Matialth Good concept, poorly executed.

Twilightfa Watch something else. There are very few redeeming qualities to this film.

Asad Almond A clunky actioner with a handful of cool moments.

Alistair Olson After playing with our expectations, this turns out to be a very different sort of film.

blanche-2 Channing Tatum stars with Al Pacino, Katie Holmes, Ray Liotta, Juliette Binoche, and Tracy Morgan in "The Son of No One" from 2011.An extremely uninvolving story of a rookie cop, Jonathan (Tatum) working in the area where he grew up. His Precinct Captain, Mathers (Liotta), begins receiving letters about two unsolved murders that happened many years ago in the area when Jonathan was a kid. The letters are also sent to the newspaper, and Jonathan is afraid of a long-kept secret coming out and ruining his life. Finally, he is approached by his father's old partner, Charles Stanford, who has been protecting him. He has a solution. What could director Dito Monteil have possibly said to these actors to get them to make this movie? How desperate could they have been? I have no clue, but this film was poorly directed, with a plot that wasn't enough for 1-1/2 hours.With people like Pacino and Liotta in the film, you certainly can't call the acting poor, but just about everyone in this film was wasted.Not recommended. This film is gritty and a real downer - that would be okay if it were better.

tieman64 "The Son of No One" is a weak crime drama by Dito Montiel. A tale of police corruption and buried secrets, the film stars Channing Tatum as a New York cop whose life is interrupted by a pair of murders which occurred sixteen years prior.It's a dull and routine cop picture, and Montiel wastes actor Al Pacino in a small role, but Tatum turns in good work and the film features a number of excellent aerial shots of the Queensbridge Housing Projects. The largest public housing development in North America, the distinct double-Y shaped buildings were designed with good intentions but swiftly became a tool for racial segregation. Montiel's direction is pretentious throughout.5/10 – Worth one viewing. See "The Wire", "Street Kings" and "Freedomland" instead.

Bene Cumb The best part of the movie is the cast: both adults and children are great , although it seems to me Channing Tatum has had better roles than this. I liked most Al Pacino as Detective Stanford and Jake Cherry as young Jonathan "Milk" White, but the others were also equal to their task. Directing and especially plot leave a lot to be desired. Background obsessing/pestering is always there, but some turns are strange and illogical. The solution scene is good (although nothing special), but the very ending is rather disappointing. When the credits appeared I just realized that I had seen another oppressive movie with the aim to let the viewers ponder upon guilt, forgiveness, remorse and other differently perceived feelings.

Thomas Aitken I simply can't agree with the other reviewers who gave this film a scathing review.I suspect a lot of the bad reviews came from people expecting a crime thriller, rather than what this film actually was - a crime drama.This was a classic slow burn police drama about a cop who is once again haunted by a past he thought he had successfully left behind him years ago.It is well acted, well scripted, well shot, well scored - almost like an indie movie, rather than a crime drama.In theory this film was supposed to be about redemption, but the failure to actually create a proper redemption narrative is exactly where it all came apart, and where I believe it slipped from being a great film to something that was worth the watch, but not a keeper.Ironically, it's only in the last moments of the film that things are ruined - and rather oddly I have to say, because everything is building towards the lead character taking that final step towards redemption by making a very public confession about his past, and the corruption within his police department, but nothing even remotely like this happens.The film simply ends with him getting on with his life, as if no heinous act of murder and corruption has just taken place, and thus allowed him to carry on with life as usual in the burbs.From a technical perspective it actually feels like they either ran out of money, or time, or they didn't know how to end this film so they just finished with an el-cheapo stock footage 'newspaper with important headline on the table in foreground' shot.In fact, the previous couple of minutes before that were a little bit problematic as well - the way Ray Liotta died was highly contrived and clichéd, and totally counter to where the film had been heading, and what it had built up to over the previous 80 minutes or so.Some of you may be thinking; 'but didn't they do the same sort of thing in 'No Country for Old Men?' - yes, but the very reason they did that was to make a point about suffering and evil in the world. If this film was trying to do the same thing it failed quite badly I'm afraid.Real shame, because other than that this was a good film.