Domestic Disturbance (2001) Poster

User Reviews

Add a Review
192 ReviewsOrdered By: Helpfulness
Domestic Clichéd Disturbance
Chrysanthepop13 December 2008
'Domestic Disturbance' is pretty much another typical Hollywood thriller. The thing with these movies is that they are very easy to predict. We already know what will happen in the end. So why watch it? Well, the plot might be interesting. In this case, it isn't bad but it gives the deja-vu impression. It isn't anything intricate enough to create suspense but what kept me entertained were the characters and actors. I liked Travolta's Frank. A hardworking down-to-earth boatmaker who's going through a slump in business because people prefer plastic over wood. But through it all he remains a good father and a kind person at heart. It was fun to watch Vince Vaughn play a sociopath. He does not overact and brilliantly maintains Rick's deceitful gentleman mask behind which hides someone dangerous. The child actor is clueless. Teri Polo is pretty much given a clichéd role but I liked her, especially in the scene where she discovers that Rick was the one who set fire. 'Domestic Disturbance' doesn't have much (or anything?) to offer in terms of novelty but it was not exactly boring for me so one can give it a go if there is nothing else better on offer.
15 out of 16 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Worth Renting For A Couple Of Bucks
ccthemovieman-19 May 2006
This was a decent thriller with good-guy "Frank Morrison" (John Travolta) trying to save his former family from the dangerous new husband. That's not a new theme in Hollywood movies (the dangerous husband) but this is acted well and presented without heavy-handedness. They were smart to keep the story relatively-short, too, at 89 minutes. As a consequence, nothing dragged.

To me, the film would have been more enjoyable had the 12-year-old boy been a nicer kid, but he's an annoying brat. The mother (Teri Polo) is not that endearing, either. Definitely a movie that will entertain but a one-look film and nothing more, especially with the ending being as predictable as it turned out.
29 out of 36 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
it wasn't terrible, just formulaic
Negative Reviews27 December 2006
There's nothing that pisses me off more in a movie than when someone fails to put up an adequate argument on their behalf when they're being accused of something.

It's like they either have the character act like a total maniac by flying off the handle when denying what they're being accused of (so obviously the other party will of course not believe them now), or they say the completely wrong things and understate their case, and it is extremely frustrating to watch because you're just sitting there screaming, "WHY DON'T YOU JUST SAY THIS!!"

When that kid was in the interrogation room, his best method of convincing people that a murder took place was by weakly repeating: "look, I know what I saw OK.." Yeah that's gonna convince people. I don't care if you're 12, that's not the way you argue with people, and it's unrealistic.

The other thing that was silly was how the kid and the mother was STILL in the car by the time the father called her cell phone. They should've been gone by then, there was no logical reason why they would've still been in that garage, other than the fact the movie called for them to be there so the stepfather could catch them.

Come on be intelligent when you write, justify your damn script.
7 out of 7 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
A disturbing movie
Cubcreer19 December 2001
This movie was just trifling, right from the start. I tried to give it a fair shake, but repeated examples of terrible acting (let's just say the kid won't win an Oscar) and even worse writing (watch the step dad and kid play catch, brutal) just wouldn't allow me to. I saw the trailer and expected it to be a tense thriller, with a lot of suspense, but all I could do was laugh, and feel bad for doing so. The only reason this movie got a rating as high as it did (3), was Steve Buscemi's role in the movie. Buscemi is great as always, but enough to save this movie.
10 out of 11 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Exceptionally mediocre
FlickJunkie-225 May 2002
What is it with John Travolta? He can command just about any script he desires, and he signs on for the lead in this pedestrian rubbish? The man has talent, but he needs some serious career counseling. This script is not even TV grade. A kid has cried wolf a couple of times so the police don't bother to follow up when he claims he saw his step father murder someone; yes, that's very realistic. The screenplay would make any Wisconsin dairy farmer proud. It has so many holes that it is better classified as fantasy/comedy than drama.

