why he have to sell a house that he legally bought…

i have mixed feelings about this movie.First of all i will talk about what i didn't like that much.Directing was nothing special it could be way better for sure as much as cinematography..It was too "simple" in every way which is not bad but it could be better for sure.Also there is a scene (I don't want to spoil anything) which is way too silly and useless i think they destroyed big part from this movie and is sad.

Now i want to talk about the good part which is perfomances and specially from godness Jennifer Connelly.I believe she owed the decade 1995-2005 with her powerfull perfomances and her oustanding beauty.If it wasn't her maybe i could rate it lower than 7 but she is 70% of this movie.And the whole idea is good also but it wasn't that good as time went by. 7.0/10 deserves your watch.

Very tragic and sad. Haven't read the novel so the movie was really disturbing, especially the end. The thing that irks me is that in the reviews and cast interviews, people say how no one is wrong and everybody is a victim of circumstances, but it isn't really the case. Lester, the police officer, takes 99 percent of the blame for what happens. He leaves his wife and kids for someone he met a few days ago and threatens and harasses a family despite being a police officer. He's quite a piece of shit.

This movie just passed me by at the time for some reason. Visiting it now it seems like a mix of oscar bait and melodramatic hollywood fare. It's a very decent effort from a first time film-maker (Vadim Perelman), and Roger Deakins adds some real class in the photography department. But it just didn't click for me. It felt like it was trying a bit too hard to showcase the nature of culture clashes, race and social divide (similar to 2004's 'Crash'). I realise it's based on a novel but the point still stands. It felt like a 1990s made for tv movie at times although Ben Kingsley is superb.

one of the best films ever made...grim