I suppose Russell Crowe may no longer be on the A-list, but if he is, 
      he joins the long list of A-listers whose latest releases have gone 
      straight-to-vid this year. That list includes Morgan Freeman, Antonio 
      Banderas (twice), Liam Neeson and Tommy Lee Jones. If you want to extend 
      the list to former A-listers, you can add Val Kilmer.
      Actually, it's a trend I like. It makes my daily tasks a lot easier 
      when I can watch a serious film starring a talented guy like Crowe or 
      Freeman instead of the cheapjack genre films that often populate my in-box 
      just because they include some bare flesh. And Crowe is genuinely 
      talented. He may be a very difficult man, as per his reputation, but 
      nobody ever said he couldn't act.
      He does a good job here in a quiet role as a semi-retired police 
      detective who is determined to see that a released killer does not kill 
      again. The story is adapted from a typically dark Robert Cormier novel. 
      The basic premise is that the detective once succeeded in getting the 
      sociopath convicted and imprisoned, but the courts eventually released the 
      young man for two reasons: (1) he was a minor when he murdered his 
      parents; (2) experts testified that his behavior was prompted by a 
      over-medication which his parents forced upon him. 
      The detective is conflicted. While he has no desire to hurt the kid, he 
      knows that society is in danger, and he wants to make sure the kid can't 
      do any more harm. The detective ultimately hits upon a perfect, if utterly 
      cynical, plan to see that the kid is sent back to prison. A young suicidal 
      runaway attaches herself to the killer. The cop finds the two of them 
      together and essentially makes no effort to send the girl back to her 
      parents or to place her on a suicide watch in protective custody. He 
      reasons that she's going to kill herself eventually anyway, but some good 
      can come of her death if she stays with the sociopath. Eventually either 
      the killer will give in to his instincts and kill the girl, in which case 
      he can be convicted as an adult, or she will kill herself, in which case 
      the kid can be framed for her murder. Either way, the kid is returned to 
      prison, where he belongs.
      It's a film that's made for discussions in English class. The detective 
      dooms the girl by using her for bait, and he is willing to send the kid 
      back to prison for a crime he did not commit. The cop's actions seem very 
      wrong on the surface. Yet the girl wanted to kill herself, and the kid 
      needed to be in jail because he really was a killer. After all, the reason 
      why we have jails in the first place is to keep guys like him away from 
      the rest of us. 
      Did the detective do the right thing or not? Discuss.
      I liked the way the story was presented with moral ambiguity, and there 
      are a few interesting plot twists as well, but the film just plods along 
      too slowly. At one point I looked down at the timer on my DVD player and 
      it revealed that I was 52 minutes into the movie, but not one blessed 
      thing had happened. The entire first hour of the film survives solely on 
      the dramatic tension created by what might happen, and some things that 
      almost happen. While the plot does finally advance at the tail end of the 
      film, that movement is a long time in coming.