The Son of No One (2011) User Reviews

Not a flop... But just average

[BeneCumb · 6/10 · 18 November 2012]

The best part of the movie is the cast: both adults and children are great , although it seems to me Channing Tatum has had better roles than this. I liked most Al Pacino as Detective Stanford and Jake Cherry as young Jonathan "Milk" White, but the others were also equal to their task.

Directing and especially plot leave a lot to be desired. Background obsessing/pestering is always there, but some turns are strange and illogical. The solution scene is good (although nothing special), but the very ending is rather disappointing. When the credits appeared I just realized that I had seen another oppressive movie with the aim to let the viewers ponder upon guilt, forgiveness, remorse and other differently perceived feelings.

Pointless

[LloydBayer · 4/10 · 6 March 2012]

Written and directed by Dito Montiel and based on a novel of the same name, "The Son of No One" is a mystery thriller that should have never been made into a movie.

Set in 2002, Queens, the son of a former NYPD detective, Jonathan White (Channing Tatum) is a hardworking rookie cop, providing for his wife and daughter, when new evidence on a 1986 double homicide grabs the attention of Captain Marion Mathers (Ray Liotta). Complications arise when Jonathan is confronted by his father's former partner, Detective Stanford (Al Pacino), where evidence from a mysterious source trails back to Jonathan as a troubled child. Even as he struggles to come to terms with his past, Jonathan learns that there are forces working at shutting this cold case once and for all.

Evidently, writer/director Montiel tries to fit a lot of fine print into the screenplay. The problem, as I see it, is that this becomes all too obvious very early in the movie; Owing to which, the so called 'twist ending' results in a very half-baked offering that totally ruins any saving grace from the likes of Pacino and Liotta. Demons in the closet, or ghosts of the past, or whatever you call it, form the very gist of the story, where Montiel tries to prove that sometimes it is best not to dig up the past. That being the case, Montiel then goes on to contradict himself by also throwing in themes of redemption and absolution. This clash in philosophy fractures the film's main plot beyond repair and by the time the twist is revealed, it is way too late to salvage anything. Making a police drama within the crime genre is always interesting when the plot is about dirty cops, police cover-ups, and as we have seen many times before, a cop on the edge. To an extent, Montiel gets it right by including all this into the plot, yet somehow, his main failure is in bridging all this together.

For this reviewer, a film's story forms the bulk of its appeal. It's like a deck of cards really; if the foundation is shaky, the entire structure crumbles under its own weight. This is exactly what happens here. Ironically, Montiel directs the very movie he has written, so no points for guessing who gets the credit for this colossal failure. Pacing is another weak component as the entire film is a slow-burner. I have to agree that some films need slow pacing to build strong characterization, but again, it backfires with a lot of flashbacks on Jonathan, with hardly enough focus on Stanford and Mathers, who just happens to be vital characters in the plot. By the end, Stanford and Mathers are absurd and vague in their cause to maintain the integrity of the policing profession.

I have always commended Liotta for his antagonistic roles, especially after his memorable psychotic cop in "Unlawful Entry". Recently, Pacino has also played deranged cops in "88 Minutes" and "Righteous Kill". Together, Pacino and Liotta are decent at best for argument sake, however, as veteran actors, their screen time and limp characterization do not justify their star power. Waste of talent, if you asked me. On the other hand, Tatum has a meatier role here compared to his more recent films and appears to have done a decent job in the lead, considering the lackluster story. Even so, the film is just too bland and pointless to consider any effort by Tatum, Pacino and Liotta or even supporting roles from Tracy Morgan and Katie Holmes.

Avoid it like a plague.

