why to show she wasn't guilty? - The Next Three Days (2010) Discussion

[–] Zikten 13 years ago

it's not really a happy ending. they have to live in a foreign country and can't ever go home. the scene with the just barely missed button was to show that she was almost proven innocent, but fate decided no. they can never go back to america. and unless his parents visit, he can't ever see his mom and dad again. they have to live the rest of their lives as fugitives. and the kid probably can't even go home ever either. he likely will have to spend the rest of his life, even when he's an adult, in Venezuela.

reply

[–] perempe 13 years ago

but they managed to escape, so it is a happy ending for them.

is it necessary to show she isn't guilty?

reply

[–] jonnyhiboy 13 years ago

Absolutely that ending was fantastic one of the most unpredictable scenes ever.

reply

[–] YourAgent 13 years ago

It wasn't happy at all. That ending was tragic as *beep*.

I met Cinderella once... she's actually kind of a bitch.

reply

[–] waldenpond88 11 years ago

I agree to perempe's post. The major thing is that they can stay together, that she's not in prison any longer and that they are a real family again. All three of them are young and most of all intelligent enough (plus not set in their ways) to adjust to living in a foreign country as long as they all speak or learn to speak Spanish.
IMHO this solution still a lot better than her being in prison for another 10 or more years! Those would be years that they cannot get back. Wasted years.
Most likely their marriage would not survive.

reply

[–] shurbanm 13 years ago

Oh come on. Venezuela is a fine country. And these days there are much better places to live than the US.

reply

[–] proteus122 12 years ago

I've never been to Venezuela but I'd love to visit. However I've been to other South and Central American countries and all I can say is learn Spanish and, with a bit of money, it's pretty sweet.

reply

[–] Kent_Kainer 10 years ago

Venezuela has an extradition treaty with the US. They will live permanently in danger of being caught.
Remember the other guy saying he turned himself in because he couldnt live like that anymore.

Happy End would be to find her innocent before all the *beep* happened.
She may be innocent but he is guilty now.

Its a tragic better ending, but I also dont see it as a happy end.
But its better than rotting in jail, guilty or not.

Btw, a clean washed button doesnt prove her innocence.

---
Lincoln Lee: I lost a partner.
Peter Bishop: I lost a universe!

reply

[–] ten-often 9 years ago

Fine country doesn't mean they are happy never to return to their own. Shame on you for thinking everyone should hate America. There is something horribly wrong in EVERY country. Every last government in the world is full of self-serving malevolent talking heads of state. What makes the difference is the people and their communities. Other than foods and customs, it doesn't take long to realize people are really the same everywhere, if they are not the tools of political power. However, if I lived in a community of people like you, I would leave your country feeling as if all your people were stuck-up, small-minded specimens of a race parading as human with a secret agenda to move all people anywhere but America.

-----
Backseat Producers can't simply enjoy movies. They nitpick & complain about every imperfection.

reply

[–] shurbanm 9 years ago

I never said 'everyone should hate America'. You are making things up.
Next time think before you spout out nonsense.

reply

[–] blurredoasis 11 years ago

Why do you believe the boy can't go back? He was 6, how can America charge him with a crime? Sure, he has a fake passport, but I think if he goes to the consulate and says, "Hey, my parents dragged me here when I was six, I'd really like to go home now that I'm an adult and free of them, can you help me?", I would hope they'd help him. He's the only innocent one in this family.

---
Seriously, is it that freakin hard to reply to the right thread instead of any random one?

reply

[–] evil_henchman 10 years ago

Sure they would "help" him, if he ratted out his parents for one.

reply

[–] karlkuehl 10 years ago

But the button wouldn't have proved her innocent.

It just shows the viewer that her version of the story was what really had happened.

reply

[–] matthall619 8 years ago

Not exactly. I fail to see how her mentioning a button and it being there somehow trumps fingerprints, blood on her clothes, being seen fleeing the scene and having motive.
No way that button clears her unless they can somehow find the person who the button belonged to, in possession of the item said button came from, then find some more evidence to tie him/her to the crime.

reply

[–] mcase8 13 years ago

I think it was more for the viewing audience than anything else. He believed her innocent, but she told him he was wrong which kept the viewers guessing. Personally I'd have liked to see that scene dropped; there's nothing wrong with leaving us to our own conclusions.

