The Next Three Days (D)

The Next Three Days is well-crafted, but by no means does that mean it is a good movie. The underlying message of rebellion should not be taken lightly.
Three Days is not a particularly in-depth film (it will by no means achieve the same level of praise as writer/producer/director Paul Haggis’s other work, which includes the screenplays of Million Dollar Baby and Letters from Iwa Jima as well as writer/director credit on Crash). However, its central moral is achieved in a satisfactory manner, that of the precious nature of family and a husband’s role to protect it. Nothing particularly shocking, but a compelling enough premise for a thriller. In that regards the movie is perfect, as Haggis makes everything intense, well-paced, and as compelling as possible. The audience might not care enough for the characters in a sincerely emotional way, but one is most definitely on the edge of the seat with excitement.
The story, based on French thriller Pour Elle, tells of John Brennan (Russell Crowe of L.A. Confidential, Gladiator, and A Beautiful Mind), a happily married teacher with a cute little kid (Kevin Corrigan) who’s life is turned upside down when his wife Lara (Elizabeth Banks of W.) is arrested, convicted, and imprisoned for murder. John, feeling he has exhausted all legal courses of action and disturbed by his wife’s attempted suicide, decides he might just have to break her out. Of course, there is always the problem of the new lifestyle as an outlaw harming his kid’s newfound friendships, or his troubled relationship with his dad (Brian Dennehy of The Belly of an Architect), or the fact that any logic would show just how stupid an idea this is. Actually, Haggis is not terribly concerned about that last one, and does a good job of almost making the audience forget it. Almost.
The acting talent involved is good of course, though, with the exception of Liam Neeson in a well-done if stereotypical cameo, none of them have much to do. In fact, the over-reliance on Bank’s physique standing in for any of her positive character traits becomes a bit irritating (though this is by no means her fault). This would be less of a problem if John wasn’t so unbelievably perfect. While it is likely to excite the fantasizing women who will make up a good portion of the film’s audience, the film loses much of its anchor to reality and its impact by making everything too perfect. The husband’s portrayal as the even-headed guy being the saint saving the flawed, shallow wife even comes across as a bit sexist.
The movie’s main flaw, though, is a bit more serious. Sure, the film gives a few reasons why John’s path is a bad idea and is a large burden (much to show how family comes with a lot of responsibility), but for the most part it states that rebellious, even violent, measures are sometimes necessary. While most viewers will be able to distinguish between fiction and reality in the regards of prison breaks aren’t really an idea you should ever consider, it will be harder to avoid the idea that when the system doesn’t work you shouldn’t follow it. Yes, the normal procedures of justice are sometimes ineffective. Even so, it is counterproductive to fight it anyway but through the convoluted, calm, lengthy process that is provided. To do anything else, whether it be risking your child’s future to break your wife out of prison or to not continuing to do your job to the best of your ability since you didn’t get the raise your coworker got when you know he was cheating, is the good choice not only because it is the one that is truly effecting—which it is—but because it is the right thing to do. Our actions affect others, and by breaking the rules we are hurting the whole society and not following the moral codes people are supposed to. While I’m sure Mr. Haggis believes he adheres to the “do unto others” motto he is denying logic by saying that it doesn’t apply if the other is a faceless government which doesn’t play nice.
I, fortunately, have never been falsely imprisoned. However, I have been denied basic rights to report harm done to me in a hospital. For a while, I used this as an excuse to break the rules and stir up chaos. However, once I learned that just because something is justifiable doesn’t mean its right, I changed both my life and others. Rebellious actions might pay off in the short term, but in the course of life it will negatively affect you and your friends.
A common excuse of filmmakers is to say “The movie shouldn’t be taken literally.” This is another glaring omission of logic. Seeing any kind of justification for any kind of action will in some way affect a person’s opinions. If it is something like driving your car through the windows to kill transformers logic will kick in and it won’t be a problem. However if it is a message that rebellion is good, the moral is bad and can negatively affect you. Movies are giant metaphors, and despite the fact that criticizing one will get complaints of “it's just a story” we all know that metaphors have power just like any other statement. There is a reason people use them.
As I said before, obeying the rules is the right thing to do. That is why everything else never works. Except in the movies.