Pacino is the best part of this movie. Writing, idea, story and overall movie are very disappointing. I say C-

[cosmo_tiger · 4/10 · 25 January 2012]

"You can hate me all you want, but your a free man." When rookie officer Jonathan White (Tatum) is assigned to the precinct where he grew up letters start showing up that mention two unsolved murders. When the letters remind White of his past he is stuck between trying to uncover who is sending them and covering up his involvement. I am a huge Pacino fan and that is the reason I wanted to watch this. The trailer looked OK but anything with him I will watch. He was great in this. That about it. The movie was very slow and had a 5 minute idea that they kept repeating over and over until you either struggle through or end up finishing just to see the ending. I will admit that the last ten minutes makes it worth watching, but getting to that part is a real struggle. Any scene without Pacino or Liotta lacks emotion and you have a hard time caring for White at all. Tracy Morgan is actually not bad in a dramatic performance but overall this is one of the biggest disappointments of the year. I give it a C-.

What a waste of starpower...

[actiondallas · 3/10 · 30 October 2011]

It must have been a good deal of money to get these actors in this film. Not just because they are all famous and for the most part talented people, but because this script must have been as bad as the film. Al Pacino, Tatum, Liotta, Katie Holmes, and even Tracy Morgan (Who I felt did a good job in this small role, maybe establishing himself as a bit actor for serious films) all these people couldn't make this movie good. It was bad, just plain bad.

The plot was boring and really badly put together. The twists were just dull and unfounded. The "mystery voice" was pathetic, it was so obvious who was calling, I can't believe they tried to make it some mystery as to who it was. The end, was so disappointingly lame. There was little to no real action in it. Yeah there were a couple people killed but it wasn't any real action. No suspense was built throughout the film even at the points were a person was shot.

I cannot stress enough how bad this storyline was written. There was nothing good about it. The main character was supposed to care about these killings he committed when he was a child, but in reality he had nothing to worry about there was no evidence pointing to him having any part of it 15+ years later. If the story was brought out he could just deny his involvement and would be fine. That is a small example of how poorly written this was. A good cop thriller needs plausibility, that should go without saying.

I would not recommend this. I am strongly recommending against it actually. I am very disappointed. I seldom give anything less than five stars for any film that has some watchability, but with these actors, nothing of such bad quality should involve them. They definitely don't have to worry about making the rent so why would they sign on to such crap? Who knows. Anyway, all these other reviews, the ones that say this is anywhere near good stuff, don't know good movies. No one with sense could sit through this film and afterward say to oneself "I'm glad I watched that.". There is no payoff to watching this, unless you want to be angered and write a bad review about a movie. If that is the case this is your film!

Should of never received the green light

[bobmichigan1 · 23 October 2011]

I was reading some reviews on this movie and pretty much ignored them because of all the star power. In the end the critics were right about this movie. Every actor in this movie looked out of place and not interested in the part they were playing.

Let's start with the younger kids in the flash backs. Overall, the acting was very poor from the younger generation in this film, Channing Tatum younger barely spoke and when he did it didn't seem real. Maybe, I was thrown off here because Tracy Morgan and Channings younger didn't even come close to resembling the adults.

I don't think anyone read the script before accepting the gig. Throwing a lot of great actors together for a crime thriller sometimes doesn't work and this is one case where it failed. Poor story, poor direction, and just downright bad acting by a lot of the big names in this film starting with Channing Tatum. If someone could turn back the clock this movie would of never made it past the green light.

Slow paced, noir-ish cop-on-the-edge movie that may satisfy fans of the genre

[krachtm · 6/10 · 28 November 2011]

The Son of No One attempts to be a slow burn, cop-on-the-edge crime drama, with Al Pacino and Ray Liotta, who are both grizzled veterans of these kinds of stories. Now that Pacino and Liotta are getting too old to play the starring role, they're recast as supporting actors; instead, Channing Tatum stars. I haven't seen him in anything else, but I can't really say that he impressed me. However, I think his lack of emotional affect could be interpreted as his character bottling up all his emotions, which is admittedly a very charitable view. If this movie had been made 20 years ago (or, hell, even ten years ago), Liotta would have been awesome in this role.

If you're a Liotta or Pacino fan, you should probably be aware that their parts in this movie are comparatively small, though they are important characters and show up every so often. Neither is given a whole lot to work with, despite the importance of their roles, but they put in respectable performances. I think I'd like either of them in anything (I even sat through 88 Minutes, which is widely reviled by even the most ardent Pacino fans), but there isn't really a whole lot for them to do in this movie. Given that their roles had limited characterization and less screen time than their star power might lead you to believe, it's probably best to say that they did a good job with what they had to work with and leave it at that.

