Nick Trojan | USA | 07/22/2009
(2 out of 5 stars)
"I truly wasn't adequately prepared for how bad this movie would turn out. For about the first two thirds of it I was interested in the story, despite the fact that most of the screen time was devoted to some of the most overwrought and contrived expressions of grief I've ever seen on screen by Kirk Douglas... He's a much better actor than that. There was a bit of Hitchcock pastiche going on as the main character's search for his son takes a few intriguing twists and turns... This is true. As we neared the climax, however, anything good about this movie quickly unraveled. The resolution left me scratching my head and wondering, "what was the point of that?" The conclusion is not only unsatisfying, but also makes no real sense. We're then treated to a second ending (as if we needed to see the ending of the movie get even worse...) The whole thing culminates in a "money shot," a so-bad-it's-over-the-top-funny special effect that is played before our eyes from various angles THIRTEEN TIMES. Yup, I had to go back and count it, it was so bad... THIRTEEN TIMES. It looked like it was something out of a "Scary Movie" parody rather than anything that was supposed to be serious. I'm a fan of suspense thrillers from the late 70s and early 80s, so it's not a matter of this film not holding up well over time, in my opinion. There are some films that are even more dated that are far superior... Although finding an example of better filmmaking from ANY time period in the past century would be like shooting fish in a barrel."