The Accused (2018) Poster

(2018)

User Reviews

Review this title
11 Reviews
Sort by:
Filter by Rating:
4/10
Frustrating
FrenchEddieFelson26 July 2019
For nearly two hours, we witness a sordid story and ... nothing ... There is not much going on. Is it voluntary? Taken in the judicial apparatus, one becomes a passive pawn lost in a Kafkaesque universe? Anyway, despite some undeniable qualities, the script is boring and I left the movie theater both disappointed and frustrated.
16 out of 18 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
Slow, boring, aspires to be something, does not deliver nothing
rodriguez-alfonso10 December 2018
If you look at the trailer on youtube, then, you've seen all the movie. The movie does not go deeper than the 2 minutes trailer, all the rest is just filler, slow, boring scenes that do lead to nowhere. Believe me, just watch the trailer, there's nothing else to this movie. Besides, the 'big screen names' on the movie don't get more than just a few minutes of screen time. Disappointing.
18 out of 47 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
9/10
Acusada (2018)
facundoliporace16 December 2018
Although the movie never caught my attention, after so much publicity I decided to see it and I have to say that I was satisfied. The movie kept me tense all the time, the performance of Lali Esposito seemed perfect, I expected something or other but I liked it a lot. Very good performances, no doubt the pit scene is the best.
11 out of 35 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
It has an end, indeed!
alenkabbrown11 December 2018
The two comments I have just read here say the same: the movie has not an end. but it si not true. In the last minutes of the movie you can understand the whole plot. You must pay attention, all you need to know is shown there. Perhaps the problem may be in the translation, perhaps the reason may be not to consider the alternative issues around the plot. Interesting movie, indeed.
11 out of 35 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
Horrible acting, horrible script
marielarajoy16 December 2018
Do you want to loose 2 hours of your life? see this bad script movie with the worst acting perfomance of a protagonic i have ever seen.
12 out of 44 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
5/10
Vagueness didn't help! Mediocre then...
educallejero7 November 2019
Warning: Spoilers
I may not understand the metaphor or message of the movie. And I may be the problem and reason why. What was a good, if not especial, movie about a crime that our protagonist was accused of committing, ends up too "in the air". The movie is entertaining, for the most part, but it ends being shallow and pointless.

My biggest problem is that theories crumble down. I like open endings, but this is more like a black hole. Three theories that do not work:

1) She's the killer. It was all her plan since the start and "played the part" to make her family invest everything in the trial to try and prove her innocence. That's why she laughs at the Puma in the ending. The Puma was real. It was true. And yet, nobody is aware of it, moving on with their lives believing a lie, that there is not a dangerous Puma free. Well, everybody in her house and the judicial system think she wasn't guilty (or declared her not guilty). Unaware of the true. She did kill her friend. She's the dangerous Puma that nobody knows it exist. But that's not great. She was absolved because of a "lack of evidence", but that doesn't mean that everybody believes she's innocent. They go out of their way to say that there are going to appeal the decision. And we don't see much media, nor people not in the family. So that analogy doesn't necessarily work.

2) She's not the killer, but she's happy that her "friend" died. In that case, the evidence was against her. She cleaned the scene as well as she could. She was happy the "friend" died, but got scared about the chances to becoming the main suspect. The "shock" her father always talks about, the "not talking", the "self imposed" reclusion, was the part she had to play not be blamed because she knew how big the case against her was. In reality she was totally happy about the outcome. But she understood the optics of the situation and the need of her family to invest everything. She acted accordingly. Problem with this one is, then why she constantly acts in ways that jeopardize her parents inclination to keep sacrificing everything for her and the trial? Besides, what about the Puma? She laughs because people bought her "act" while the true about the Puma wasn't believed? If she is innocent, people believing she is, is in fact the contrary to people not believing about the Puma, so I don't know how to make sense of that ending in this case.

3) She's not the killer and everything she does is her honest reaction to everything. Her contradictions are not manipulative but just stressful reactions and at the end, she laughs about seeing the Puma because she knows the true about the murder too. She didn't do it and yet nobody believes her. Like nobody believes the old lady. She laughs in isolation. Because she identifies now with the "crazy old lady". She too, was categorized as a "crazy girl" and no one believed her. But the problem here is that the analogy is not great. Tangential proof was against her, and it was hard to believe a Puma was running wild in a city. But besides that, we never see her having an opinion about the Puma story. Had we seen her believing the story, or the contrary, then the conclusion would've make sense as an "arc". She either didn't believe the story, and seeing the Puma reminded her that she was as bad as the people not believing her when she always told the truth. Or she did believed the old lady, laughing happy to see that true to finally come out and win, like her trial. But we don't know. There is no "arc" into that subplot for her, so the laughing has no real impact.