I'm surprised that this product comes from director Harold Becker (`The Onion Field', "Malice') who has given us a couple of fine thrillers. Besides the flimsy script, the cinematography is annoyingly underexposed. If Becker was trying for a dark look, he achieved it, because the film is so dark that much of the time you can only tell who's speaking by voice recognition, and that's outdoors during the day!

If there is anything that saves this film from the abyss, it is the acting. Travolta is sometimes fantastic and sometimes awful. In this film he is very good, especially considering the material with which he has to work. Matthew O'Leary is particularly good as the troubled son. He gives a convincing performance, capturing the motivations of his character effectively with all the conflict one would expect from a kid in his situation. Vince Vaughn gives a decent performance, though he is a bit tentative when trying to be duplicitous. He is much more convincing as a villain than a good guy. Steve Buscemi is one of my favorite bad guys, extremely underrated and unappreciated for his consistently sleazy characters. Again, he gives us a terrifically slimy portrayal of Rick's former underworld buddy.

To enjoy this film you have to look beyond the tired plot, the unbelievable departures from reality and the poor cinematography. These are just too many liabilities to overcome. I rated it a 5/10.
31 out of 42 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Quite decent.
LionelM18 November 2001
To start off, I enjoyed "Domestic Disturbance". I found it kept me shaking and on the edge of my seat through-out the entire film (which was rather short, by the way).

ACTING: As you probably already know, this film has some of the best-in-the-biz. Including such stars as John Travolta and Vince Vaughn, alongside newcomer Daniel O'Leary. Travolta decently played the good-guy divorced father, trying to protect his teenage son from an apparent murderer.

The murderer/stepfather was played typically by Vaugh who's portrayed serial killer roles in other movies such as "Clay Pigeons" and the remake of Hitchcock's classic thriller, "Psycho". And on to the young victim of mayhem...

Daniel O'Leary. A relatively good child actor who convincingly plays a stressed, frightened teen boy seems the perfect choice, with his convicingly frightened facial expressions.

All in all good acting. Mainly on Vaughn and Travolta's part.

STORY/WRITING: The movie flails mainly in this category. Thrilling, edge-of-your seat thriller until un-eventful ending. I'll try not to give it away, but it's a tad rushed.

The story isn't all-to origional, nor is anything else in this film. The dialogue is mediocre. Basically the entire script is pretty mediocre...

DIRECTING: Very nice direction. The director's dark, creepy style carries the movie along swiftly. If this director had been given a better script, with the same actors, "Domestic Disturbance" could've achieved brilliance.

Once again, direction is a high-point in this film.

BOTTOM LINE: A good thriller. 7 out of 10 stars.
8 out of 9 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Dull unoriginal thriller enlivened by excellent performances.
LITP (lostintwinpeaks)19 October 2002
Well, this is certainly nothing we haven't seen before. A rerun of every domestic situation thriller of the past two decades (everything from "Pacific Heights" to "The Hand That Rocks the Cradle"), its one saving grace is its excellent performances: Matt O'Leary, who was also fantastic as Fenton in the brilliant "Frailty", gives a very intelligent mature perfromance; John Travolta makes a likeable hero, while Vince Vaughan is good as the creepy villian (much better than his camp performance as Norman Bates in Gus Van Sant's pointless remake of "Psycho"); and Teri Polo does the best she can with the role of damsel-in-distress. Otherwise, a very dull (apart from the scene where O'Leary is hiding in the car watching the murder - this is suspenseful) movie, with no originality whatsoever.
10 out of 12 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Practically defines "routine thriller."
Robert J. Maxwell8 October 2003
Warning: Spoilers

It's not bad considering that it was probably designed by a committee of recent film school graduates and greenlighted by a tight-lipped gaggle of MBAs. It has a certain splashy tension and there are lots of action scenes but it doesn't own an original thought. And on the other hand it's not bad enough to be revoltingly amusing.