I'm a real sucker for cop dramas, crime dramas, and cop-on-the-edge thrillers, as any of my friends can tell you. I'll sit through even the most derivative, generic movie ever made, as long as there's a cop on the edge. In fact, it's probably because of people like me that these derivative movies keep being made. Sorry about that. In any event, the basic story is initially split between 1986 and the aftermath of the 9/11 terrorist attack in NYC. I was initially confused by the constant back-and-forth between the two time periods, but, luckily, the story settles down into a more linear storyline. I'm all for non-linear stories, such as Pulp Fiction and Memento, but those movies had excellent scripts and directors. Like many movies that attempt to randomly insert flashbacks into the main narrative, I found these scenes to be jarring and not entirely necessary. As is also often the case, the flashbacks serve as a form of filler, padding out the run-time, as the main character remembers various events from his past. That's all very interesting, and I'm grateful for the characterization, but it's also somewhat annoying to have the main plot grind to a halt while someone's past is explored. I'm more concerned with who someone is, rather than who someone was.

Back in 1986, we eventually learn that the main character has a dark secret (oooh, mysterious) that's threatening to destroy not only his own life and career but also that of many other people. How the various characters respond to this situation drives the plot, ranging from moral outrage to fear, guilt, and violence. Each of the characters maintains a degree of sympathy, though your philosophical or political leanings may cause you to label some of them as unreasonable, naive, pathetic, hypocritical, and/or self-righteous. Some of them could even be interpreted as sociopaths, though, again, I think that depends on your POV. I liked this aspect of the story, and I found it intriguing enough to stick with movie, even though it's a bit slow paced. Unfortunately, the final reveal of the story (which had been hinted at rather strongly throughout, without being overt) was unsatisfying, in my opinion. In the end, it seemed like several of the characters had no motivation to take their actions, though I guess it could just be that I was starting to lose interest in the movie, by this point. I think the writer and/or director were aiming for a noir-ish feel, but what they actually ended up with was a somewhat derivative story populated by stereotypes (or archetypes, if you want to be kind). It eventually arrives at the only place where it can go, giving you the ending that you're expecting, while pretending that it's a twist ending. It's not particularly bad writing, but it's not something that I'd really commend, either. All the same, it's entertaining enough, for what it is. If you're in the mood for a slow paced, noir-ish cop-on-the-edge movie, this will probably satisfy you, though there isn't a whole lot that stands out.

Stupid movie with a stupid direction...

[xpanther2005 · 3/10 · 25 October 2011]

The actors is what drew me to watch this piece of crap.

A runaway kid who murdered two people in the projects gets away with it because he's the son of a homicide detective whose partner is the one investigating the case. The kid grows up to be a cop himself, except now one of the two other kids that knew about the murders is sending tips to the local newspaper about the unsolved murders from 15 yrs ago.

He confessed to his wife and she doesn't seem to care!! His Captain at the station, for some untold reason is trying to cover up the murders and intimidate the newspaper reporter to not print the tips!! His partner at the station knows about the murders(!!??) and wants to help in the cover-up. His dad's old partner(the detective who covered up the murders originally) is still around and wants to help him to keep his secrets, going as far as killing the reporter and the suspected retard, whom they think is calling the newspaper!! What the hell?? and what's with post 9/11 and juliani, etc?? and what's this has to do with anything. They could have said the global warming issue has affected the way characters think in this stupid story, and it wouldn't change a thing in the movie.

My advice, DO NOT watch it. You'll regret it, and you'll some of the respect you have of those great actors.

Almost a great piece of film making, almost

[brendan-268 · 6/10 · 27 May 2012]

I simply can't agree with the other reviewers who gave this film a scathing review.

I suspect a lot of the bad reviews came from people expecting a crime thriller, rather than what this film actually was - a crime drama.

This was a classic slow burn police drama about a cop who is once again haunted by a past he thought he had successfully left behind him years ago.

