Two Men in Town

Though the script is somewhat plodding, the film has a genuine quality to it. Forest Whitaker is good as the tormented parolee. Harvey Keitel plays the revenge seeking sheriff. It is Brenda Blethyn however who steals every scene she is in, as Whitaker's parole officer. I would agree that not much happens in this film, yet it is it's low key performances that keep the viewer intrigued. The cast is first rate. In addition to Whitaker, Keitel, and Blethyn, Luis Guzman and Ellen Burstyn also are quite good. If there is a problem, it is with the ending, which is somewhat unresolved, and hangs uncomfortably. I should also mention that the extra on the DVD titled Fences", is very interesting and timely. The interviews with border residents, for and against the border wall, are very informative. - MERK

For those of you who are fans of Oscar winner Forest Whitaker, than I recommended you check this one out.

Whitaker plays a man on parole after 18 years of prison, and with the help of Allah, who he finds inside, he makes a great attempt to follow the path and get his life right, but too many things are pulling him down, especially the town sheriff that can't forgive him for killing his partner.

Harvey Kitel plays the Sheriff, adding a little more star power to this small picture. Luis Guzman plays the role of Whitaker's ex-partner who wants to repay him for his loyalty by getting him back in the life.

Kitel and Guzman are fine actors but their purpose is truly just to support Whitaker who barely needs it. It's the type of realness that you would expect from a academy award winning actor, who convinces you of being a man on the verge of redemption without hitting you over the head with a needless moral campus.

The movie itself is not put together as well as Whitaker's award winning turn in The Last King of Scottland. It's all about pointing the camera at this man and watching him go. That's what you want to see and he gives it 100 percent.

Not the best film but worth seeing if you've nothing else to do. Whitaker is excellent throughout but the ending was very dissapointing.

My summary line making the point that this is a remake many years removed from its (french) original. I haven't watched the original, so I cannot tell you how the two movies compare. I can only judge this by its own merits (and faults). What I can say, is that Whitaker is giving an excellent performance. It's also nice to see Harvey Keitel in a bigger role, even if it sometimes turns a bit comic evil, he has the gravitas to pull it in.

The age old question within this movie is: can we escape our pasts? Can we change and become someone/something different? Can we ever truly repent and is there such a thing as forgiveness? Those are heavy topics and the movie does not stay away from other topics as well (like religion, though it's not really made a big strong point, other than being there). You can tell early on, if this is the kind of "entertainment" you like to watch or not ... the rhythm/pace stays the same throughout (occasional outbursts excluded)

I saw this film at the Berlinale film festival 2014, where it was part of the official competition. It allows us sufficient time to get acquainted with the five main characters: (1) Garnett who is just released from prison after an 18 years sentence, (2) the sheriff whose deputy was killed by Garnett some 18 years ago, (3) an underworld-er who wants to enlist Garnett for a shady job, (4) Garnett's new girl friend who he met after his release while opening a bank account, and (5) last-but-not-least his assigned parole officer who takes her job very seriously, and even ruffles the sheriff's furs when the need arises. We also meet several side characters who are portrayed very well, in spite of their much shorter appearance. Yet, the full two hours running time stretches our patience unnecessarily.

The plot itself is not new in essence (ex-convict tries to keep on track), but this variant offers many novel directions given the ingredients included. The finale is not fully predictable, which is a good thing. Yet, I was not very satisfied with the chosen outcome (no details to avoid spoilers), preferably something more optimistic could be thought of. Further, I'm not sure about the need for some side tracking sub-plots, e.g. Garnett's conversion to Islam, the issues around the Mexican border, and amply showing off the landscape. Not all these are necessary for the core story, maybe even deemed redundant and better left out to get a more concise story.