The story is elementary. Travolta's ex wife has custody of their kid (Jason, what else) and she remarries a recently arrived guy (Vaughn) who is a business success and is on his way to becoming a pillar of the community. The problem with Vaughn is that he has a "past" in racketeering under a previous cognomen. Buscemi finds out where he's living, tracks him down, and applies a little blackmail logic, which is foolish because, as every moviegoer knows, when you try to extort money from a really rotten guy this is as likely to lead to the furnace of a brick factory as it is to a luxury condo in Boca Raton. The murder and disposal of the corpse is witnessed by Jason who tells everyone who will listen to him. Nobody listens to him. Except, after giving it due thought, Travolta realizes that Jason lies a lot, true -- but never to HIM. (This kid is a paragon of virtue.) So Travolta goes about uncovering the facts of the matter with the grudging help of the police and the sometimes fierce resistance of Vaughn. Things turn out as you expect. As I say, it's not original.

I lost count of the number of times someone gets whacked over the head (or is thrown against a wall or clipped on the jaw) and falls unconscious to the floor, only to wake up just in time to save his/her life or otherwise interfere with destiny. One example. Travolta is beaned by Vaughn with what seems to be a crowbar. He collapses in a heap. Vaughn sets fire to the building (somebody involved in this movie like fires). The building goes up like a torch around Travolta's body. We have several shots of a huge wooden ladder suspended from the ceiling just over his body. In each shot the ladder is more thoroughly burned. It will fall on Travolta at any moment. But does it? No. Slowly Travolta shakes his head, massages his occiput, looks up and sees the flaming ladder about to drop. He crawls out under it, gets to his feet and leaps into the water outside the boat house. What a close call. What a very very tired close call.

Travolta is okay, though. He gives a decent performance. So does everyone else for that matter. Whoever plays Vaughn stands out a bit from the others. He has the kind of bland face with a built-in open-mouth smile that could pass either for a priest's or a vampire's. But the juicy villain role is usually more attractive than that of the upright hero.

This virtue is small potatoes in a huge olla podrida. The movie rolls along in its self-satisfied way, with the cash registers clinking in the background, until finally the credits roll. It would be good if Travolta picked his material more carefully. Everything he does in this movie, every expression, every tonal quirk, all of it put together, does not add up to what he contributes during the few seconds in "Pulp Fiction" when he comes crouching out of the toilet and looks up to find Bruce Willis pointing a machine pistol at him.
7 out of 8 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Travolta saves the day.
MichaelJBennett13 December 2001
While the reviews I've heard didn't have much good to say about this film I appreciated it for it's straight-forwardness. It is an entertainment. That's all I wanted on the day I saw this film so I was pleased. There are points that seem implausible and ask the audiences' indulgence but they are forgivable and do not detract from the story Travolta and Vaughn give solid performances and for me, Buscemi is always fun to watch. Don't expect the reaffirmation of the virtues of being an involved parent. Expect to finish your popcorn and rasinettes.
4 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Better than I thought it would be, but still a predictable Hollywood thriller
Shep6 December 2002
Hollywood movies like this come out all the time. Before Domestic Disturbance came Don't Say A Word. These types of movies have the occasional pretty good lines and familiar Hollywood actors you all know and love. At times, you think to yourself that the movie is really good. But then it just gets so predictable, and by the end of the movie (which you predicted, and were right), you feel warm and happy the good guys one, but still cheated. C+, 6/10
6 out of 7 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Predictable but well-made thriller.
gridoon31 December 2003
Predictable (you know exactly what the last scene will be like right from the start), contrived (the police really should have looked harder for evidence), but well-made, extremely well-acted (especially by Vince Vaughn) and psychologically accurate (the "baseball practice" scene was perfectly written and played). Might have been better if it had kept us in doubt a little longer about whether the kid is telling the truth or not. Still, the running time of the movie flies by, and that has to count for something, right? Some have complained about it being "too short", but surely this is preferable to the opposite, "too long". (**1/2)
17 out of 26 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Felt like a made for TV movie with some swearing! Cliched!
Doc_Who4 November 2001
If you see this movie, you might as well be watching a made for TV movie! The acting,story everything about this movie has been done before. There is nothing new from Hollywood from this movie.Basically if you've seen the trailer and TV ads, you know what is going to happen.

