Thr3e (2006) User Reviews

Derivative, plodding thriller

[cpbadgeman · 4/10 · 18 February 2008]

The basic premise of "Three" is unimaginative but potentially interesting: for reasons that are initially unclear, a theology student is targeted by a psychopath (the "Riddle Killer") who forces him to confront the dark corners of his past. As those close to him start to die, the only people who stand by our hero are his longtime female friend and a police psychologist whose brother was one of said murderer's victims.

This film drags the viewer through a series of pedestrian chases, shootouts, and assorted close calls for our heroic trio before reaching a fairly predictable climax. Other, better, films ("Saw", "Flatliners", "Never Talk to Strangers", "Fear", the list is truly endless) have covered this ground before and done so with far more originality, imagination, and style. The direction is by-the-numbers, and the cast are competent but lack charisma. It is no surprise that this dud vanished from theaters. It is puzzling that anyone thought it a good idea (tax write-off?) to make this film in the first place.

Good but should have been better. I'm very ambivalent about it

[dbborroughs · 6/10 · 13 January 2008]

Cops and an insurance investigator try to stop a serial bomber who torments with riddles and has now set his sight on a college student.

Odd story with style that lacks and real characters you can care about. Its not a bad movie, far from it but this could have and should have been a great film, all that would have been required would be to give us real people to hang out with instead we get cyphers and cut outs. It keeps you watching but it never fully engages you. I highly doubt that you'll remember ever seeing it after the end credits roll.

Worth a shot on cable.

6 out of 10

A Middle-Grade Film with Potential

[WanderingGaurdian · 6/10 · 10 January 2007]

Thr3e is a thriller based on a book by Ted Dekker. The film centers around Kevin Parsons, a seminary student, targeted by a psychopath intent on making him "confess his sins."

While I enjoyed the film, the acting falls short on several occasions. Quite frankly, Laura Jordan could use acting lessons. Blucas is left to carry the lion's share of the film and fails at points, though he does a marvelous job during the climax. Priscilla Barnes provides support, believably portraying a bitter shut-in with a deep-set mean streak.The special effects leave something to be desired and the constant use of bombs as a murder weapon gets tired after about the 4th one.

Despite the rough edges, the movie is enjoyable. It's not a summer blockbuster by any means but it does well enough. If money is tight, wait till it hits DVD to watch. Otherwise, it's worth the $8 ticket.

Not what I Expected

[dgale-3 · 3/10 · 6 January 2007]

Honestsly, I felt as though this movie was a let down. After reading some reviews I was under the impression it was a seat gripping thriller, while after seeing television reviews I believed it was a horror story. In all I expected some jumping, possible shock induced gasping/screaming, not too much gore (if any), etc. Yet none of that fell into place. I realize there wasn't much room for character development because that could ruin certain aspects of the film, but neglecting plot? Completely uncalled for. More often than not I found myself trying to predict in order to fill in gaps. It was like a high school production of a "horror" film; I could have laughed in more places than been intrigued or anxious. It seemed dated, low budget and had many ridiculous scenarios that go along with classic predictablity. It was a let down, a definite non-must see, and nothing you'd miss out on. Save you're $10.25 for lunch tomorrow.

No no no ...

[jo__fraser · 1/10 · 6 January 2007]

This movie was horrible. I went in expecting nothing and came out getting exactly that.

My brother and I went to see this movie on a whim and foolishly believed that it would be good based on other reviews and the synopsis. All in all, it sounded like a good time - how could they mess this up? Well, they succeeded. The first half hour is severely disappointing to the point of wanting to leave - the characters are underdeveloped, you barely understand what is going on because they are so unnecessarily emotional (based on the circumstances), and no time is given for the viewer to fully connect with the characters in order to evoke some sympathy for them. The next hour of the movie is simply the same thing over and over - dude gets a phone call, something blows up ... dude gets a phone call, something blows up. I believe there is more than one way to kill a person, don't you? I certainly hope so.

