Review: The Next Three Days

Russell Crowe stars as a Community College Professor whose whole world crashes down on him when his wife Elizabeth Banks is arrested, charged, and sentenced to 20 years in prison for the murder of her boss. She says she’s innocent, Crowe believes her because a) It’s his wife, and b) They went to dinner later that night, and only a psycho could keep up such an actor after committing a murder. He hasn’t been married to a psychopath all these years. He knows she’s innocent, and frustrated by the lack of help in the legal system (there’s not enough evidence for an appeal, apparently), the worries of having to care for their young son (Ty Simpkins), and the increasingly hopeless situation, he comes up with what he sees as the only alternative: Bust her out of prison. He meets with an author and multiple-time jail breaker (Liam Neeson) who tells him of the need for absolute water-tight planning and the absolute certainty that this is what he wants to do. He will likely be forced to commit acts he never even knew he was capable of. They will have to escape to a foreign country, and never return, never make contact with anyone they know, and always knowing that there is a chance that they will get caught, no matter how long it has been. The months go by as Crowe (a rank amateur who needs to consult YouTube for help) continues to perfect his preparations, but then he hears news that Banks will be moved to another facility in just three days. He must act fast, especially since she’s already mentally deteriorating. Daniel Stern plays Banks’ well-meaning lawyer, Brian Dennehy is Crowe’s estranged dad, Olivia Wilde is the mum of a kid in Simpkins’ class who becomes friendly with Crowe, whilst Jonathan Tucker and Kevin Corrigan play a couple of drug dealers.

This 2010 offering from director and writer Paul Haggis (the supremely overrated “Crash”) is a frustratingly made film. There could’ve been an interesting little heist movie in here, but Haggis, in remaking a 2008 French film (we’re only waiting two years now?!!) I haven’t seen, has either ballsed it up, or it wasn’t much cop in the first place. Haggis’ screenplay, and in particular the story structure is such that the two main characters both come across as unlikeable. Haggis (who, aside from Clint Eastwood’s “Million Dollar Baby” is a questionable writer) structures the story in a way that the audience is thrown somewhat into the deep end, as after the initial arrest, we next see Banks after a lengthy prison stay is already underway. So Haggis has structured things in a needlessly complicated way, just ‘coz. That’s annoying enough in and of itself (I don’t need to be spoon-fed, but I also don’t need to be seriously pissed off), and indeed the opening half of the film is frustrating stuff. When you consider that we really only get brief insight into the character before the arrest, and that insight isn’t very favourable towards her character (in both scenes she is essentially arguing with someone), something else appears to be occurring. These early scenes, coupled with a miscast Elizabeth Banks’ frankly cold and (in some indefinable way) unlikeable performance, have the audience deeply suspicious of her character early on. We question for a far too long stretch of the film whether she is guilty or not, and she also attempts to commit an act early on that, whilst understandable on one level, is completely and totally selfish on another considering not only the loved ones she has, but her damn child (whom she probably was thinking about, to be fair, just going the wrong way about it in my opinion). I understand hopelessness and despair, but I actually came to detest this character (and hoped Rusty would just shack up with the Olivia Wilde character), mostly because I was being jerked around by the structure, but also because of Banks’ performance.

However, the fact that Banks had a child to think about also got me starting to think about the Russell Crowe character. Crowe, whilst not having a great day here, is easily one of the best things in the film. Nonetheless, his decision to attempt a prison break was as selfish and stupid (especially for an ‘everyman’ like this character) as the act that Banks commits earlier in the film (and threatens to commit again later, albeit probably less seriously) that I’m hopefully doing a good job of not entirely spoiling. They have a child to think about, what good is it for Crowe to try and bust his wife out of prison if he gets caught? The kid will possibly be left with the grandparents, but is that any compensation? And how can he be sure what will happen to the kid? I’m sure that he can’t be 100% sure of his plan’s success, and whilst it plays into the risk factor that Liam Neeson’s character talks about at one point, I don’t think any parent, no matter how much they love their wife and believe in their innocence (and no matter how much they like to talk about “Don Quixote”), would go to this length under any circumstances whatsoever. Not when there’s so much that can conceivably go wrong. Given that Crowe’s ultimate rescue attempt (and I’m not saying whether it succeeds or not) will rely on a whole helluva lot of luck and coincidence (and the amount of things that do go wrong don’t offer enough of a compensation), it just alerts the viewer even more to the wrongheadedness of this whole thing. Even if he does manage to bust her out, if he later gets caught, Crowe will be arrested, tried, and likely convicted of a crime he did commit (more than one, actually) in the service of rescuing a wife convicted of a crime she (from his perspective) did not commit.

OK, I’ve reached a point where spoilers are unfortunately unavoidable. ***** SPOILER WARNING **** Haggis might’ve at least made this somewhat palatable if not for one idiotic decision. He leaves out the revelation of her innocence until almost the very end of the film. So we spend the majority of the film with a sense of doubt, and frankly serious discomfort, when it actually was not necessary at all. This isn’t really a whodunit, so there is absolutely no interest served or benefit in hiding this piece of information from the audience for so long. Is there any reason in having the audience question her guilt? Even if there is, it’s somewhat counterproductive to audience enjoyment of a prison break/heist flick, to have such great ambiguity/suspicion in the motives of the protagonists. In fact, it’s just sheer writer’s stupidity (I’ve heard the original is far less ambiguous), and based on Banks’ performance, either poor acting or poor direction. I really think either she believed her character was guilty (which suggests that Banks hasn’t learned to read yet) or was directed with that belief in mind, and it throws the whole film off. Hell, at one point the character confesses to it, and whilst that was probably meant to be lie, when added to everything else, it just muddies things to the nth degree. The film tries for a happy ending, but it leaves a sour taste in the mouth, not to mention a feeling that it was all a waste of time. **** END SPOILER ****

I will say that it’s always nice to see Daniel Stern on screen, though he’s looking a lot older than when I last saw him. Liam Neeson’s one-scene cameo is an enjoyable piece of ham too (the normally terrific Brian Dennehy is sorely wasted, though), and the second half has some genuine interest to it. I might’ve been deeply suspicious of the characters, but watching Crowe attempt to carry out his plan based on advice given to him by Neeson, is pretty neat stuff, albeit highly reliant on contrivance and luck, as I said earlier. But it has such an unpleasant aftertaste, and I bet a lot of people spend much of the film hoping Crowe fails, something I don’t think Haggis (or the makers of the original) intended.

After a crap first half, the film’s energy level picks up enough to make it sorta watchable (if dubiously close to being a ‘How to Break Someone Out of Prison’ manual), but deep flaws in the screenplay and characterisation make it a very lumpy and frustrating ride. Oh, and one more thing; Stop singing, Rusty. You’re crap. Your band (TOFOG, which is either Thirty Odd Foot of Grunt or The Ordinary Fear Of God, I’ve heard both names used) is crap. Your songs are crap. Your lyrics are crap. Just stop, for the good of humanity, will ‘ya? Hey, what’re you doing with that phone? Dude, put it down, I was just offering you some advice...

Rating: C+