Solemplex To me, this movie is perfection.

Spidersecu Don't Believe the Hype

Brendon Jones It’s fine. It's literally the definition of a fine movie. You’ve seen it before, you know every beat and outcome before the characters even do. Only question is how much escapism you’re looking for.

Sameer Callahan It really made me laugh, but for some moments I was tearing up because I could relate so much.

Peter Henry You always hear that you should only write about what you know. Obviously Billy Ray knows nothing about the criminal justice system. There are federal crimes and there are state crimes. Murder is 100% only a state crime, unless it's some part of a RICO conspiracy. Why would the FBI be doing surveillance on a mosque in order to stop a potential terrorist attack out of a state district attorney's office? Is the FBI L.A. field office so packed that they're renting out space? Why would they even remotely be working together? It doesn't happen. FBI works with the U.S. Attorney's Office, and even then they don't work INSIDE the office. Until the case is ready to be prosecuted, they just work out of their own office. From trying to find the perp at a Dodger's game (and incredibly successfully being able to do so in a sea of 56,000 people), to allowing the FBI agent/Proscecutor played by Julia Roberts to completely contaminate the crime scene, to beating up the perp after he finally gives you a confession. Ugh, the bad writing goes on and on. Please, Mr. Ray, hire a consultant next time so your story will have a remote ring of truth to it.

Kristinsmithinthehouse Gave it a 6 out of ten due to the confusing timelines and flashbacks going back and forth between 2002 and 2015. Thus, it required a second viewing from me. A tip for those who haven't seen it yet: 2002 = Roberts wears makeup, Kidman's hair is long, and Ejiofor's hair is completely black; 2015 = Roberts does not wear makeup, Kidman's hair is shorter, and Ejiofor's temples are salt-and-pepper.

redproton88 This film is far better than than 6.2 rating it has received which seems mostly to come from those wanting to compare it to the Argentinian original. I am rating this as a separate film and not comparing it to the original. The acting is top notch and believable. Ejiofor, Kidman and Roberts all do a great job. It's an interesting crime thriller with some twists and turns. It's about a team of rising investigators, along with their supervisor, whose worlds are suddenly torn apart during a homicide investigation that hits close to home. It was completely watchable and entertaining. I'm not saying this is a high brow, blow your socks of type of movie, but it certainly deserves a far higher rating. I am certainly not saying that the original might not be much better. I have it on my list to watch but in my opinion, if you like thrillers and movies with some twists and turns and want to be entertained I recommend giving it a chance.

justchillz A girl is found in a dumpster fully clothed, but the girl has been raped and bleach has been poured on her and inside her to eliminate DNA evidence.Anyone with a background in criminology will tell you that the whole scene would have been highly unlikely. The guy had no real connection to her. The only reason a perp would put clothes back on a female after murdering her - cover up her body - is if they had some kind of connection to her (family, friend, partner). For example, Amber Hagerman, a nine year old taken off her bike in broad daylight was found with one sock on face down in a creek behind her apartment building. Similarly, Kristen French, a 15 year old after being held captive for days was found nude on the side of the road. Her head was even shaved to eliminate any potential evidence of carpet fibres. These victims are discarded like trash. A perp is not going to put clothes back on them, especially since clothes always has some kind of evidence on it (head hair,dog hair, feline hair, clothing/carpet fibre, pubic hair, the kind of forensic material that cannot be bleached away). Many people have been convicted of similar crimes on weak evidence, such as carpet fibres in a car matching fibres found within the inside of a girl's pants, for example, even after being submerged in a lake for some time. This is NOT always the case. Some girls are found partially clothed, but that is only because the unsub was in a hurry and didn't bother to remove all the clothing during the assault. In the case of this movie, the unsub bleached the girl on the inside and out. If he went to all that trouble, he would not risk putting clothes back on the girl, since clothing always carries some carpet, hair, clothing fibres on it. Also, he did a bad a bleaching job, since the clothing was not even bleached. The forensics in the case were pathetic, it looked the case was taking place in some poor country like Columbia, Mexico or the Philippines with no forensic team of specialists. She went into the dumpster and completely contaminated the scene and all the evidence at the scene. Any evidence on the daughter was contaminated at that point with fibres she brought on herself. (That is why investigators wear special clothing prior to going into these types of scenes.)They are detectives in a joint force on terrorism and yet they are asked to investigate a rape and murder of a female. This is also unlikely. There are HOMICIDE INVESTIGATORS for that, not the same thing as homeland security. Whoever wrote this movie really needs to watch some crime dramas and forensic files episodes because even in the 1980s, when DNA had NOT been used in court yet and was at its most early stages of development, there was still a lot of forensic data collected at a scene. The acting was good, but the movie was boring, jumped back and fourth, and was inaccurate/unrealistic.