User Reviews

Freshly released from prison, young Nathan Corrigan discovers his father was not who his mother told him he was but is actually high-class lawyer Callum Crane. Crane is aiming to become a judge but is not above a bit of fun; but when a 'bit of fun' with secretary Sophie Lennon turns into rape, he has her fired to get rid of the reminder of what he did – days later he is offered the position of judge and he forgets all about it. However Sophie cannot stand that this man would sit in judgment over others and demands he turn the offer down or she will go to the papers and the police. Crane decides the only option is to have her killed and he thinks he has the solution when he bumps into Nathan in the city. However Nathan has also met Sophie and befriended her – making things very complex.

If my plot summary sounds like it is convoluted or confused then you need to believe me when I tell you that it is not all down to my inability to write coherently (well – not totally). Actually I do the film a good deed by trying to summarise this messy plot in a manner that can be read simply because in reality it is very twisted and makes very little sense – relying on all sorts of coincidence, misunderstanding or sheer lazy plot jumps to create a sort of thriller. The downside of this is that the film is such a mess that it never hangs together; one or two thin connections maybe could have survived but the fact that very little of the plot actually stands up to even passing thought means that the film becomes far too silly to ever be tense.

It's a shame because the names attached to the project were quite impressive but the writing is a mess. By the end of the film it was all over the place and I was waiting for the plug to be pulled – what little value the basic plot soon crumbles as the cracks in the plot all add up to a couple of big gaping holes that it is impossible to avoid. Pullman has done dark thrillers before and it is a shame that many viewers will be drawn to this on the back of his previous work. He is OK here and he tries to rise above the material even though he has nothing to really work with. Sawa is poor – his performance cannot save a rubbish character that is never believable. Anwar is gorgeous and I cannot understand why she has been in so many dogs over the past few years; here she looks good in short skirts but never convinces as a rape victim and the script pushes her character into some stupid form of blackmail that is just dumb. Featherstone and Whalley are both poor and the only other point of interest is a small role for Peter Kent, who is probably much better known for standing in for Arnie as stunt double than for his actual skills as an actor.

Overall, my message is don't be fooled by the cast; this is a messy thriller that is far too silly to stand up. It is based on so many coincidences and loose connections that the cracks start to show from the very start. By the end the cracks dominate the film and it can do nothing to actually build any thrills, tension or excitement. As the film ended I must admit to have given up on it already and just wasn't in the mood for any more silliness.

Bill Pullman is a good actor, and most of the other actors in the film did well, too. But it was to unbelievable, too full of coincidences, too full of unimaginative dialog ("Do you always attack people in garages" when Bill's life had probably just been saved by the guy). And Leo was not believable, nor were the three guys who killed Leo, they were just the dumbest sort of stereotypes. Even a basic anchor of the plot, the Bill would kill to be a judge and give up a million dollars a year for a couple hundred thousand, wasn't believable. I never suspended my disbelief and that's the problem with this film. Okay, one more line: the blonde roommate was just too stupid for words, and the way they both flirted with Bill's son was too cute for words.

Yes, it was a little bit unbelievable that the Judge's son would be the one he hired to kill the person he raped so that she won't blackmail him.

It was awesome though and kept me interested the entire movie.

It's a little gem - not a diamond by any means, but a gem - something like a copycat diamond. With enough sparkle to amuse and delight and please, but not something that is treasured for years to come.

I enjoyed the story, the performances and the fact that my home was once again used in the film.

I must have lived in the most awesome places on Earth, because they keep being used in movies.

Anyways, it's a cool little crafty number that delighted me.

!!!! SPOILERS !!!!

A hot shot lawyer called Callum Crane rapes Sophie his new secetary . Nathan Corrigan a newly paroled prisoner is released and tracks down his father . Just missing him at the law firm he literally bumps into Tanya who takes a fancy to him and invites him back to her flat where her flatmate is Sophie rape victim . Nathan eventually meets his father who is being black mailed . Nathan`s father doesn`t know Nathan is his son but hires him to kill the black mailer who is Sophie rape victim . Did I mention Nathan`s dad is Callum Crane ?

