Un flic pour cible

The best part of the movie is the cast: both adults and children are great , although it seems to me Channing Tatum has had better roles than this. I liked most Al Pacino as Detective Stanford and Jake Cherry as young Jonathan "Milk" White, but the others were also equal to their task.

Directing and especially plot leave a lot to be desired. Background obsessing/pestering is always there, but some turns are strange and illogical. The solution scene is good (although nothing special), but the very ending is rather disappointing. When the credits appeared I just realized that I had seen another oppressive movie with the aim to let the viewers ponder upon guilt, forgiveness, remorse and other differently perceived feelings.

'THE SON OF NO ONE': Two and a Half Stars (Out of Five)

I was severely let down by 'THE SON OF NO ONE'! I'm a fan of the filmmaker Dito Montiel, who wrote and directed the film, and I like most of the cast. Montiel also helmed two other urban dramas 2006's 'A GUIDE TO RECOGNIZING YOUR SAINTS' (which was pretty good) and 2009's 'FIGHTING' (which I absolutely loved). Those films both starred Channing Tatum, like this one does, so Tatum appears to be Montiel's go to guy. 'SAINTS' also starred Shia LaBeouf and Robert Downey Jr. though (who made the movie) and 'FIGHTING' also starred Terrence Howard (who turned in my favorite performance of that year!). This one co-stars Al Pacino, Ray Liotta, Katie Holmes, Juliette Binoche and Tracy Morgan. With all that talent and what Montiel has already delivered us I expected a lot more from this film. Instead we get a routine cop movie with weak pacing and an unsatisfactory ending. The cast is still good but there was potential for so much more!

Tatum plays Jonathan White, a young police officer with a wife, Kerry (Holmes) and sick daughter, Charlie (Ursula Parker). Early on in the film he's assigned to a precinct in Queens where he grew up. He and his fellow officers also start receiving mysterious letters from an anonymous writer bringing up a cold case from 1986 which accuses a police officer of covering two murders up. Jonathan is troubled by these letters as they remind him of haunting memories from his past and may jeopardize his future. He tries to figure out who's sending the letters as we see the horrors he and another childhood friend experienced at the time through flashbacks.

The movie is nicely stylized and appears to be moving, suspenseful and mysterious but it never quite makes any sense. Like I said the acting is all decent, especially the young boy who plays Jonathan as a kid (Jake Cherry). I like Tatum, I don't think he's a great actor but he can be likable in the right role. Here he's decent, well cast and does the best he can but has nothing really to work with. Pacino and the others are all as good as they can possibly be as well. The blame lies solely with Montiel for the movie's failures, mainly just his weak script. A few more rewrites really could have worked wonders for this movie and next time these talented actors shouldn't sign on so quickly. Hopefully Montiel will learn from his mistakes and be back to what he does best with his next film.

Watch our movie review show 'MOVIE TALK' at: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rje99p8QSz8

"You can hate me all you want, but your a free man." When rookie officer Jonathan White (Tatum) is assigned to the precinct where he grew up letters start showing up that mention two unsolved murders. When the letters remind White of his past he is stuck between trying to uncover who is sending them and covering up his involvement. I am a huge Pacino fan and that is the reason I wanted to watch this. The trailer looked OK but anything with him I will watch. He was great in this. That about it. The movie was very slow and had a 5 minute idea that they kept repeating over and over until you either struggle through or end up finishing just to see the ending. I will admit that the last ten minutes makes it worth watching, but getting to that part is a real struggle. Any scene without Pacino or Liotta lacks emotion and you have a hard time caring for White at all. Tracy Morgan is actually not bad in a dramatic performance but overall this is one of the biggest disappointments of the year. I give it a C-.

I'm surprised it received so many bad reviews. I think it is a great movie, very well acted, strong and realistic, no sugar coating here. Tension builds up so well and the ending is very powerful. It's not an action movie ,is more a drama , dark thriller, I don't now how to describe it . Very New York The plot is original. I really liked it

The Son of No One attempts to be a slow burn, cop-on-the-edge crime drama, with Al Pacino and Ray Liotta, who are both grizzled veterans of these kinds of stories. Now that Pacino and Liotta are getting too old to play the starring role, they're recast as supporting actors; instead, Channing Tatum stars. I haven't seen him in anything else, but I can't really say that he impressed me. However, I think his lack of emotional affect could be interpreted as his character bottling up all his emotions, which is admittedly a very charitable view. If this movie had been made 20 years ago (or, hell, even ten years ago), Liotta would have been awesome in this role.

If you're a Liotta or Pacino fan, you should probably be aware that their parts in this movie are comparatively small, though they are important characters and show up every so often. Neither is given a whole lot to work with, despite the importance of their roles, but they put in respectable performances. I think I'd like either of them in anything (I even sat through 88 Minutes, which is widely reviled by even the most ardent Pacino fans), but there isn't really a whole lot for them to do in this movie. Given that their roles had limited characterization and less screen time than their star power might lead you to believe, it's probably best to say that they did a good job with what they had to work with and leave it at that.

I'm a real sucker for cop dramas, crime dramas, and cop-on-the-edge thrillers, as any of my friends can tell you. I'll sit through even the most derivative, generic movie ever made, as long as there's a cop on the edge. In fact, it's probably because of people like me that these derivative movies keep being made. Sorry about that. In any event, the basic story is initially split between 1986 and the aftermath of the 9/11 terrorist attack in NYC. I was initially confused by the constant back-and-forth between the two time periods, but, luckily, the story settles down into a more linear storyline. I'm all for non-linear stories, such as Pulp Fiction and Memento, but those movies had excellent scripts and directors. Like many movies that attempt to randomly insert flashbacks into the main narrative, I found these scenes to be jarring and not entirely necessary. As is also often the case, the flashbacks serve as a form of filler, padding out the run-time, as the main character remembers various events from his past. That's all very interesting, and I'm grateful for the characterization, but it's also somewhat annoying to have the main plot grind to a halt while someone's past is explored. I'm more concerned with who someone is, rather than who someone was.

Back in 1986, we eventually learn that the main character has a dark secret (oooh, mysterious) that's threatening to destroy not only his own life and career but also that of many other people. How the various characters respond to this situation drives the plot, ranging from moral outrage to fear, guilt, and violence. Each of the characters maintains a degree of sympathy, though your philosophical or political leanings may cause you to label some of them as unreasonable, naive, pathetic, hypocritical, and/or self-righteous. Some of them could even be interpreted as sociopaths, though, again, I think that depends on your POV. I liked this aspect of the story, and I found it intriguing enough to stick with movie, even though it's a bit slow paced. Unfortunately, the final reveal of the story (which had been hinted at rather strongly throughout, without being overt) was unsatisfying, in my opinion. In the end, it seemed like several of the characters had no motivation to take their actions, though I guess it could just be that I was starting to lose interest in the movie, by this point. I think the writer and/or director were aiming for a noir-ish feel, but what they actually ended up with was a somewhat derivative story populated by stereotypes (or archetypes, if you want to be kind). It eventually arrives at the only place where it can go, giving you the ending that you're expecting, while pretending that it's a twist ending. It's not particularly bad writing, but it's not something that I'd really commend, either. All the same, it's entertaining enough, for what it is. If you're in the mood for a slow paced, noir-ish cop-on-the-edge movie, this will probably satisfy you, though there isn't a whole lot that stands out.