You mustn't be afraid to dream a little bigger, darling.

reply

[–] FreakinFred 13 years ago

If they drop the scene in the end, then they should also drop the scene where it shows her committing the crime. That way, we can truly be left to forming our own conclusions.

reply

[–] neshastrah 13 years ago

Btw, even if she was proven innocent (for example, the button found by the cop), they still can not go back to USA, because John committed a murder...

reply

[–] themisfit92 13 years ago

Russell Crowe's character didn't commit a murder, it was more self defense. He just shot back.

reply

[–] neshastrah 13 years ago

It's still a murder. He killed a man. It's a murder. And he tried (successfully) to rob that guy. They did't come to John, he came to them in order to steal the money.

reply

[–] vencyber 13 years ago

That's not a murder. Murder and homicide are not the same.

reply

[–] waldenpond88 13 years ago

These thugs took Crowe's money away in the first third of the movie after they had beaten him up very badly. So Crowe's getting even with them is somewhat understandable. He needed $5.000 to live in Venezuela according to Neeson's character, but he couldn't sell the house plus the thugs stole some of his money which was supposed for faked passports and plane tickets.

reply

[–] Nikon11 12 years ago

I think that killing while in commission of a crime equals murder.

Sure, the victims were dirtbags criminals themselves - but I don't think that changes the fact that he was robbing them and he ended up killing the guy in the process, (self-defense or not).

reply

[–] Mr_Blonde_Vic_Vega 12 years ago

That is definitely murder. If you happen to kill someone in furtherance of a crime, it's murder. Doesn't matter how you kill them, accident or not. In many states, you can be charged with murder in this scenario even if you're not the one who actually killed the person. And to say that it was self defense is also incorrect. he broke into their home, if anything, they're the ones defending themselves.

Here I am, stuck in the middle with you.

reply

[–] mizhou-99-68324 11 years ago

1. he came to the victim's house in the night time with no invitation nor provocation, knowing deadly confrontation might pursue.

2. he prepared and carried illegally a lethal weapon and acted on a deliberate and premeditated plan that involved lying in wait to successfully break in the house and hold the victim at gunpoint.

3. he threatens to kill the victim and shot him in the arm to show his resolution.

4. he then committed a forcible felony of arson when he set the victim's house on fire, threatening the life of the victim's family.

5. after the victim escaped from gunpoint, he went on to pursue the victim in his own house willfully and eventually shot a self-defending victim dead.

6. after he killed the victim, he continued to carry out his original plan and committed yet another felony of burglary by taking all the money he could find from the victim's house.

i'd really like to see how you defend him against a first degree murder charge in a court room.

reply

[–] mizhou-99-68324 11 years ago

he shot BACK? are you kidding?

you mean if a strange man broke into your house, held you at gunpoint, threatened to kill you, shot you in the arm, set your house on fire, then kept on pursuing you, he could still somehow be in a "shoot back" position?

reply

[–] 11 years ago

[deleted]

[–] jckingvt 12 years ago

Not to mention he broke a felon out of prison and and help law enforcement officials at gunpoint. It doesnt matter if that felon was innocent.

reply

[–] 12 years ago

[deleted]

[–] shurbanm 13 years ago

I think it was obvious she was innocent and that she only said that to make him accept reality that she would be in jail for rest of her life.
I'd say that last scene with the button was actually unnecessary. Unfortunately the audience in the US is such that it needs to be spoonfed...

reply

[–] lesmarriage 13 years ago

I think it an idiocy that in the end the only winner was the killer. Would have been better had the cop gone back to the drain after he hesitated after his first look. Had he done that the viewer could have assumed that the button would have been found and ultimately the wife found innocent. Seems to be a hollywood thing of late to leave endings as clear as mud.

reply

[–] gabby_bm 13 years ago

I believe the point was to intentionally show her as innocent - not to give us a "feel-good ending", but to really feel the guilt and criminality of her husband - who we see at the end of the film filled with very conflicted feelings about himself despite doing what he believed was the right thing.

He is a changed man after all is said and done. After taking the picture of his wife and son, he sits there, conflicted, wondering if he can ever be the family man he once was- after doing things he never dreamed he was capable of doing.

Speak louder, Mr. Hart! Fill the room with your intelligence!

reply

[–] fifthfreedom 13 years ago

How was it a bad ending? They're living by the beach in a beautiful country with a big bag full of money, and most importantly, they're together as a family.

reply

[–] Parzzo 13 years ago

Unfortunately life is not like that, injustice happened, villain went unpunished, etc, etc.