Man I could be here all night explaining all the intricate plot twists and the quite ridiculous coincidences involving this thriller . But I won`t put the boot into it since it might give the impression that I detested THE GUILTY . I didn`t detest it . It`s a rather enjoyable thriller but I can`t ignore the fact that there`s far too much coincidence involved . For example character A always happens to be walking down the right street so they can bump into character B which pushes the plot along , or character C will fail to open an envelope that would have saved character D`s life , and you can`t help noticing the blatent plot hole that Sophie wouldn`t be able to make the rape allegation stick since there`s no forensic evidence after several days and that she has a motive for blackening Crane`s name . The script - Via Crane - actually points this out

It`s this clumsy writing that stops THE GUILTY from being far more highly regarded . I notice that the IMDB voters have given it an average in the region of 6.3 and this is probably the correct score . If you`re the sort of person who endlessly anylizes movies you`ll find much to criticise but you`ll probably still be entertained . If there`s nothing on television and you`re just looking for a thriller to pass a couple of hours before you go to bed I can certainly recommend THE GUILTY

Outside of a soap opera, what are the odds of someone unknowingly hiring his own son (whose existence he didn't know) to kill a girl with whom, coincidentally and also unknowingly, the son is temporarily living? What are the odds that son will have a criminal record, and also will have a friend who is being persecuted by thugs and who would be ready to do the job the son refuses to do? There are more implausible coincidences in this hyper-convoluted and hyper-far-fetched plot, but these should prove the point.

Characters are not only extremely improbable, but they also do not behave in a rational, intelligent way. A senior lawyer is manipulated like a boob to fire a girl on the flimsiest of reasons (with no cause, in fact). As his only leverage, the son has an envelope with evidence to incriminate the father, but instead of hiding it he goes to sleep, so the father easily grabs the envelope. Mysteriously, this same father -to demonstrate that he is as idiotic as his son- does not destroy the incriminating envelope immediately. Later, being interrupted by his wife when he is finally going to burn it, he exits the house just leaving the envelope on a table (!). Not only that, but days pass without him even remembering about the envelope. So too late he learns that, in the middle of a marital crisis, the wife (apparently also unknowingly) had sent the envelope to the District Attorney.

The son goes to the girl's house to prevent her from being murdered, but he botches his speech to such a degree that she expels him from the apartment and he is unable to stop the killer. Generally speaking, characters seem unable to convey information in a clear way, even on essential matters; misinterpretations abound. Too much suspense is built around these confusions and these unnatural behaviors.

This movie definitely had some unexpected twists. I caught it on Cinemax last night about 1:00 in the morning, and at first was not amused. At first glance, it appeared to be a mediocre B movie-the actress who played Sophie sucked BIG TIME. I thought the rape scene was pathetic-don't get me wrong, I'm no advocate for violent scenes, however, she was not convincing enough. If someone is being raped, wouldn't they fight, kick and scream? She weakly murmured the word "No" and then they blacked out of that scene and into the next. However, when the lawyer's illegitimate son steps into the picture, things start to heat up. Hired by his father to kill the woman who's threatening his career, the boy contemplates and then chickens out-but first blabs to his friend who is being pursued by ruthless gangsters for an uncollected debt. Seeing that his friend is backing out, he decides to step up to the plate and finish the deed in hopes to collect the money for the debt. From there on, there's surprising misleading twists that make the movie worthwhile, after all. Oh, yeah, and in the end, although the lawyer did attempt to help his illegitimate son, he got what was due to him.

I always enjoy Bill Pullman's work. He comes at us in a crab-like, sideways manner. He seems to speak out of the corner of his mouth and look at an object out of the corners of his eyes. His voice, soft and slightly crackling, is that of everyman, maybe somebody to play bridge with.

And Gabrielle Anwar is fine too. She has all the proper features of a formula Hollywood actress -- expressive eyes, strong but delicate nose, pulpy symmetrical lips, an exemplary figure -- but they don't add up to stunning beauty. The arrangement of her features results in a kind of compelling ugliness. Her acting is okay, a little on the weak side.

That just about gets the good stuff out of the way. The movie stinks. Pullman, in a moment of wanton drunkenness, more or less rapes Anwar. And when Pullman is appointed to a federal judgeship, he has her fired with a generous separation package so that she won't be around to make trouble.

But she does make trouble. She shows up wet and shivering in his office and threatens to spill the beans on him. Pullman then accidentally meets some young guy, rather a nice fellow, just out of jail and gives him an envelope containing money and the identity of the person Pullman wants murdered.

The ex inmate thinks the deal over and disposes of the unopened envelope. It is retrieved by one of his Goth goon friends who needs the money to pay off a debt to some local hoods. There follows a good deal of cutting back and forth as the good guy tries to save Anwar from the desperate bad guy and his friends.