If you want to see this movie watch "The Hand That Rocks The Cradle". This movie is the male vs. male version of that movie. Instead of a baby in trouble, it's been changed to a 12 year boy.

if you wish to see it fine but it's another recycled movie from Hollywood. Wait for it on DVD and video as it should be coming out in a few months. It also did very bad opening weekend? I guess John Travolta's bad movie streak he started with "Battlefield Earth" is still going on. If you like the film's main stars see it for that. But Vince Vaughn's bad guy drill is getting old(Clay Pigeons,Psycho anyone?) and Travolta still plays the good guy(expect for Battlefield Earth).

I just wish this movie was a direct to video release and spared the big screen release!
7 out of 9 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Mediocre but still watchable
Rodrigo Amaro12 October 2011
Hard to resist and a little bit easy to forget, the sometimes unintentionally laughable "Domestic Disturbance" can be a nice and simple entertainment that rewards its audience with the most obvious clichés ever presented in films. The movie's premise is not new, the script takes the more traveled route just to please a larger part of the audience that loves some easy tension, those moments when you can play the psychic with family and friends while watching together, saying "That character is going to die now" things like that.

Once again, there's a boy who because of his constant lies no one will believe when he finally says the truth and needs help from his parents. In this case, the boy (Matt O'Leary) is in trouble after being the sole witness of a crime committed by Rick, his stepfather (Vince Vaughn), arranged for life now that he recently married with Susan (Teri Polo), who divorced the boy's father (John Travolta). After that, it's a battle to prove that Rick is a killer and needs to stay away from his new family.

Let's face it, the kid is a brat! The movie would be interesting if the writers take the father away and let the kid try to make things for himself, because he knows how to cause trouble and he could play fire with fire against his step dad. imagine this kid being a dangerous type who can challenge his opponent family member, knowing how to make the other guy a living hell, blackmailing the guy or doing tricky things, trying to survive the whole situation and we would have a greater picture. Instead, there's this other known thing. It's too damn predictable! You can always tell what's going to happen next, surprises are so rare to find in here.

However, anyone can and will enjoy this flick due to fact the cast united here is very good even playing some dumb roles. Matt O'Leary and Steve Buscemi (as the mysterious Ray Coleman) are the best in the show; Vaughn and Travolta got a little bit ridiculous playing heavy clichéd figures, evil versus good. But it's not a great example of what Harold Becker knows how to do in terms of thriller (the spectacular ones "City Hall", "Malice" and "Sea of Love"). "Domestic Disturbance" is quite good, watchable but it's light years from being a helluva of a movie.

10 years later and we're still waiting for another Becker's film, back in shape, but it looks like we're not gonna see that so early and this might be his last picture. That wouldn't be so good. 6/10
3 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
He doesn't lie to me....
FlashCallahan30 May 2011
Warning: Spoilers
Susan Morrison gets married to wealthy industrialist Rick Barnes. Danny, her teenage son with ex-husband Frank, isn't happy about this; he stows away in Rick's car one night, planning to go to Frank's house.

But while there, he witnesses Rick murdering mysterious stranger Ray Coleman.

Problem is, Rick's managed to dispose of most of the evidence, and he's considered a pillar of the community, while Danny has a history of lying.

Frank believes him, though, and does some investigating of his own, as Rick's shady past slowly catches up to him and his new family....

A movie of the week, gets that little bit better thanks to Travoltas performance and Vaughn on full psycho mode. The annoying things about these films are that you know who the bad guy is, but the red herrings and the narrative of these films just make you want to shout at the screen.

As soon as we meet Vaughn, you know the guy is trouble, he offers travolta work and is just too nice, never a good sign. Cracks begin to show when we are introduced to Buscemi, arguably the best thing here. And then Vaughn has a heated game of catch with his new stepson....Bad news.

It's all as predictable as the slew of films that were released in the early nineties, pacific heights, unlawful entry, single white female, and nothing new has been added to the mix here to make it different.