Anyway, I love the movie, good pace with a very good ending.

reply

[–] marbleann 13 years ago

I just think he was arrogant. Don't we all think our loved ones are innocent. Can you imagine if everybody decided to break their loved ones out of jail. I really hate these kind of movies because it gives a unrealistic view about how people act. I am sure some criminals loved one feels like they are not supporting them enough because they have not broken out of prison. The problem is this no matter what just the fact she broke out of jail and he helped is a automatic prison term. Innocent or not.

reply

[–] ticktickBOOOM 12 years ago

Yeah, a much better film would have been Russel Crowe looking miserable for 2 hours, but essentially just getting on with his life. I would have enjoyed an insight into how his character handled laundry and the school run.

I have had it with these mother-fncking snakes on this mother-fncking plane

reply

[–] waldenpond88 11 years ago

Marbleann, the movie theater audience doesn't want to watch movies where the relatives have their loved ones in prison and wait until they get released some 20+ years later...that just doesn't make an interesting movie.
It's so much more thrilling to watch somebody freeing his innocent wife from prison and have a LIFE again after her being in prison for several years. Also it was important for his little son to have his mom back.
I particularly enjoyed watching Crowe meeting Liam Neeson and then planning in detail how to get her out of prison.
Great movie, I watched it several times.
We also watched the DVD "Pour Elle" aka "Anything for her" (Diane Kruger and Vincent Lindon), but this is one of those rare cases where the US remake is much better than the French original film. And I LOVE French movies. Especially French thriller based on US novels like "Les Passagers" (Trintignant) which is based on a Dean Koontz short story and "Tell No One" based on Harlan Koben.

reply

[–] marbleann 11 years ago

I wonder if the loved one in prison was named Shaniqua and her husband name Rajan would all of you be feeling the same way. It is not up to us to break people out of jail, There are plenty of innocent people in jail and I doubt. I had a cousin who got locked up in Cuba with trumped up charges I doubt if someone broke her out and it was in the news, You all would want her to go through a new trial and just so she can be with her 10 year son who need her.

reply

[–] Mr_Blonde_Vic_Vega 12 years ago

"Seems to be a hollywood thing of late to leave endings as clear as mud. "

Seemed to be a pretty clear cut ending to me. What isn't that you're not sure about?

Here I am, stuck in the middle with you.

reply

[–] Katiedot 13 years ago

It's a sop to simpleminded audiences who otherwise would have wanted her punished, believing she was guilty. The film had to spell it out loud and clear that she wasn't. Moral ambiguity is not an option in mainstream films nowadays.

George Clooney fansite, news & gossip updated daily: www.clooneysopenhouse.com, www.facebook.com/clooneysopenhouse and www.twitter.com/clooneysopenhse

reply

[–] CharlieTheMan 11 years ago

Indeed. If that scene was left out couple of mouthbreathers would assume that she actually commited the murder and they would probably make fuss about nothing. The

Sometimes it is better to leave the top spinning.

Ours is the Fury!

reply

[–] TheManInOil 12 years ago

I agree with you. What matters is that he believes she is innocent and would do anything to be with her. For us to know she's innocent isn't necessary. They should trust the audience to be invested enough in his belief that we don't need proof any more than he does.

"I'll book you. I'll book you on something. I'll find something in the book to book you on."

reply

[–] b530 12 years ago

It wasn't really a happy ending. John's facial expression the whole time at the end was semi happy at the same time knows he's going to have to deal with constantly looking over his shoulder, just like what Neeson's character said. Also, they didn't find the button, so they're likely never going to find the real murderer.

reply

[–] ImoB84 12 years ago

I have to agree with the OP here, I found that scene unnecessary.

"You talkin' to me?"

reply

[–] keywestmusicinc 12 years ago

I needed to see that she was innocent. It wouldn't have been an uplifting movie if she actually was an escaped murderer living off drug money in South America

reply

[–] parodic 12 years ago

Because it was in the original French version called Anything For Her, only the flashback was closer to the beginning of that movie.

Sometimes, it's just that simple.

If con is the opposite of pro, wouldn't congress be the opposite of progress?

reply

[–] yurenchu 12 years ago

I know this is Off Topic, but

If con is the opposite of pro, wouldn't congress be the opposite of progress?

Nice try, but the opposite of "pro" is "contra".

However, thanks for mentioning that the movie is based on an earlier movie, which I wasn't previously aware of.

______
Signature: currently unavailable

reply