The ending is somewhat original (although, I have seen it done before) and the only "exciting" part (or at least the only part I sat waiting to see what would happen) occurred when the protagonist's childhood was uncovered. At least this made me understand why he was the way he was. And the only part that made me jump was a cheap thrill (something loud happens when you don't expect it). And that only happened once because you could predict what was going to happen the entire time anyway. Other than that, I sat there the whole time, waiting for it to be over, foolishly waiting for the fantastic ending that usually makes up for the otherwise really bad, cheaply made horror movie. I never got my ending and neither will you.

Trust me, do not waste your money on this movie. I got in for free and I was still looking for my money back.

New rating category needed

[capncrusty · 3/10 · 2 January 2008]

Possible spoilers...as if that could happen with this gobbler. Right off the bat, I had three problems: 1) the tough lady cop looks like a fashion model; 2) the hero lives in a converted warehouse, complete with a cage-type elevator; 3) the dog dies. All about as hackneyed as it gets. Added along the way: another tough, gun-toting fashion-model, a girlfriend this time; some pretty unlikely plot elements; a trio of REALLY overacting crazy people; and a "shocking ending" which bounces around so much that any surprise ends up falling flat--particularly with the whacky Mel Brooks' "don't nobody move" flourish. Mix it all up with a heavy dose of third-rate Christian pop-psychology (I know, I know, that's redundant), and you got "Thr3e". And you can have it.

Okay, that's a little harsh. There was some tension, some action, some effective atmosphere. So I give it 2 stars. I mean, it wasn't as bad as Paretti, but then Paretti's pretty BAD.

Speaking of which, how about we get a new Rating Category: CT, for "Christian Themed"? So that those of us who don't buy into that particular brand of hocus-pocus can make better informed choices about what and what not to watch.

Cliff Notes Version of the Book

[rockerrchick · 7/10 · 7 January 2007]

There is no way this film can be confused with other thrillers. It's the movie version of the book Thr3e by Ted Dekker. The book is excellent and this film is an attempt to tell the complex story of the book simply. Being a movie, there is less time for the detail which made the book especially clever, but the film does tell the story reasonably well. If you have read the book you will want to see this movie. I really enjoyed seeing the story I'd read play out on screen. In fact the look of the cast was so close to the way I'd imagined that it took me back to my experience reading. If you haven't read the book or you aren't a big reader you may want to get the book on tape or see the movie twice. It's hard to get all the details in one viewing. I took my husband who hasn't read the book and he was a bit confused at first. The book is certainly a must read if you like thrillers and for me this film was a must see.

Disappointing at best

[vanalosswen · 3/10 · 6 June 2007]

When I saw this movie in the aisle of our local video store, I almost went catatonic with glee. Thr3e was the first Ted Dekker novel I ever read, and I'd heard many good things about it. I bought it sight unseen, and now I regret it.

Ted, how could you let them do this to your novel? Everything that made the novel classically good (good dialogue, for a really good start) was taken out. I never believed the character of Jennifer or Sam; my brother, who watched the movie with me without reading the book, kept mixing them up. Kevin did a pretty good job, and some of the added stuff made the film make sense; that's why I didn't give this movie an automatic one. Balinda was brilliant, but more time should have been spent in Kevin's memory.

Technically, this film was a mess. The cuts were choppy, the camera work was awkward, sometimes the sound was weird...I've seen better films, technical-wise, from a student film with no budget. And that's just sad.

To all Christian authors (especially Ted Dekker and Frank Peretti): if the movie industry wants to make movies out of your books, hold out for a bigger budget, decent script-writing (or write the scripts yourself), and good actors. Particularly, if there's a book with two women in leading roles, don't get actresses who look and sound so much alike (flat, breathy, and dull).

Good, but not great...

[slumbersix · 7/10 · 5 January 2007]

We had the chance to catch a sneak preview of this movie last night. My wife is a huge Ted Dekker fan so we decided to take up the invite. I tried not to have my hopes too high after seeing some other book to movie translation but they got raised when there was a preview for this movie on the television the night before.

