Would I watch again? - I don't think I will
User ReviewsAdd a Review
Would I watch again? - I don't think I will
A pregnant girl is chained to a tree by a serial killer, and if the detectives don't find her quickly, she is going to die an agonizing death. And so, you would expect the director to create a sense of urgency. Hurry up and find her before it's too late! But there is no sense of urgency at all. A totally unnecessary subplot involving one detective's seriously ill wife slows the action down to a crawl. When he isn't by her bedside holding hands and exchanging "I love you's" and listening to her complaints, he's answering his cell phone with continual updates on her condition. And when he's sitting by her bedside engaged in these slow sad conversations, there is nary a thought of the pregnant girl out there tied to a tree. The plot is further chained by constant adolescent banter between the veteran detective and the rookie who resents being talked to as a newbie. On and on and on. Frequent flashes to suffering girl, hanging nearly comatose from tree; return to extended scenes with sick wife and boring banter, the detectives in no apparent hurry to do their job. And yet, still I watched, onward and onward, slogging through the cinematic tedium, hoping that these boring and seemingly uncaring slugs would finally get moving and show some signs of urgency about rescuing the poor pregnant girl....Ugh!
I loved the script -especially the scene at the end where Judd Nelson visits the girl they saved and his partner in hospital and then walks past the newborn babies in the hall. Brilliantly filmed, brilliant scene - definitely worth watching again just for Judd Nelsons acting and the final scene. Where has Judd Nelson been hiding?
My only issue with the movie is with some of the dialogue between the characters. There is a scene where one of the leads in sitting on the bed with his wife and they are talking. The entire scene seemed forced and not real at all. There are also a few other scenes where the two leads are exchanging sarcastic blows to each other where it seemed really forced.
I think the older lead was trying to hard at times, but later in the movie the acting leveled out and was fine.
Watch this movie!
A young, former west coast detective named Zeth Arnold (Deven Sawa) is called in as an apprentice in account of Lane being tied up in his personal life. They frequently butt heads as Arnold is over-confident and has a somewhat brash way of handling the case than the by-the-book veteran. Judd Nelson plays the character somewhat reserved and contemplative to the point of appearing detached. His character has trust issues, but gives some leeway as he can't be two places at once. Devon Sawa delivers some dry banter and his character speaks what's on his mind, which comes off as cocky but might actually have something to offer under that rookie demeanor.
There are hundreds of miles of roadway and five hundred thousand acres of swamp to comb through, so the detectives start with what they know. They question the dead man named Macey's neighbors, who explain that he was a loner, not right in the head and doesn't have any living relatives that he keeps in touch with. The girl is identified as Daphne (Clare Kramer) by a friend who said she just talked to her last night but is currently missing. A profiler is called in and suggests that there might be an accomplice that he seeks approval from. Taking cues from John Lithgow in "Dexter" of who you wouldn't expect, Tom Arnold brings a good-guy face to his role as Simon but makes you think twice about what's underneath. From one revelation to the next the detectives uncover an underground network, which gives them more to contend with to save the young woman's life before it's too late.
This is a gradually paced drama about searching for answers. It also deals with saving a life and watching one depart. Lane's wife is cooped up with nowhere to go, and he wants to stay but has everywhere to be; though he eventually uses the time away to push aside his feelings and in an odd sense cope. What a viewer gets: a basic story about human suffering that isn't confusing or muddled with layer upon layer of twists as it keeps it conventional as far as crime plots go. This is more held back than the typical shoot-'em-up-warrantless-bustin'-down-the-door-alcoholic features you normally see in the genre. This injects some feelings and leaves ample room open for the viewer's own interpretations, as well as the actions and motivations in the movie seem reasonable.
The major issue with "Endure" is it doesn't always capitalize on its own story line due to trying to meld two different subplots and be thoroughly realistic while at it. This isn't going for the usual cinematic experience, as the editing and cinematography are restrained, the dialogue is close enough to how real people speak and the situation isn't glamorized or sensationalized. There's drama to be had here though the delivery felt somewhat flat and the characters didn't end up being as memorable as they could have. At times it comes across as cut and dry, even when a piece of evidence is unraveled to get closer to finding the victim while she's still alive. Not until the latter portion is there much in the way of being gripping. There's no sense in over-dramatizing the story like so many do and force it, but the atmosphere feels calm and relaxed to the point of being dozy and less important than it should be, as the dire circumstances at hand don't always have the capability of captivating one's undivided attention for the then and now. (Also submitted on Cinema Freaks, http://docuniverse.blogspot.com)
After finding an accident scene, two detectives discover a Polaroid of a girl tied to a tree, indicating that this guy is a hostage/ransom guy.
But despite this great set up, there is no suspense. No OMG, and pulse driving content, like Silence of the Lambs. This is a eat your popcorn slowly type movie, take a bathroom break, check email, type of suspense.
Why? The focus is too, too much on the back story of Detective Llyod's wife. And the faux anger between the two detectives is too much Nolte and Murphy in their forgettable movie 48 hrs. This cop diversion is way to Hollywood. Doesn't the victim have more importance than personal squabbles? Do real cops work this way? Doesn't the girl ever try to escape or chew through the gag.
Aren't they forgetting that time is of great importance in finding the Polaroid girl???
Ånd no search party? Why not try backtracking the accident scene and look for tire tracks that turn off the road. Duh! Going a mile per 1/2 hour, that would allow for a 30 mile back track of only 15 hrs. The first thing cops do is set up a search, even based on scanty clues. Detective Lloyd is not taking those yearly detective seminar classes.
Great set up and plot, but was to dry and slow for movie release, and as others have said, great TV, Lifetime movie. Had a non-aggressive mushy Canadian and video feel to it.
There was kind of a Hannibal/protégé deal with the baddies, but not played out much. Worth a look though, but not edge of seat suspense. You know, you have to have audience participation in mystery movies. They are trying to figure out the answers too.
If you can figure out how to put suspense/drama in this movie, which has a great set up and plot, you are the next Jonathan Demme.