It's an easy watch, with good performances from the cast, and thats it really.
3 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Vince Vaughn is amazing as a psycho! The funny man deal misses his mark.
tomcat-jjr18 November 2007
OK, so I saw this again for the second time last night on T.V. I was pleased when I realized what it was because I saw it before and was happy then and this was no different the second time around. Great little suspense building thriller with several cool heart pounding moments.

Now, that being said, let me just say that this is exactly what a good thriller should be. Not a lot of blood and guts, no gratuitous sex and violence, but rather trying to link many parts of a rather deep story all together for you, the viewer, in just 88 minutes. If the producers and directors used the modern day formula and made this story 100-120 minutes as so many are nowadays, then I'm sure I would have given it an even higher rating of 9 as it could only be better! So, yes, it seemed a little rushed to convey everything it did, but kudos to them for keeping viewer interest from one scene to the next as they did in the time allotted. It could have been a bit better, but it could have been a LOT worse.

And now on to the acting as I won't even waste time telling you what you already know about the movie and the plot/storyline. I wanna tell you what you don't know and that is that Vince Vaughn is, in my mind, one of the greatest evil playing son's o' bitches this side of Hollyfake! He was natural, self assured, scary and most of all, downright convincing! Forget the funny guy stuff. We have the next great badass/gangster in our midst and we need to embrace him. I don't know who his agent is, but that guy needs to get fired and I need to get hired cuz Vince Vaughn has what it takes to be the next great Pacino, De Niro, Pesci or Liotta anyday of the week. Any bad guy you wanna throw at him? He can be. And you'll see it first hand in this movie.

Forget about, Crashing Weddings, Breaking Up and being Santa Clauses brother. Somebody please let this guy go and do what he does best and wreak havoc across Villania and be the monster he truly needs to be.

Check out the movie. I'm sure you won't be disappointed.
3 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Sorry, that's asking too much...
JohnSol9 May 2002
Warning: Spoilers
Warning: Some spoilers here.

I watched this movie with my girlfriend on a Saturday night. For me that means it better be `ready for prime time', or I've wasted my time. Because I had no preconceptions about it and hadn't read any reviews, I was ready to give it a fair chance. I like both Travolta and Vaughn, so I thought I'd be OK. Although it did at least pass my first test of movie engagement - that I care about what happens to one or more of the characters - I found quickly that I was disappointed in having to suspend disbelief to the extent the writers asked me to. My companion was bothered when I became vocal with my objections to the weak plot, early on. She chided me, pointing out that "it's just a movie" (never an acceptable excuse for me) and that "things like this could happen in real life". For her sake, I did my best to hold back, but it wasn't easy. Suspending disbelief is one thing. Ignoring gaping holes in the plot is another.

The complete incompetence of the police department is by the far the most objectionable component of the impossible-to-swallow story line. How quick they are to dismiss serious accusations of wrongdoing, how unbelievable in there unwillingness to even perform a simple background check on a potential murderer, how unprofessional in not employing routine forensic tools to search for evidence (they find no sign of wrongdoing in Vaughn's vehicle? Come on.). It just made me angry. There are plenty of other examples of poor writing, but they've already been pointed out (as has the police piece, but I just couldn't resist).

Furthermore, I never bought the relationship between Vaughn and Travolta's ex-wife. Vaughn's character is so obviously shifty (and dangerous) that it's impossible to believe his new bride incapable of sensing anything wrong with him. It's an insult to her character. She only comes to her senses when the evidence slaps her in the face (which qualifies her to join the local police force, I suspect). As such, her role in the plot quickly becomes inconsequential and superficial.

I must admit reluctantly, though, that I did feel compelled to watch it all the way through. Yes, I did care what ultimately happened to the characters (both good and bad). Yes, the movie was successful in creating suspense, and both Travolta and Vaughn contributed to the sense of desperation that the writers clearly wanted to create. It's just that I felt cheated in the way I was set up. I agree with what many reviewers here have suggested - it does have the feeling of a made-for-TV movie. Too bad.
3 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Bad and boring
Brian B-23 November 2002
Teri Polo is cute, but wooden and overdressed. otherwise, John Travolta sleepwalks, Vince Vaughan is stonefaced, rather than menacing. Steve Buscemi's cameo was the best part of the movie.