With those raised expectations I can say I was a bit disappointed with the movie yet I enjoyed the movie thoroughly.

The story was based on the book Thr3e by Ted Dekker. A man, Kevin, is being tormented and hunted by someone who wants him to confess his sin. Kevin grew up in a very dysfunctional house, found a sweet girl to run away to, and eventually wound up in a seminary trying to further his education. The movie was filled with explosions, suspense, and a who-done-it mystery.

The main thing that was disappointing was the filming and special effects. Some parts were just really choppy and seemed to not flow together. Then the special effects while good were not great. One scene in particular sticks out in my was when the building blew up. You saw flames and then all of a sudden you seen a bunch of rubble "materialize" in the flames.

I'd recommend seeing the movie. Enjoy the story for what it is but not expect great filming. It was an enjoyable film for the wife and I but I can't say how you'll enjoy it.

WOW what a Bad one

[sherako-inc · 1/10 · 9 January 2007]

This movie was a complete waste of time! Maybe the book was good but unless you read it don't see this. Was badly acted and directed. Anyone who left positive comments must have another agenda to leave these comments. Anybody who liked this has ZeRO taste. When it comes to movies. Awful! Awful! Awful! It turned into a joke by the end and I sat there laughing at the bad bad acting and directing. I really don't understand some of the comments that people actually enjoyed any of it even if you have read the book. Almost as if they just threw some stuff in the movie to make it a certain length. I read some Christian comments so maybe there is a following that.

An excellent movie, despite the reviews

[ladycleosombra · 8/10 · 15 June 2008]

The reviews will lead to believe that this is a bad movie. Maybe you will dislike it. But if you take their opinion alone, you are seriously missing out.

To sum it up quickly, the movie revolves around a guy who is being stalked by a killer. The killer leaves him vague riddles and short time limits to solve them.

The story is a lot more detailed than I can really explain, but it is not confusing to follow. I would like to point out now that this is not a horror movie. If you are looking for blood and gore and nothing else, then move on. But this is definitely a suspense "hold-your-breath" thriller. Because I accidentally read some spoilers before watching the movie, I already knew what was going to happen. But I still sat at the edge of my seat, wide-eyed and excited. This is a psychological thriller to the max.

Yes, this is a movie with Christian undertones, but for those of you who are turned off by that, don't be. Most of the religious blah blah dissipates in the first 10 or 15 minutes. Overall in the movie, I didn't think there was a lot of overdone religion in it - though just a hair less of it would have made the movie better.

As a horror fan and a thriller fan, I think you should really check this movie out. Don't expect gore and blood and you'll love it.

Despite the negative reviews on here, give the movie a chance. You'll thank me.

On a scale of one to ten...

[thomas_may_jr · 7/10 · 5 January 2007]

This movie was more than a three. It is not truly scary, nor is it gory. It is an edge of your seat thriller. I went to this movie expecting more scares and was a little disappointed. I do not recommend this film for small children, as it had some intense action scenes and a couple of startling/scaring moments, but it would appeal to most teens and adults. I saw this with my wife who is a big chicken and she liked it. I would probably compare this movie to "Nick of Time" with Johnny Depp or to "24", the TV show. *SPOILERS* I was disappointed in the ending, I thought that it was closer to a cop out than a resolution. I was hoping to really like this, and it did have a good message, however it seemed a little unoriginal - namely "Identity", "Se7en", and "Fight Club" Over all, it was good. Enjoy!

