IMDb-BEWERTUNG
5,1/10
664
IHRE BEWERTUNG
Füge eine Handlung in deiner Sprache hinzuA convicted wife murderer returns twenty two years later to seek revenge on the daughter who help convict him.A convicted wife murderer returns twenty two years later to seek revenge on the daughter who help convict him.A convicted wife murderer returns twenty two years later to seek revenge on the daughter who help convict him.
Handlung
WUSSTEST DU SCHON:
- WissenswertesThe film cast includes three Oscar nominees: Graham Greene, Theodore Bikel and Amy Irving. Leading man Donald Sutherland has a special Oscar but not a competitive.
Ausgewählte Rezension
better than some think
Contemporary thrillers tend to get relatively poor reviews. These films are held to what I think is an unreasonably high standard. Admittedly, a genuinely good thriller is very hard to find these days. It's about the writing mainly. The story counts a lot, as does the suitability of the actors to this genre. It seems that the glorification of multimillion dollar production values, meaning mainly special effects, has become more important to the industry than good writing and characterizations. For whatever reason, movies like The Taking of Pelham One Two Three (original), Charley Varick, and The Getaway (the original) are a thing of the past. (Then again, there's the very good The Lincoln Lawyer.)
Nowadays, all one can expect is the more or less artful use of derivative material. Standards, therefore, should change. Don't expect another Charley Varick. Benefit of the Doubt should satisfy those looking for a reasonably plausible story, well executed tension and of course a first rate villain. This movie delivers on all those fronts. Sure, characters sometimes behave unrealistically, but realism and plausibility are inessential to thrillers. Recall Hitchcock's accurate denigration of "the plausibles", i.e. those who undermine a thriller because of implausible elements. - Donald Sutherland gives us a masterfully characterized bad guy, yet another testimony to this fine actor's beautifully honed thespian chops. The movie did for me what an acceptable thriller should do: keep me interested and provide some genuine suspense. This film is nothing more and nothing less than a better than good enough popcorn movie.
Nowadays, all one can expect is the more or less artful use of derivative material. Standards, therefore, should change. Don't expect another Charley Varick. Benefit of the Doubt should satisfy those looking for a reasonably plausible story, well executed tension and of course a first rate villain. This movie delivers on all those fronts. Sure, characters sometimes behave unrealistically, but realism and plausibility are inessential to thrillers. Recall Hitchcock's accurate denigration of "the plausibles", i.e. those who undermine a thriller because of implausible elements. - Donald Sutherland gives us a masterfully characterized bad guy, yet another testimony to this fine actor's beautifully honed thespian chops. The movie did for me what an acceptable thriller should do: keep me interested and provide some genuine suspense. This film is nothing more and nothing less than a better than good enough popcorn movie.
hilfreich•80
- alannasser
- 8. Dez. 2011
Top-Auswahl
Melden Sie sich zum Bewerten an und greifen Sie auf die Watchlist für personalisierte Empfehlungen zu
- How long is Benefit of the Doubt?Powered by Alexa
Details
- Erscheinungsdatum
- Herkunftsländer
- Sprache
- Auch bekannt als
- Benefit of the Doubt
- Drehorte
- Produktionsfirmen
- Weitere beteiligte Unternehmen bei IMDbPro anzeigen
Box Office
- Bruttoertrag in den USA und Kanada
- 151.860 $
- Laufzeit1 Stunde 30 Minuten
- Farbe
- Seitenverhältnis
- 1.85 : 1
Zu dieser Seite beitragen
Bearbeitung vorschlagen oder fehlenden Inhalt hinzufügen
Oberste Lücke
By what name was Im Bann des Zweifels (1993) officially released in Canada in English?
Antwort