The plot is obvious, but contrived. The incompetence of the police is totally incredible.

why this movie was made is unclear. It shares a genre with many better examples.
14 out of 24 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Simple thriller
Gordon-1130 April 2007
This film is about the events that sparked after a young boy accused his step father of murder.

From the title I thought it was about domestic violence. I was wrong! The first half of the movie was slow because they had to build everything up. In the second part, particularly when the young boy got threatened in the hallway, the film got a lot more suspenseful and exciting. The story was simple, and it was told effectively. The plot was easy to understand, which was great because I was not in the mood for any complex films.

Vince Vaughn was impressive in playing a psychopathic father. It was refreshing for him to play out of character. in fact, I think it is the first time that I see him playing films other than comedies.
4 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Polished and professional but obvious genre movie with nothing to really recommend it for other than being serviceable genre fare
bob the moo18 December 2006
Frank and Laurie have been divorced for years but still get on well and look after their teenage son Danny. However when Laurie decides to get married to boyfriend Rick, Danny starts playing up, leading Frank to get involved with the happy couple to try and help his son accept the changes. However when an "old friend" of Rick's turns up at the wedding, Frank notices that Rick seems surprised by the man and, in casual chat, notices minor discrepancies in how the two men describe their relationship with one another. When Danny claims he has seen Rick murder his friend, Frank is the only one who believes his son.

By choosing to let us in on the fact that Rick is indeed "a bad man", this drama becomes more a matter of time rather than a film that is packed with twists and intrigues. The detail of what way Rick is a "bad man" is not revealed until later on but this detail doesn't really matter and although the "revelation" is delivered as a discovery, the fact that the audience already knew most of it, we're not really with Frank as he gets sucked in. This is not to say it is a bad film, just quite an unmemorable one, as it doesn't have much special going on in it and just delivers a typical "enemy within" thriller (albeit quite low on thrills). This is due to the delivery mostly. Personally I would have preferred it if the film had kept an air of mystery and played with the character of Rick – it would have given Vaughn more to work with and would have made more of the mystery. As it is we trudge drearily towards the inevitable conclusion, doing what you'd expect in a professional manner which might be enough for many viewers just looking to fill time.

The cast don't seem too thankful for having been given obvious material. Travolta is OK but he is hardly pushing out the ol' acting boat on this one. It is at least a chance to see Vaughn out of "Swingers" mode and he does well enough. It would have been much better for him to have had more mystery within his script but he is still OK. Tilney, Floyd, Santiago-Hudson and Buscemi all fill round the edges solidly enough but really nothing is there to allow any of them to do much more than produce generic performances within an obvious genre film.

Polished and professional stuff then but nothing out of the ordinary or special. To fill a few hours with something undemanding and by-the-numbers, this is probably just good enough to do you as a genre film but a different delivery and better script could have produced something better and given Vaughn and Travolta more to do.
4 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Drama with thrills, suspense, and magnificent performances
ma-cortes17 December 2007
The film deals about a divorced father(an agreeable role for John Travolta)named Frank, he's boat builder and shares custody with his ex-spouse(Teri Polo) of their son Danny(a newcomer Matt O'Leary). But she is about to marry again to suspect rich businessman(Vince Vaughn)named Rick. Then, in the little town takes appearance of Ray (a shady Steve Buscemi), a sleazy hood of Rick. Soon Danny is witness to a killing which nobody will believe took place, neither the police sergeant(Ruben Santiago-Hudson), only his daddy believes him.

