Benefit of the Doubt

I have to say that although the story itself was quite mediocre, casting Amy Irving as the daughter was a brilliant move. Irving was practically unrecognisable as the woman who - many years ago - identified her father as the murderer of her mother.

Irving is relaxed, uninhibited & - again - almost unrecognisable in her role as Karen Braswell. Karen has straight, bleached blond hair & drives a pick-up. Her role blew me away when I first saw this film. After "Carrie," "The Fury," etc... I was so used to seeing Irving as curly-haired, cautious, & retrospective. Karen Braswell was brashy, kinda trashy, blond & sure of herself - a role that actors literally kill for.

If you are a fan of acting, I highly recommend seeing this film JUST for Amy Irving's performance. She is AMAZING-!!!

I saw this film quite a while ago and really don't remember much of the story, which says quite something. I think it was about a father (Sutherland) who threatens his daughter and it was supposed to be a thriller. Sutherland has played a lot of these characters, but it's a shame he always ends up in ordinary, unremarkable films such as this one. It's not good, it's not bad, it's as mediocre as it gets. 5/10

Likewise for me, it's been a while since I've seen this movie, however, I remember it distinctly because of its stars.

I would recommend it for the following reason. If you have visited the area of Page, Arizona, and Lake Powell it's quite a kick to see this movie placed in that locale. Marvelous chases through the mysterious sandstone passages and on the water. Sometimes the location can be as much of a drawing point as the plot and actors. I've seen many otherwise mediocre things that have been filmed in a particular city or other location that I'm familiar with. London is among my favorites.

Interesting twists of plot and getting three great names like Amy Irving, Donald Sutherland and Graham Greene is quite a coup. It's good viewing for a chilly night with nothing better to do.

Donald Sutherland is paroled from prison after 22 years. He was sent there for killing his wife, on the evidence of his daughter, Amy Irving. Now he wants to go home, repair the misunderstanding with her -- for he calmly insists that he did not do it -- and help take care of his grandson. After a while, he succeeds..... and then, of course, the story begins.

It's certainly a well cast movie, with Theodore Bikel and Graham Greene, and there's some startling photography of Glen Canyon in Utah. But it's another of the many, many movies that Sutherland made in this period, in which he played older men who you couldn't tell if they were nice guys or murderous creeps until, almost invariably, they turned out to be the latter. I grew tired of the trope and the casting early on, and a quarter of a century later, I see nothing here to change my mind.

Contemporary thrillers tend to get relatively poor reviews. These films are held to what I think is an unreasonably high standard. Admittedly, a genuinely good thriller is very hard to find these days. It's about the writing mainly. The story counts a lot, as does the suitability of the actors to this genre. It seems that the glorification of multimillion dollar production values, meaning mainly special effects, has become more important to the industry than good writing and characterizations. For whatever reason, movies like The Taking of Pelham One Two Three (original), Charley Varick, and The Getaway (the original) are a thing of the past. (Then again, there's the very good The Lincoln Lawyer.)

Nowadays, all one can expect is the more or less artful use of derivative material. Standards, therefore, should change. Don't expect another Charley Varick. Benefit of the Doubt should satisfy those looking for a reasonably plausible story, well executed tension and of course a first rate villain. This movie delivers on all those fronts. Sure, characters sometimes behave unrealistically, but realism and plausibility are inessential to thrillers. Recall Hitchcock's accurate denigration of "the plausibles", i.e. those who undermine a thriller because of implausible elements. - Donald Sutherland gives us a masterfully characterized bad guy, yet another testimony to this fine actor's beautifully honed thespian chops. The movie did for me what an acceptable thriller should do: keep me interested and provide some genuine suspense. This film is nothing more and nothing less than a better than good enough popcorn movie.