It is well acted, well scripted, well shot, well scored - almost like an indie movie, rather than a crime drama.

In theory this film was supposed to be about redemption, but the failure to actually create a proper redemption narrative is exactly where it all came apart, and where I believe it slipped from being a great film to something that was worth the watch, but not a keeper.

Ironically, it's only in the last moments of the film that things are ruined - and rather oddly I have to say, because everything is building towards the lead character taking that final step towards redemption by making a very public confession about his past, and the corruption within his police department, but nothing even remotely like this happens.

The film simply ends with him getting on with his life, as if no heinous act of murder and corruption has just taken place, and thus allowed him to carry on with life as usual in the burbs.

From a technical perspective it actually feels like they either ran out of money, or time, or they didn't know how to end this film so they just finished with an el-cheapo stock footage 'newspaper with important headline on the table in foreground' shot.

In fact, the previous couple of minutes before that were a little bit problematic as well - the way Ray Liotta died was highly contrived and clichéd, and totally counter to where the film had been heading, and what it had built up to over the previous 80 minutes or so.

Some of you may be thinking; 'but didn't they do the same sort of thing in 'No Country for Old Men?' - yes, but the very reason they did that was to make a point about suffering and evil in the world. If this film was trying to do the same thing it failed quite badly I'm afraid.

Real shame, because other than that this was a good film.

My God this movie is dull.....

[geddyleeisgod · 4/10 · 24 October 2011]

All I can say is, what a waste of good talent. The pacing is brutally slow.

The actors are good, but the script is... uh lackluster, to be charitable. Juliette Binoche is horribly miscast, however, and the lighting make her and Katie Holmes look ghoulish.

Ray Liotta looks swollen, pockmarked and perpetually astonished.

The best acting is delivered by two eleven year olds, which doesn't say much for the rest of the cast. More entertaining than watching paint dry, albeit marginally.

You want a great cop action thriller?

Try Training Day.

Good Story

[lilyatwt · 7/10 · 4 March 2012]

I wanted to see this one because of the big stars in it, but after looking up the critics and user reviews, I was turned off by the lousy ratings. Some comments were really derogatory to say the least. But my husband wanted to see it being a cop movie which renewed my interest, and last evening we did. What is all the hullabaloo about? Why are people slamming this? It's a good story told in a rather choppy way, I assume to try and give a feel for the Queensboro projects in NYC. The only thing I can figure is it's because it's not a polished Hollywood production. Had a different studio's name been on the credits, it would have been respected as a decent piece of cinematography. Big names, big stars each in their own right, attracted me to the movie, the rest made me like it.

Fails on the Execution

[gavin6942 · 5/10 · 17 February 2012]

A young cop (Channing Tatum) is assigned to a precinct in the working class neighborhood where he grew up, and an old secret threatens to destroy his life and his family.

The basic story here is pretty good, and with Al Pacino and Ray Liotta on board, it should be hard to fail. But this film just comes up short. It has a few too many flashbacks, too many clichés about corrupt cops. And it makes a much bigger deal out of a situation than need be. It conflates the word "murder".

Maybe a fine-tuning of the script would have made this film a winner. And probably casting anyone else in the world besides Katie Holmes would have helped.

What a great movie!

[mobie02 · 9/10 · 14 August 2012]

I must say that I was a bit skeptic about this movie but man I was surprised. I must say I got caught by the story line and I would recommend it. Great Cast by the way! Channing Tantum is become quite an actor! I cannot understand why people are shooting this movie down. I might be naive but I didn't get bored at any time while watching this movie.

And you know you cant go wrong when you have Al Pacino in a movie. I wouldn't say its a movie I can watch over and over again but the story is very catchy.

If you want a good solid movie with a good cast I would definitely recommend this movie!

Enjoy

NO ONE CARES

[nogodnomasters · 6/10 · 10 December 2018]

Channing Tatum plays Jonathan "Milk" White, a police officer who recently transferred to Queensboro, NY. It is 2002, the aftermath of 9-11 is going on, and acts as a symbol of Jonathan's life. The movie flashes back to 1986 when Jonathan lived in the Queensboro projects with his grandmother. He was harassed by a thug, who he shot and killed. The body was dumped in the garbage, the crime was never solved. A lot of people knew "Milk" did it. The people in the projects hate the cops.