This enjoyable thriller contains suspense, thriller, tension and straightforward performances. Most of the acting seem excellent with special mention to Vince Vaughn as suave suitor turned to menacing new father and Steven Buscemi in a secondary role as seedy friend.The film is suspenseful though predictable with the final confrontation between good daddy and bad dad. Film displays colorful cinematography by Michael Seresin and appropriate musical score by Mark Mancina. The motion picture is professionally directed by Harold Becker. He's a gritty thrillers expert, charged with dark atmosphere and with famous stars, such as ¨The Onion field(John Woods), Sea of love(Pacino),Malice(Nicole Kidman),City Hall(again Pacino),Mercury rising(Bruce Willis) and this one with John Travolta making a top-notch interpretation. Rating: Passable and well worth watching.
2 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
d grade script with a decent cast
horrorstar8 August 2002
i read a majority of reviews for this on imdb and a few people really liked it and im thinking do u people know what a good movie is?.john travolta,vince vaughn and steve buscemi are very decent actors and try in this one but havent got the material to work with.try not to laugh when vaughn notices the phone book in travoltas car i couldent help of the worst of 2002. * out of 4
2 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
bjjchris20 May 2002
Not a lot of surprises here. Typical `boy who cried wolf' type film. I just wanted to slap the mother in the back of the head. What an idiot. I would wait for this one to make it to cable. Don't waste your money on a rental.

(4 out of 10)
2 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Tight Fast Moving Thriller!
bsmith55522 November 2002
I guess I liked "Domestic Disturbance" more than most critics and visitors to this site. I thought it was a compact fast moving little thriller that packed a lot into its brief 89 minute running time.

Frank Morrison (John Travolta) and his ex-wife Susan (Teri Polo) have a 12 year old son Danny (Matthew O'Leary) who is taking their breakup and Susan's impending marriage to local hot shot Rick Barnes (Vince Vaughn) very hard. He is taken to running off and lying to his parents and the authorities. Frank meanwhile, tries to encourage Danny to give his new stepfather an even chance.

At Rick and Susan's wedding an uninvited guest Ray Coleman (Steve Buscemi) shows up and we learn that Rick has a past. When Susan announces that she is pregnant with Rick's child, Danny sneaks out of the house and into the back of Rick's car in order to get to his father's home. At the same time, Rick decides to rid himself of Coleman who is threatening to expose his past. Rick murders Coleman and Danny witness the act.

Danny must now convince his parents and the police of Rick's guilt. But because he has cried wolf so many times before, no one will believe him. To make matters worse Rick has threatened to do harm to his father if he talks. Susan unaware of all of this supports Rick. Frank on the other hand, begins to smell a rat.

Director Harold Becker keeps the story moving and at the same time, heightening the suspense. Travolta gives good performance as Frank. He wants his son back and has trouble at first convincing himself that Danny and his ex are in harm's way. Vaughn makes a chilling villain and young O'Leary is excellent as the son who is caught in one too many lies. And no one can play a slimy underworld type any better than Buscemi.

Don't read the reviews. This is a good movie.
7 out of 12 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Domestic flop
lthseldy111 May 2002
I did not expect too much out of this movie ever sense it got bad reviews when it first came out, but, I wanted to see it anyway. This movie is about a crazy man that gets involved with a woman and her son and soon turns into a madman. Thats about it. He kills a man and his wifes son sees the murder in the back seat of his van. The boy tries to tell the police what happened to the man and they do not belive him, not even his parents but his father secretly believes him after the crazy husband is then let off the hook and let loose to roam free. This movie makes no sense whatsoever. First, there is no investigation from the police to try and find out if this guy is guilty or not, he's just let go and then doughts really come up when the crazy husband tries to kill the kid or his father if he tells the courts what really happened makeing the kid lie in court. The wife is just plain dumb and does not know who to believe. Travolta's girlfriend should have left him long before the movie because of all his emotional baggage. And the kid acts like he doesn't know who's side he should be on. And then there's a big explosion and Travolta just wakes up and rolls himself down a pier and looks out at his lifes work as if blows up in smoke. And the ending is just pathetic. It was a fast, easy ending because apparently the people makeing this movie wanted to finish it off quick because it was going nowhere. Piece of crap!!!
5 out of 8 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Ok thriller
Spanner-214 November 2001
A so-so thriller where John Travolta discovers that his ex-wife is about to marry a killer (a convincing Vince Vaughn) and his child is in danger. Pretty much by the numbers thriller stuff, but it's an ok viewing with decent performances. GRADE: C
5 out of 8 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
An error has occured. Please try again.

See also

Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews