Tss5078 In 2006, Dito Montiel made a name for himself by writing/directing the story of his youth in Brooklyn, A Guide To Recognizing Your Saints. In that film and in several others that have since followed, Montiel has shown an amazing ability to take little known stories from his neighborhood, and in amazing detail, tells those stories from multiple angles, introducing the world to complex and amazing stories that to the world, were nothing but a blurbs in the newspaper decades ago. The Son of No One is one of such story, and while it is an amazing one, with an outstanding cast, it's Montiel's attention to detail that ultimately comes back to bite him. Jonathan White (Channing Tatum) has become a New York City Police Officer and he has done so at a somewhat older age than most other people do. There is a bit of a learning curve, but White seems to be catching on quickly, but his education comes to a quick halt when he and his family start receiving messages claiming to know that White killed two people in cold blood. The story here was terrific and unbelievably true, not to mention the cast was impeccable, so what's with the low rating? As I said, Motiel's films are always very detail oriented and focus on all the angles, The Son of No One is no different, however, in this case, they spend to much time on the back story in flashbacks. There isn't enough focus on the events taking place in present day, and when Channing Tatum is on screen, he's usually doing nothing that relates to the case, i.e. arguing with his wife, talking to his partner, learning to be a cop. By the time we get the end, it seems to jump out of nowhere, as if forty-five minutes of the film is just missing somehow. Not to mention the flashbacks are also out of order, further confusing the story. I understand artistic license, but this isn't Pulp Fiction and I was confused for much of this film. That being said, the cast is still terrific and Dito Montiel is one of the most underrated writer/directors in Hollywood. The Son of No One is a miss, but don't let that turn you off to the rest of amazing body of work.

krocheav After seeing this mess of a movie I can imagine how hard to take the book might be. Writer/director Dito Montiel writes dialogue as if he's still penning 'songs' for his punk rock bands; Major Conflict or Gutterboy. Dito and some New Yorkers might use gutter language as every other word in all their sentences but it makes them look as if they don't have the imagination to think of any pronouns or adjectives (maybe their vocabulary truly is devoid?).Dito even has his senior detectives use abusive words when trying to gain the 'trust' of very young children...give us a break!. Not only are we thrown endless low life words - the general situations in this screenplay are too often as grotty as a clogged sewer pipe. Add to this, shaky camera shots supplied by generally talented french D.O.P Benoit Delhomme and it could be enough to make some viewers quite nauseous. If ugly story and situations leave you feeling entertained you might just be able to make it to the convoluted and somewhat implausible finale.The presence of big cast names from yesteryear doesn't help and won't improve their reputations. When the best performances come from a young Jake Cherry (who works well at his thankless role) and his dog Tiger, there's something amiss (only trouble is a thug violently kicks Tiger to death early in the piece). Someone will always find something to 'like' about grunge of this type but, from the look of the reviews and the box office returns there hasn't been all that many. When the lights come up the only ones left in the audience might be Tarantino and Scorsese on their industry complementary's.

Film Watchin Fool Watch this if....you interested in seeing big names play sub-par characters and act out an fairly empty plot.Acting/Casting: 5* - Well the big names are there (Tatum, Pacino, Holmes, Liotta), but the content and characters aren't great. This makes for some big names playing some sub-par roles, which makes for sub-par performances and a waste of talent.Directing/Cinematography/Technical: 4.5* - Most of the disappointment should fall on the shoulders of Dito Montiel as he not only wrote this film but directed it into at best mediocrity. I do like the flashback component, but only the past portion of it is somewhat entertaining.Plot/Characters: 5* - Channing Tatum is a young cop who is struggling with a past decision that has come back to haunt him. The secret is given away early in the film and takes a lot away from the plot. Again, the characters aren't well developed either.Entertainment Value: 4.5* - Maybe my expectations were to high, but I thought it would be a better film. It has the big name stars, but really is a pretty dull movie.My Score: 5+4.5+5+4.5 = 19/4 = 4.75Email your thoughts to [email protected]

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.