Now in 2002, Jonathan lives with his wife Katie Holmes and a daughter with a medical condition. She is one of those adorable kids that make you want to run out and have a dozen or so. There is a push to clean up the district, making it safe. There is an anonymous person who places articles about TWO unsolved murders from 1986, a reminder to Jonathan. The projects is still an asylum and the cops have better things to do than to dig up a 16 year old case (the movie claims 14 years, but do the math.)

Al Pacino plays Officer Charlie who was investigating the case in 1986. Ray Liotta plays Captain Marion Mathers , Jonathan's boss. Jonathan was the son of a police officer, one that was the partner of Officer Charlie.

As the movie progresses we get more pieces of the puzzle and the harassment becomes more intense. We are drawn into it. We want to know, "Who is the snitch?" "Why are they doing this?" "Who else knows?" The snitch part is fairly easy to figure out.

This isn't Pacino's finest film. This isn't the best cop drama around. The acting was decent, the script had a certain amount of predictability. Katie Holmes was great for the short time she was on the screen. It makes for a decent rental.

PARENTAL GUIDE: F-bomb, no sex, no nudity.

There was potential for so much more!

[Hellmant · 5/10 · 14 March 2012]

'THE SON OF NO ONE': Two and a Half Stars (Out of Five)

I was severely let down by 'THE SON OF NO ONE'! I'm a fan of the filmmaker Dito Montiel, who wrote and directed the film, and I like most of the cast. Montiel also helmed two other urban dramas 2006's 'A GUIDE TO RECOGNIZING YOUR SAINTS' (which was pretty good) and 2009's 'FIGHTING' (which I absolutely loved). Those films both starred Channing Tatum, like this one does, so Tatum appears to be Montiel's go to guy. 'SAINTS' also starred Shia LaBeouf and Robert Downey Jr. though (who made the movie) and 'FIGHTING' also starred Terrence Howard (who turned in my favorite performance of that year!). This one co-stars Al Pacino, Ray Liotta, Katie Holmes, Juliette Binoche and Tracy Morgan. With all that talent and what Montiel has already delivered us I expected a lot more from this film. Instead we get a routine cop movie with weak pacing and an unsatisfactory ending. The cast is still good but there was potential for so much more!

Tatum plays Jonathan White, a young police officer with a wife, Kerry (Holmes) and sick daughter, Charlie (Ursula Parker). Early on in the film he's assigned to a precinct in Queens where he grew up. He and his fellow officers also start receiving mysterious letters from an anonymous writer bringing up a cold case from 1986 which accuses a police officer of covering two murders up. Jonathan is troubled by these letters as they remind him of haunting memories from his past and may jeopardize his future. He tries to figure out who's sending the letters as we see the horrors he and another childhood friend experienced at the time through flashbacks.

The movie is nicely stylized and appears to be moving, suspenseful and mysterious but it never quite makes any sense. Like I said the acting is all decent, especially the young boy who plays Jonathan as a kid (Jake Cherry). I like Tatum, I don't think he's a great actor but he can be likable in the right role. Here he's decent, well cast and does the best he can but has nothing really to work with. Pacino and the others are all as good as they can possibly be as well. The blame lies solely with Montiel for the movie's failures, mainly just his weak script. A few more rewrites really could have worked wonders for this movie and next time these talented actors shouldn't sign on so quickly. Hopefully Montiel will learn from his mistakes and be back to what he does best with his next film.

Watch our movie review show 'MOVIE TALK' at: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rje99p8QSz8

A Lot of Fine Actors, A Paucity of Plot

[gradyharp · 3/10 · 28 February 2012]

THE SON OF NO ONE implodes under its own weight. It is another variation of the tired good cop/bad cop theme and the sins of childhood theme. Despite the presence of a heady cast of high profile actors this story just never takes off. Perhaps that is partially due to the fact that the lead actor role is given to Channing Tatum who though he does show some gradual improvement in learning his acting skills remains a one dimensional character on the screen.

To keep it short, the plot can be condensed as follows: rookie cop Jonathan 'Milk' White (Channing Tatum) is assigned to the 118 Precinct in the same district where he grew up. The Precinct Captain (Ray Liotta) starts receiving anonymous letters about two unsolved murders that happened many years ago in the housing projects when Jonathan was just a kid. A reporter (Juliette Binouce) sees the letters as evidence for an inside cover-up of the two murders from Jonathan's childhood and a detective (Al Pacino) leads the 'investigation' with the corroborated intent of cover-up of police action. There are scenes of flashback to when the murders occurred and the perpetrator is indeed Jonathan as a kid (Jake Cherry) whose only friend is young Vinnie (Brian Gilbert) - the victims were abusive junkies but Jonathan has never been able to forget the gruesome facts. We jump back and forth in time: Jonathan is happily married to Kerry (Katie Holmes) and they have a loving daughter with petit mal seizure disorder. As the investigation proceeds Jonathan fears for his family's safety and for the safety of his old friend Vinnie (now Tracy Morgan). The ending is predictable and far too prolonged.

Despite the presence of Binoche, Pacino, Liotta and Holmes (and a group of very talented youngsters who play the leads as children) the story is just too drawn out and predictable and filled with violence to make it work. Dito Montiel wrote and directed.

Grady Harp

Very powerful

[voulezpierre · 31 August 2017]

I'm surprised it received so many bad reviews. I think it is a great movie, very well acted, strong and realistic, no sugar coating here. Tension builds up so well and the ending is very powerful. It's not an action movie ,is more a drama , dark thriller, I don't now how to describe it . Very New York The plot is original. I really liked it

Mystic River Lite - Confused execution - 6/10.

[simian_ninja · 6/10 · 28 February 2012]

Just watched the film and I have to say overall this entire film felt like it was Mystic River lite. Like it really wanted to have a riveting twist with an incredibly emotionally moving story but didn't understand how to go along with it.

Acting wise, the only person that seemed to show any emotion was Katie Holmes who was seemingly doing her best to show people that she is not "Mrs. Tom Cruise" and that she did do something called acting before Scientology took over her life. Pacino and Liotta are wasted in what should have been a dynamite combination. The only saving grace in Pacino's performance is that this is possibly the first film I've seen of his in a while where his voice doesn't rage for no reason, it's calm, collected and somewhat nuanced. Channing Tatum works well with what he's given, which is to remain stoic and internal. Tracy Morgan is not quite the revelation that he should be but given time he could possibly develop into a competent dramatic actor.

The music literally falls flat on its face and is overused. A constant repetitive structure that literally begs the audience to notice how serious the tone of it is. Strange to think that it took two composers to come up with it.

Story wise, the film works alright at best. Concerning a cop who receives letters about two unsolved murders some 16 years earlier. As mentioned before, the film wants to emotionally moving and mysteriously engaging but as a viewer there is a sense that the director knew what he wanted to do but not how to execute it. A couple of re-writers and another director might have saved this film.

Overall, not that bad - but not that good considering the film somehow boasts the talent of Pacino, Liotta and Juliette Binoche. 6/10 at best, something worth catching on TV but nothing to run to the video store for.

WHY!?

[paulcmiranda · 3/10 · 9 September 2018]

I kinda get that it's trying to capture the atmosphere of post-911 NYC, but the motivation for every bad decision made by all the characters is so baffling as to be unbelievable. I get that the kids did some stupid things but nothing that would have caused them as much trouble as they later ran into. I get that the police want to protect their own, but the lengths they go to in this film are not believable. I get the reporter wanting to shine a light on corruption, but would she really allow herself to be completely used for a political agenda with no investigation of her source? But most unforgivable of all.. why the hell would somebody completely destroy the lives of her childhood friends for... what? What the hell was she attempting to get? Attention for the plight of people living in the projects? To hurt the detective that was the only adult to ever do anything that helped her friends? To ruin his political ambitions because... WHY!? WTF!? I don't mind the hour I spent watching the beginning of the film since it seemed to be leading to something, but the ending is just pure garbage. If a young script reviewer had killed this project nobody would have gone looking for the body.