No point going on with the plot. If you've seen any of the many thrillers along these lines you can pretty much figure it out without being drawn a picture, although one touch is at least slightly novel. After she repulses all attempts to warn her, Anwar actually IS battered to death. But it should come as no surprise that the good guy, trying frantically to warn her, should be blamed for the murder.

Okay. I won't go into the clichés except for one. The punk who steals the envelope. This was shot in wintry, soaking-wet British Columbia. The trees are bare. The temperature of every artifact is barely above freezing. Yet the killer drips with sweat. Outdoors or inside, it makes no difference. His face seems covered with canola oil. It's rubbed into his hair -- what there is of it. He wears the tonsure of a monk from the Dark Ages. His hair is cut in the shape of a bowl, with the razor line high enough to reveal the zig zag tattoo on his occiput. His features are those of a Middle Eastern sodomist and his face glows with evil. He wears filthy jeans and a black leather jacket with chain zippers. He lives in a garbage dump.

Getting the picture? You know what might have added a touch of originality to the script? I mean, aside from improvements in wardrobe, make up, and casting? If Pullman did not, in fact, represent arrogant male patriarchy. If Anwar had simply made up the story of the rape. It would have introduced a note of edgy ambiguity. After all, who is to say whether or not it happened, since there's no longer any evidence.

Some ten or fifteen years ago, a pretty young woman threatened Bill Cosby with exposure and degradation, claiming she was his illegitimate child. (She looked nothing like Bill Cosby although at least one courtroom artist simply copied Cosby's face onto her figure.) Cosby's tapped phone revealed a celebrity predator perfectly at ease with extortion, negotiating matter-of-factly to keep the price of her silence over a million dollars. A plot something like that would have saturated the movie with a kind of noirish shadowiness.

Instead, we simply have good and evil. The powerful white guy (and his wife) are counterfeit and duplicitous. Anwar and her would-be savior are innocent and good. These Manichean distinctions are beginning to irritate me, on and off the screen. You want to see uncomplicated good and bad? Watch a Roadrunner cartoon.

The title of this film implies that that there will be moral considerations raised about the subject of guilt. It turns out that there will be an abundance of guilty people in constant interaction during this two-hour drama.

At the center of the story is a sleazy attorney, Callum Crane, who becomes a judge after committing a heinous act of assault of a young staff member in his law office. The balance of the film is a desperate effort on the part of the judge to eliminate all of the incriminating evidence and to silence the woman he abused when she attempts to blackmail him. Part of his master plan is murder.

The screenplay for "The Guilty" is a nonstop string of coincidences that bring together various subplots: (1) Crane's response to a blackmail threat from his victim, Sophie Lennon; (2) the untoward circumstances of the long-lost son of Crane, Nathan Corrigan, who has started a relationship with Sophie and has been hired by his father to kill her; (3) an adulterous affair that is taking place behind Crane's back with his wife and another attorney; and (4) an unsavory group of criminals who enter into the mix, due to Nathan's association with a young thug named Leo.

Bill Pulman's interpretation of the character of Callum Crane has far too much sympathy because too often he seems like a really nice guy. We see the conscience of Crane as he attempts to redeem himself after he has reached a point of no return. Likewise, Crane's bastard son was far too sensitive, decent, and honest to have ever spent time in prison for auto theft or to have become enmeshed with a troubled soul like Leo. The father and the son were simply too likable.

Despite the film's shortcomings, there were many creative touches in the multi-layered narrative. Hardly a minute goes by without some indication of the main emotional theme: guilt.

The plot has been summarised well already. In one week, an ex-con Sawa is told who his real father is, so he goes to find him, and meets a girl who is roommates with the woman his biological father just raped. Sawa meets his father and doesn't tell him he's his bio son before his father Pullman gives him a load of cash to kill off the rape victim. Unfortunately Sawa doesn't even open the envelope that has her name, address, picture and $5000. His ex-con friend gets the envelope and goes off and kills her. And then, blah blah blah.

The story is incomprehensible. The characters don't act like normal people. The plot is so twisted and convoluted. I like a good thriller with twists, but this was absurd.

I did make it to the end, only to scream at the screen. Pullman almost got away with it all, but for some unexplainable reason he leaves an addressed letter to the police containing the evidence he hired the killer on his desk that his wife mails. So stupid.

It was interesting to watch, but the end was a total letdown.