Completely unoriginal

[Dark_Venom · 3/10 · 17 January 2008]

As I have not yet read the original Dekker novel (but, so to say, I am no more interested in it), the movie didn't have expectations to live up to in my eyes. After about a half an hour, my level of interest started to fall, but from a pretty high level as the movie starts out to be quite exciting. I thought then that if nothing original, but I would get a standard "clever killer with ideologies connected to the protagonist's life"-type of suspense thriller. However, all the suspense disappears thanks to the shallow acting and the script that seems to make fun of the genre. The strongest stab in the movie' heart is definitely the completely unoriginal, obsolete "twist", when we learn about Kevin's split personalities. COME ON, have anyone of Hollywood's filmmakers watched the thrillers of the past few years? Identity, Shrooms, High Tension, and so on, a never ending line? The split minded killer ISN'T a great idea, it has been used, and re-used dozens of times. It's getting dumb now instead of being a twist, it only shows that no creativity is left is some of the writers, and if Dekker's original is the same, then in the suspense-authors as well. However, I am pretty sure the lot of people will buy it as an original idea, and I am damn certain that this was the real goal here.

awful

[pll-4 · 1/10 · 7 December 2007]

The direction is totally sub par , the acting is labored and the plot is as thin as a gossamer , DO NOT waste your time or money on this shallow movie . I shudder to think what prompted the "Actors" to agree to do this movie . I can see some talent , but the script and direction is total crap. The story could have been a winner but the screen play was abysmal , I actually feel sorry for the actors having to act out as directed. I will never again waste my time viewing anything directed by Robby Henson! If he could stoop so low as to make this movie in this form then he is on my black list ! My advice to fellow movie buffs is to stay away from this movie and to be very aware that any future movie directed by Robby Henson should be avoided like the plague

Ted owes me 2 hours of my life back

[saybr · 1/10 · 8 January 2007]

My friend and I love to watch horrible movies - we're going to be hard pressed to unearth one as bad as this one in 2007.

We have a theory, and some questions, if Ted's bored and would like to respond. (And if he does, hopefully it will keep him away from the typewriter for a little while, anyhow.) 1. Originally, you didn't plan on having Kevin's split psyche as the killer at all, did you? Please tell us you ran into a wall, deadline, whatever, and re-wrote the rest to fit the new, lame ending. We envision a conversation between you and the editor something like this..."Well, what about the picture of Kevin and Sam on the desk?" "Easy! The Sam half just fades away. Everyone keeps a picture of themselves around with half the view empty." 2. If kid locked in the warehouse was really Kevin's evil half locked in his mind, where the hell did the bloody jacket come from? (Great dialog in that scene, btw - "That looks like a jacket!" 3. How is it that the hotel, Kevin himself, the police department, and, well, every single place that has a land-line telephone has the same cheesy wireless phone from 1982? I could go on, and on - but Thr3e has already stolen enough of my life.

Good movie considering budget

[clarkeyihope · 6/10 · 6 January 2007]

This movie does not steal from SAW since it is based on a book written before SAW came out. Yes the movies graphics are not the greatest but with budget and popularity of movie coming in Thr3e was made as well as it could be. If you are a Christian then you should support this movie because it will show the movie companies that we want more movies and with better budgets.

If you have read the book the movie the follows the plot very well. I enjoyed the movie and I am looking forward to House coming out. Again the graphics aren't the greatest and some cuts are a little rough but otherwise great movie. Go and see it is full of twists and turns.

Unbelievable and nothing new

[RIK-22 · 3/10 · 24 April 2007]

Crime thriller about a psychotic killer able to track down and attempt to manipulate an individual, due to an event in their past.

I'll start by giving away the "so called" twist that the killer is the victim and his girlfriend (hence the title) and rather like Fight Club it showed each personality as an individual. Now one of the problems with this scenario is that it's been done many times before and is now getting a bit repetitive.

The other problem with this movie is the believability, as is the problem with so many films. How is this guy able to make and conceal so many devices and explosives without the police and victim finding them? The police could, at any time, have just placed him under house arrest and then how would he have been attacked or had time to be the aggressor. Didn't anyone in the police check his story ? or interview his girlfriend.

Basically too far fetched to be accepted. There were also some mistakes, I mean how did the boy get a black eye, who's jacket and blood were in the basement, etc, etc Overall an average thriller with no new ground and little believability

Read the book?