Maddening story, but not as bad as the low ratings claim

[silverton-37959 · 7/10 · 23 November 2022]

The story of a blameless young boy who kills two criminals, one in self defense and one accidentally unfolds in a maddening fashion. The young boy, whose father died in the line of duty is protected from public revelation of his killings by his father's partner, Charley (Al Pacino). Charlie made a terrible mistake in the way he handled the situation.

Charley questioned Milk (the young boy) outside the project apartments where Milk lived with his grandma, and the other residents saw Milk talking to Charley. Milk had shot a violent junkie criminal, Hanky, with Hanky's own gun, but it was done in self defense when Hanky burst into the apartment where Milk was hiding with his two friends.

The second criminal, Geronimo, then burst into the apartment while Hanky was lying dead. He took Hanky's pistol, and later threatened to tell the cops that Milk had done the shooting unless Milk paid Geronimo $300 that Hanky owed Geronimo. Later, Geronimo killed Milk's little dog and Milk pushed Geronimo who fell down the stairs and broke his own neck.

Neither of these killings were murder. Geronimo had Hanky's pistol on his person when the cops started investigating his death on the stairs, so Geronimo could be blamed for Hanky's murder. Charley did blame Geronimo and closed the case, but he didn't really let Milk know that neither killing was a murder, and that left Milk thinking that he was a murderer.

If Milk (Jonathon, who became a cop when he was 30) had known that he didn't have two murders hanging over his head, everything would have turned out differently. Jonathon hid the two killings from his wife, who would surely have helped him in any way he needed. He was left open to being blackmailed by his boss, a crooked police captain who wanted to advance his own career.

The story is maddening, but it isn't as ridiculously bad as some reviewers claim. Just read the bad reviews and note how wrong the reviewers are about the story line. Apparently they hate the film because they didn't understand what was going on.

It's annoying that Jonathon can't bring himself to trust his wife, and that he is as intent on protecting Charlie's name as he is on keeping his secrets. The story is well acted , though it's also pretty disheartening to watch. It shows how an adult may still feel as powerless as a child when confronted with something from his childhood. I know that feeling well.

Amazing Cast, But a disappointing Movie

[Abir-Xtreme · 5/10 · 1 June 2011]

Son Of No One is a movie that i was very excited to experience, Maybe Because this is one of Channing Tatums Serious Movies, Or Maybe Legendary Actor Al Pacino Plays a part in this Movie. Now i know many have criticized Channing Tatum as an untalented actor , but in some of his films i saw a lot of potential in him. Channing Tatum plays Jonathan , Who is a new cop, with a young family. Al Pacino Plays Detective Stanford who was once Jonathan's Father's Co worker or more of a friend. As the story goes we find out that Jonathan killed two junkies in an accident when he was young, Detective Stanford being a friend of his father's was at the crime scene helped Jonathan To Cover Up the incident, Now Jonathan has to face his past again as the information of an old case being set up suddenly gets released by local Papers. Which Turns out to be Jonathan's Own Haunting Incident. Jonathan Starts to investigate this case, at the same time searching for the Source, So he can save his job and his life. The movie is Decent. But it could have been a lot better, I think many will agree with me on that one. The Performance is good, but the characters could have been explored more. Channing Tatum Still needs more time to perfect his roles, as for Pacino he was one of the elements that carried the film. The ending twist was disappointing as you can easily predict it before it happens. This movie had a lot of potential , it really could have been a much better movie

What a waste of a good cast.

[phd_travel · 1/10 · 3 October 2012]

What a waste of a top notch cast. Al Pacino, Ray Liotta, Katie Holmes, Channing Tatum and Juliette Binoche. I can understand why they chose to be in a movie together. What could go wrong? Plenty. The screenplay is terrible. The movie could have been watchable and quite involving if the story had been told in a more traditional chronological fashion with less jumping back and forth in time. Unfortunately it's a messy jigsaw puzzle that breaks up the impact. Key plot is revealed through quick mumblings and incomprehensible dialog that is lost in the expletives. The direction isn't clear. All impact is lost.

