Reviews

I would have given 5 or maybe 6 stars but Ashton bumped it up. It was like his evil twin showed up...looks like him but a totally different person. For a comedy he played it straight and low key. It worked. It worked so well I had to keep convincing myself this is Ashton. Amazing transformation. His ability to take on a completely different person in this movie reminds me of Val Kilmer back in the 90s who was difficult to recognize in the first 5 mins of the movie.

As for the movie itself it was entertaining and good fun for watching at home All the actors were good but Ashton stood out.

I did not pick the movie deliberately. It was advertised. I was in the mood for a comedy. This was more of a drama comedy. I liked the smart script. Good writer(s).

You had the right elements for great story telling. The real story is better than the fiction so why did the movie not work as well as it could?

First the acting of the main character by actress Jessica Amlee just didn't seem quite believable. All the other actors did fine especially Brian McNamara playing the father. He was believable. Jim Patterson, the creepy villanous uncle, did a fine job but was challenged when acting up against the poor acting of Jessica Amlee.

Second, the scenes of key parts of the story were poorly done. Some scenes were too short and others too long in the story telling. That part I believe is caused by poor editing. It seemed choppy. There is a way to go back and forth in time sequences that makes sense and this movie didn't make the cut.

All in all the story has its own power and it is too bad there isn't a better production made with the actual input of the real character, the real person this happened to, Hannah Anderson herself. Maybe a docudrama would be best.

I gave it a higher score because of the story and the main characters. It starts slow, too slow, but stay with it for the story and the acting gets stronger as the movie progresses . If they had better editing and showed more of the background and emotions surrounding the coma in the first half it would have been a better film. Just the same...very good story. Really liked the acting by Toni Belafonte. Because of her, Jahmar Hill's acting improved immensely in the second half of the movie. Her boyfriend Streetz played by Talli Clemons and Antonio's Father played by Bill Johnson left a lot to be desired in believable acting. It is either that or they were not comfortable acting as an abusive man toward their woman. Lynia Love (Tammi) was totally not believable. I thought she was reading off a script for the first time. Nakia Dillard (Chris) who plays Streetz's Dad is in only a few scenes but leaves a memorable impression. Sade Whiting is on only briefly but also left an impression.

Great Actors: Wow. Just look at the cast. All did great. It is what kept my attention to the end. Intriguing story: Yes, the story had many potential plots.In the first third of the story it really captured my attention. Then halfway it seemed to flip to different stories. In the end the writer(s) chose a mediocre one. all I can say is shoot the script writer, director and editor. Disappointing ending: The end was so disappointing but I should have seen it coming since the story failed.

I wish I could give 7 stars just for the performance, editing, camera work and location....but the end is too ridiculous. Very disappointing. It is as if the writer knew the plot was too obvious and just had to throw in a monkey wrench. It is still good but don't expect, "Fugitive" and you will be good.

A real ballerina. A beautiful dancer. That's all that is good about the movie. If the whole movie had Juliet Doherty dancing then it would have been far better. Problem is none of the actors are believable. The script is redundant in such a way that the characters are all the same with same expressions.

You can tell most of the actors in the movie have no experience acting. You can tell who the professional actors are like Kaitlyn Black, the mother, and Asher Angel, the brother. All the acting is so wooden that it makes one not care about the story.

It's too bad for the premise of the story was good to begin with.

Great cinematography! Incredible camera work. I felt like I was in the water and some scenes were unique compared to other movies of same genre. Having said that I gave only 5 stars for a reason. A movie is a story therefore the script and editing is just as important as the camerawork. This story did not unfold easily especially in the first half of movie. For that part I would have given a 2 but the cinematography is a 8 or better.

I'm afraid I was comparing it to 127 hours. That was an amazing script, editing, and acting. In this movie the script and editing were lacking. I am not familiar with the main actor, Alain Hernandez. Maybe he is a good actor but the script writer gave him very little to work with. That is where some great acting and great camerawork can reveal a story better than a script. It did not happen here.

Ultimately I believe the script writer did not capture the real story of survival.

Totally different type movie. Can't even pick a genre. Wonderful! Sad! Funny! If The Good, Bad and Ugly and Pulp Fiction had a love child this might be one of the offspring. Great characters and costumes. I got suspended in make belief and didn't want it to stop. Even when the story turned dark I couldn't turn away.

I think when you copy a highly successful movie like "Taken" where the the "particular set of skills" speech has become famous then expect to fail unless you try 50 yrs later. Liem Neeson cannot be copied, period. That role of a father started out like a normal guy but from that speech on you were intrigued to who exactly was this guy? In this movie, there is no such intrigue.

Having said that, I expected a helluva a lot better acting from Mel Gibson. Mel can bring it on when he wants to yet there were certain scenes overacted most notably with Michael Parks (Preacher). I blame Michael Parks and his low energy. So low I thought the character he played had Alzheimer's or had had a stroke. Turns out is was simply bad acting.

As for Erin Moriarty, she is better than this. In this role, she simply is not convincing.

I don't know why I had a tough time believing William Macy. (Maybe because the story-line sucks sticky eggs?) His acting was good enough but somehow the setup and character development never happened. I blame the editing.

Diego Luna, on the other hand, is great. And, for the short time she was on screen, Dale Dickey (Cherise), was spot on as always.

I always loved this story whether in a book, movie, play or made for TV movie. The scene stealer was Josh Cad as Lefou and I've never seen a better Gaston (played by Luke Evans). These two were the best comedy pair I've seen in a long time. I was surprised when I did not recognize who was playing Beauty's father for several scenes since I purposefully did not want to know the cast until I watched the movie. Great actors can do that and Kevin Kline never ceases to amaze me. I give only 4 stars because the title is "The Beauty and The Beast". Miss Emma Watson is pretty but I can think of dozens of others actresses that would better fit the bill as the "Beauty". I was hoping that when she got all dressed up she would transform into the Beauty my eyes were somehow missing but she only looked like an imposter. I love her but she was so miscast here that I assumed she was chosen for her amazing vocals only to be surprised, disappointed and even embarrassed for her. Embarrassed because she should have turned it down. It's obviously her popularity that got her the part. If I had never seen her in the Harry Potter films I would have even thought her to be a subpar actress. I don't think I'll ever get over it. Such ego. As for Dan Stevens as the Beast he was acceptable and I'm sure would have done better with a better casting of the "Beauty". Not very much chemistry there. If not for the miscasted "Beauty" I would have given it 8 stars. If the Beast were also better cast it could have been an easy 10 stars.

In May 1924 when the victim's body was discovered Nathan Leopold and Richard Loeb were 18 and 19 yrs old. It made no sense why the two young men age 18 and 19 were constantly referred to as "boys" throughout the narration of the film. If these were "boys" then what were those soldiers in WW1 7yrs earlier? Even in the trailer, the lady interviewed calls them "children" of privilege. What an insult to the family of the victim even today! The victim was 14yrs old. Not a boy yet not a man by anyone's definition. Really, I'm appalled. As for the rest of the film quality, it is okay from the purely filming point of view but not as good as some programs on ID channel. Honestly, if the title were changed to not be so misleading with such high expectations going in that direction I might have liked it better.