[steelblue71 · 5 January 2007]

Well, to anyone that's read the book, the ending is to be completely expected as it's the whole point of the book. The evil and the good nature of all men, and what they try and (apparently) fail to hide. I haven't seen the movie yet, but I know that the people that made it are experienced and well-meaning. It's kind of like the movie "We Were Soldiers". They got reviews saying stuff to the effect of 'next time people make a war movie find some new material', all because they thought the lines the soldiers said were 'corny'. Things like, "tell my wife I love her." Sorry, but that's what the stuff they really said. Next time I see a dying soldier I'll tell them to think up better death lines. Buuuuut that's for another movie. My point is, for anyone who thinks the ending is 'corny' or there's not enough violence or gore, think of the possibility that maybe there's ENOUGH gore, horror, and violence out there to be seen without it coming from an actually GOOD suspense movie. For the Saw message board or whatever, 'Saw' (all of them) was a cheap horror that couldn't get enough fake blood, or real skin. Anybody with genuine originality should be able to tell the difference. In short, read the book. Please. You'll understand.

A Bit Better Than Expected & Decent Entertainment

[holyspiritdriven · 6/10 · 27 November 2012]

Knowing this was a movie based on a novel by a Christian I unfortunately expected low budget, B Movie quality (e.g. Left Behind, Fire Proof, etc.)however, I was pleasantly surprised. Though it wasn't stellar, the movie had what I would say is "normal" movie quality (with the small exception of some special effects like explosions...they looked like cheap CGI). I haven't read the book yet, but the plot seemed to keep me somewhat on the edge of my seat although it felt like something I've seen before. I agree with another writer's disdain for Christian writers trying to compete in a suspense genre and being sort of "hand cuffed" by trying to be family friendly. I'm a Christian and I say, Christian writers need to just go for it, so be it if you get an R rating. Within the the reality of spiritual warfare, Christians have the freakiest stories of all to tell and they're true! Yet they are so afraid of someone hearing a naughty word that the power of truly scary stories is watered down to almost boredom. That reminds me too, this was in the horror section and is not horror at all. It's a drama...suspense maybe, but not horror.

I really wanted to like this movie.

[RhinoBarbarian · 1/10 · 6 January 2007]

I really did. I loved the book(read it twice). But, this movie, it was almost as if they took the first draft of a script.The draft that has all the characters,locations, and most of the story but none of the depth, and used that. All the characters seemed flat and emotionless. There was no character development.

**SPOILER AHEAD**

The characters were so flat that when you found out that Samantha and Slater only existed in Kevin's head, you almost didn't care.

**END OF SPOILER**

In closing, don't waste your money on the movie. Go read and enjoy the amazing book.

Loved it

[brosarl · 9/10 · 5 January 2007]

If you have read the book, you will not be disappointed, they did a great job and I thought it was very tastefully done! I will definitely go see it again! Marc Blucas did an excellent job and even though I knew what was going to happen, I was still caught up in the present and not even thinking about the ending! I can't wait for Ted Dekkers next book to movie . . .HOUSE! The movie was very accurate to the book and I find that almost rare anymore. Even though it was similar to some other movies previously mentioned, I think they did a great job at putting a new spin on things. It was long enough without being too long and kept your interest the entire time. I wouldn't stereotype this movie as a 'christian' film, but there was religious content and I think believers and unbelievers alike will appreciate this film for what it is . . .the struggle between good and evil!

Overly religious overtones but still entertaining

[gluonpaul · 6/10 · 31 October 2018]

Its a bit strong on the religious element, nothing wrong with personal beliefs but a film should be entertainment first and foremost. Nonetheless if you can get past the rather forceful overture of the doctrinal stuff there is an entertaining movie in this.

Like being dunked in a baptismal font of stupidity

[Craig_McPherson · 1/10 · 4 June 2007]

I can't understand the compulsion for some evangelical Christians to produce movies, art, music etc. that mirrors that of the non-Christian world, yet tries to set itself apart in some spiritual or "family-friendly" way. In Thr3e, the first installment from Fox Faith (Fox's Christian-themed film division), we get a movie that wants to be Saw and Se7en, but because of the handcuffs imposed by the studio's "spiritual" bent, not to mention a just plain lousy screenplay, we end up with a movie that is several digits short on the quality/intensity scale of either (no pun intended).

