ticked me off as a parent and would had driven me insane. Just imaging your son being the main suspect in a murder case but he doesn't say anything to you about what happened. I would feel so mad at him and terribly unsure but not Liam Neeson and Meryl Streep. Also the way how the entire suddenly seemed to be against the family seemed so incredibly forced and silly that it all became incredibly unconvincing. The movie doesn't make you sympathize enough for any of its characters or with its drama. It would had perhaps also helped if the boy was really innocent and had nothing to do with the death of the young girl at all.Yes, there definitely are far worse movies out there but that doesn't make this movie a good one. Even though the movie never gets above the level of average it also never goes below the level of horrible. It's just a very average movie, by the numbers.Meryl Streep, Liam Neeson, Alfred Molina, Edward Furlong and John Heard are all actors that appear in this movie and it really makes you wonder why. I just can't imaging after reading the script that they seriously thought this would make a great, powerful and effective movie, that would leave a lasting impression on people and could even sweep some awards. All actors make some mistake in their careers and this movie seems to be one for all of them. Also some actors just get terrible underused in this movie. What was the point of the John Heard character? And why is Alfred Molina role so small in this. His role seemed like it could had played a far more important one for the movie. It could at least had given the story some more depth with its entire court proceedings.Not an horrible movie but I just can't think of any reasons why you should ever watch it.5/10http://bobafett1138.blogspot.com/
Wizard-8
I was pleasantly surprised by this movie. I had put off watching it for a long time because I thought it would fall on standard clichés in the telling of its murder mystery. But there's a lot to like here. For starters, the performances by the lead actors are first rate. Streep and Neeson come across as real people tackling a real problem. I should also add that Alfred Molina also gives a solid performance as the defense attorney. (Though the fact he looks like idiot movie critic Michael Medved gave me a few chuckles at times.) The script gives most of its characters a fair shake. The parents are sympathetic at times, but sometimes they make decisions we disapprove of. The townspeople and police are not one-note characters, showing off more than one side.The movie unfolds at a pace that keeps us interested and informed. It's directed with an appropriate bleak look that suits the subject matter.There is one flaw with the movie, however. I thought that Edward Furlong's character was repulsive, stupid, and hateful. I don't blame Furlong for this, but his direction and his parts of the screenplay. I think a better way the movie could have gone would be to give him a mixed view, neither overly sympathetic or hateful. This would make the viewer think long and hard about him, and wonder if his fate at the end of the movie is correct or not.
zinesandskafiends
From the beginning I had my doubts about this film. During the opening scene, I braced myself for an onslaught of Sundance clichés, but as the film progressed, I was pleasantly surprised. Before and After is a gem of a character study with believable performances by Meryl Streep and Edward Furlong. Liam Neeson's performance as a father with a reserved psychotic sense of protection toward his son is one of the film's highlights. There were some weak spots in the dialogue, but otherwise the script was well-written and engaging.Be prepared to be sucked into this movie; it's slow-paced, but the subtle suspense will make it nearly impossible to stop watching. Just when you think the film has told its story and can't develop any further, you discover that you've seen the beginning of Act II instead of the film's climax.
Wood-20
.Spoilers.There was a lot of good things about this movie. It was a compelling and interesting story right from the beginning. The acting was seemingly well played...... until the third act. What on earth happened to the direction of this film? I have not read the book, so I don't know if it has the same direction as this movie played out... but the third act did not even seem like the same movie. The acting took a nose-dive, and the melodrama began flowing freely like ipecac down the throat.From the beginning, I thought: Hey, sure, it's plausible that the Father wanted to save his son, and that these goofy things with the cover-up, and the family binding together to uphold the lie, were certainly no stretch of reason. Then we get to mom's, and Eddie's character's confession, and the whole thing is a puke-fest of gotchas and ridiculous moral claims about right and wrong which are, at best, pointless opposing claims about whether right or wrong and the law are the same thing.Don't misread me, though. I really enjoyed the beginning of this movie. I just hated the end.6/10