Mediocre then
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
Zzzzzzz
diegorodriguez-8867716 December 2018
Horrible acting...off course, she is not a proffesional. And the script, please... Ten year old suspense fan could write a better script!!!
11 out of 44 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
5/10
Where's the ending??
gridoon20202 November 2018
Warning: Spoilers
This is actually a decent courtroom drama, and a well-sustained mystery, and looking at Lali Esposito's extremely beautiful, enigmatic face is enough to keep you occupied even at the slower moments, but when a movie is centered around three big questions ("did she do it? if not, who? will she be convicted?") and only one of them is answered at the end, you can't help but feel cheated. Because of this lack of closure, I wouldn't recommend this movie. ** out of 4.
6 out of 31 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
5/10
What the writing lacks, the performances compensate! [+49%]
arungeorge1322 June 2019
'Acusada' is going to be remembered more for its restrained performances from Lali Esposito and Leonardo Sbaraglia than for its ragbag of a screenplay. Ever since Dolores Dreier (Esposito) was accused of murdering her best-friend, life has steadily been heading downhill for her. The film is partly a courtroom drama that focuses on proving/refuting her innocence, and partly an exploration of Dolores' personal demons.

It has been two years since the incident that left everyone in the Dreier household (comprising Dolores, her father Luis, her mom Betina, and her brother Martin) in a state of coldness, and Dolores has slowly gotten accustomed (though not completely) to her 'restricted' lifestyle. The film details the emotional turmoil faced by Dolores and her family before and during the trial process. Esposito, in a performance that requires her to retain a certain sense of mystery, is splendid. She is sensibly restrained, sometimes giving viewers the benefit of the doubt that she may be innocent as she claims, but at times, manipulative too because she doesn't have clear-cut answers to some straightforward questions.

A performance that's equally worth the mention is that of Leonardo Sbaraglia's (looking a bit like a gracefully aged Eric Bana), who, especially in the film's final quarter, is stupendous. Writers Ulises Porra and Gonzalo Tobal (who's also the director) don't exactly recreate the crime scene on-screen at any point, instead leaves that to the viewers to decipher through courtroom statements and the conversational exchanges between Dolores and her lawyer Ignacio (Daniel Fanego). However, for a crime thriller to have a successful follow-through post an above average build-up, it needs to provide convincing answers as to "who, why, and how". 'Acusada' wavers in focus when it comes to these essential genre elements and it seems content simply cracking the truth behind Dolores' conviction.

This, in turn, makes the film a just-about-okay watch at the end of it all when it could have been much more. There are also scenes that do not cohere, especially the one at Dolores' childhood farm that only pose more questions than answers. I, for one, am a fan of ambiguity (to a certain extent) in crime thrillers, but this one just leaves the door open for innumerable possibilities by the time the end credits start rolling.

An interesting theory is brought to question by Luis right before the day of the verdict but why this wasn't explored further was beyond me. With performances that clearly towered over the script, it wouldn't have hurt to stretch the film by an extra 20 or 30 minutes, if there were a twist or two in store. Unfortunately, 'Acusada' doesn't go that route and ends up being a straightforward courtroom drama!
2 out of 18 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
Trial of an innocent?
leonidasstathopoulos25 December 2019
What happened two years before? Is she really guilty or falsely acused? What hides beneath, when all have secrets?
0 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
Trial by judges
hof-415 July 2019
Dolores, post-adolescent daughter of upper middle class Buenos Aires parents, is on trial as the main suspect in the murder of her best friend. The point of this film is not to elucidate the crime, but rather to show that truly competent lawyers (generally, only accessible to the rich) can confuse the issues in a criminal trial, using all means at their disposal including the news media. The resulting uncertainty makes a reasonable verdict unlikely. The subject brings to mind real life examples such as O. J. Simpson's trial.

The movie can be described a courtroom drama. It may be especially interesting to Americans, since Argentine law does not generally grant trial by jury; lawyers argue and depose witnesses in front of a panel of judges who are in charge of the final verdict. Trials by jury were mandated in Argentina by the Constitution of 1853, but never implemented until the early 21st century and are still are vastly outnumbered by trials by judges.

Lali Espósito plays Dolores perfectly, without eliciting the sympathy of the viewer. There are glimpses of her personality, most of them disturbing. Leonardo Sbaraglia does an excellent job as her father and Daniel Fanego plays Dolores' lawyer chillingly. Gael García Bernal makes the most of a small part with his usual charisma and earnestness. Script and direction are smooth and seamless. A movie to watch.
0 out of 17 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

See also

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


Recently Viewed