At the center of Paul Haggis’ The Next Three Days, a remake of the 2008 French film Anything for Her, is a moral dilemma. When community college English teacher John Brennan’s wife is wrongfully accused of murder, he must decide whether to exceed the law and break her out of prison, or to let injustice prevail. But when he chooses the former and people start dying and human life is devalued, the audience is put in a similar predicament: We are forced to either cheer the protagonist on despite his tainted ethics, or play against the storyline for the sake of what is right. Haggis provides no commentary—nor consequences for John—and muddles morality for the sake of a thrilling story.
The pretentious filmmaker seems more concerned with love than ethics. He wants to portray the powerful bond between husband and wife and, in turn, the extremes to which such love can drive a man. But Haggis fails to make the relationship between John (Russell Crowe) and his wife, Lara (Elizabeth Banks), convincing. Instead of taking time to develop their romance, he opens his film on the night that Lara allegedly kills her boss and wastes the next hour following John as he develops his plan to free Lara, spending too much time on tiresome details. There are very few moments in which we see or feel their unreserved love. Thus, it’s difficult to believe John would become a criminal—a killer even—and risk everything, including his young son, because of it.
N3D_9705.NEFEarly in the film, during a lecture on Don Quixote, John tells his students that “rational thought destroys the soul.” It’s supposed to speak to John’s circumstances, as he is driven to irrationality by his love for Lara. Instead, it further exhibits Haggis’ failure to dramatize the romance and make use of the show-don’t-tell technique.
The same classroom scene, moreover, underlines an irony in the story—the absence of logic, which makes John’s words seem more like Haggis trying to justify plot holes than anything else. From start to finish, The Next Three Days is filled with narrative contradictions that add to its preposterousness. For example, during the breakout sequence John and Lara play elevator tag with Pittsburgh’s finest, as if the machines couldn’t be shut down in seconds by hospital security. And later, after nearly getting in a terrible car accident, the couple takes a break on the side of the highway with the city’s entire police department on their tail, an implausible moment that Haggis contrives just to display reconciliation between the two.
DSC_5533.NEFBut the most absurd aspect is the premise itself. Regardless of how much he loves his wife, there’s no way a normal, intelligent person like John could ever reach the decision he does as a solution to his problem. Plus, there’s no reasoning behind his ability to go from scholar to action hero overnight.
In spite of a solid performance, Crowe can’t even make sense of this outlandish story. Though sometimes failing to mask his Australian accent, he brings underplayed emotion and sincerity to his part, playing a man in what has to be the most difficult moment of his life. But his character is too poorly written to illustrate any real human complexities that we can learn from or relate to, in the end making Crowe wasted talent. Ditto for Liam Neeson, who plays an ex-con who gives John inside tips on how to properly execute a prison break because, well, he accomplished it several times before, Neeson isn’t on screen enough to even establish a persona, and when he is, the veteran star turns with no distinction.
N3D_6124.NEFAll that to say, the actual breakout sequence, which makes up the final thirty minutes, is a really entertaining ride. From intense shootouts, to quick car chases, to split-second decisions, the finale is gripping. Haggis has a way with suspense and thrills that leaves you almost breathless. Sadly, it’s not enough to redeem the rest of the movie. Because Haggis leaves logic and morals at the door, and asks us to do the same, the film’s outcome seems ultimately in vain.
N3D_5411.NEFTalk About It
Discussion starters- John faces a difficult moral dilemma. Think of a recent moral dilemma you faced. How did you respond? Did you make the right decision? How do we know what to do in these situations?
- Does John make the right decision by breaking Lara out of prison? What specific decisions does he make that seem wrong? Are his actions justified because of his love for her? If so, what is justified and what is not? How do we know where to draw the line?
- Does the film depict John’s decision as being right or what? How does that affect the movie? Does it add or take away from its artistic and/or moral value? Does it make the movie bad?
The Family Corner
For parents to considerThe Next Three Days is rated PG-13 for violence, drug material, language, some sexuality, and thematic elements. One scene infers that the protagonist and his wife just had sex in the car. Two men are shot and killed in an intense scene of violence. In a few instances, characters use profanity. In the opening sequence, there is a candid conversation dealing with sex and adultery. The protagonist is shown buying illegal drugs when trying to have fake passports and social security cards made for his family.
Photos © Lionsgate.
Copyright © 2010 Christianity Today. Click for reprint information.