Based on the book by "Christian" novelist Ted Dekker, this limp excuse for a horror thriller wants to be edgy and worldly, but dares not cross into territory charted by mainstream horror movies. As a result terror and tension are pretty much the only casualties of this worthless effort - that and your time as a viewer. Given that the engine that drives a movie of this nature is the level of fear, dread and tension built up by protagonists or innocents finding themselves in very real danger of losing their lives, this movie instead delivers a story about a serial killer in which virtually nobody dies, unless you count a dog and a no-name non-character at the beginning who is on screen for all of 10 seconds.

Buried somewhere in this mess is a purported "message" about the evil that is harbored within all mankind, but you really don't need to sit through 101 minutes of this tripe to walk away with that revelation.

Alan McElroy's screenplay appears to have been practically dunked in a baptismal font of stupidity, leaving leaps of logic that seemingly require the viewer to be imbued with a degree of mental retardation to swallow. For example, if the killer and Samantha were the product of protagonist Kevin Parson's (Marc Blucas) three-way split personality disorder, who was police psychologist Jennifer Peters (Justine Waddell) talking to on the phone, in the car, at the police station (I could go on), and if, as the film explains at the end, she was fully aware that Parson was holding transitory gab-fests with imaginary friends and enemies, why did this "psychologist" allow this loon to run all over town when in reality he should have been placed in a rubber room under observation? Equally, why didn't anybody at Fox Faith catch and patch this monster-truck sized plot flaw before the movie even went into production? The only advice I can impart to the folks at Fox Faith, screenwriter McElroy, and novelist Dekker, is that if you really want to make movies about psychos struggling with conflicts of faith and inner demons, sit down and study and reflect on the Kevin Costner film Mr. Brooks, which is everything this movie wants to be, and isn't.

Waste Of Time...

[ws_tm · 1/10 · 26 April 2007]

I started watching the movie with an open mind so that the unfamiliar cast and director won't affect my judgment. But 15 minutes into the movie I found myself wanting the movie to end faster just for the sake of finishing it. I still haven't. Basically its a copy of a copy of a copy...(recognize this line?), it has a lil bit of most modern horror/thriller movies in it, that seem recklessly familiar. Ironically the cast was so disappointing. I didn't believe Jennifer Peters (Justine Waddell) for a second. My girlfriend said that she could've acted better than any of the lead female characters and I believe her. The story is not predictable, it's worse. The villain is so cliché that it ruins the image of SAW franchise. Im not a movie critic or anything remotely similar but I have watched a lot of movies, i mean a lot. And this movie doesn't have an inkling of imagination or creativity or originality. I didn't read the book but this 101 minute piece of crap doesn't do it any justice. So if you have a choice, do yourself a favor and watch just about anything else. Normally I don't comment on movies because I am lazy but I don't want anybody else to waste their time and endure this annoying and utterly boring 101 minutes of their lives.

OK I just finished watchin it. Whoopdy freakin Doo, a multiple personality scenario. I still stand by my statement.

Poor Acting, Poor Script, Poor Movie.

[damaslany · 3/10 · 13 April 2007]

Well, as always my great girlfriend picked another classic movie for us to watch. When I saw the trailer, I had my doubts already. This movie was a washed down version of Saw, without the creepy death scenes. The "Riddle Killer" come on! The acting by the two female actors was a 2 of 10 Stars at best. The lead female officer always talked like she was whispering on the phone. After hearing her talk for 5 minuets I wanted to turn off the film... I think there must have been 5 or 6 explosions doing the movie, which looked so staged and fake it was pathetic. The movie would have had a good chance if better actors were attached to it and more money was in the budget for "Real" looking FX. As for the thr3e, I would pass my 9 dollars to see it.