Channing has been uglied up and looks suitably serious and a bit puffy - quite realistic. Katie looks tired and worried. Al looks like he waltzed in from another movie. Ray Liotta is a bit puffy too. Juliette is a bit hard to understand.

Give this one a miss. It's just terrible.

The movie is unpleasant set among the tenements and full of ugly images and words.

The Son Of No One Cheat Sheet (Major Spoiler Alert!)

[SameAsTheOldBoss · 10/10 · 3 November 2011]

Reading the plethora of reviews decrying an implausible plot full of holes and inconsistencies left me dumbfounded. I saw the movie and everything made perfect sense. So to allay our reviewers' skepticism about the plot, I will create a Son of No One Cheat Sheet that I feel should neatly explain the story.

Jonathan White (Channing Tatum), the protagonist of the story, killed two junkies in 1986 when he was a kid living in the projects. A main criticism by our reviewers is that he killed in self-defense and would have beaten the rap. The first killing was probably in self-defense, however the second killing was definitely not. He killed the person out of rage, which is manslaughter. Besides he was in the process of committing another crime, robbery. However you look at it, young Jonathan if caught would definitely be spending some time in Juvie. After all, our criminal system is not very lenient to poor people from the ghetto. (If you don't believe me, ask someone from there.) But lucky for Jonathan, his deceased father's police partner (Al Pacino), the future police commissioner, was the detective investigating these murders. He new young Jonathan committed the crimes, but instead of arresting his partner's son for the killings, he looked the other way declaring the case closed. Now fast forward to 2002, Jonathan a rookie cop living on Staten Island with a wife (Katie Holmes) and adorable ailing daughter (Ursula Parker). His wife is upset because Jonathan gets transferred to where he committed the killings, some two hours away from Staten Island. He is never home and his wife thinks he is having an affair. (This is not far-fetched; it happens all the time.) The plot thickens when an ardent anti-establishment local reporter (Juliette Binoche) publishes anonymous letters slowly revealing this cover-up. And here lies the second bone of contention for our reviewers. Why would the letter writer reveal this secret? Because she was protecting her home from the cops intimidating the local residents in favor of land developers. After all, river front property is worth more than the lives of poor people. It is called gentrification. By revealing a cover up by the police commissioner would definitely hurt the police crackdown on the projects. So how did Jonathan end up at the same precinct where he committed these crimes? He was transferred there by the precinct Captain (Ray Liotta) in the hopes that either he would kill the person writing the letters or take the fall for the killings therefore protecting the police commissioner. The police Captain undertaking this deed was politically aligned with the current commissioner and was next in line to become the commissioner. If this cover-up was revealed, it word definitely hurt his chances of becoming the commissioner. Everything in this story is plausible with no holes.

Actually the biggest holes surrounding this movie are brought to you by our very own reviewers who often miscredit actors and blatantly copy/paste from one another, or hide behind words like "implausible' or "full of holes" without elaboration. There is actually a stream of recent reviews citing the previously edited Sundance version of the movie. Oops! you did not actually watch the new version! You did not do your job. And you still got paid for the review! How can I get that job.

Good Police Thriller, ruined my terrible Flashbacks

[Haldir123 · 6/10 · 19 November 2011]

The Son of No One is (in my opinion) a good police thriller with some nice twists and great actors.

Channing Tatum is okay at his job, but all of the time he doesn't show big emotions. So his face actually never ever changes. You could say that he acts bad, but maybe its a part of his character. Overall he can act much better, I know.

Ray Liotta and Al Pacino do their work also good, but have not so much screen time. To bad, the Director could make a bit more than this.

But what really ruined that movie for me, were the flashback scenes, where we see the young character of Channing Tatum. The acting is bad and the dialog is just terrible. I watched lots of movies, but this is maybe one of the worst script I have ever seen. If they would have made these scenes better, the movie would have a better rating.

All in all its not as bad as many think. Its okay for a rental...

An All-Star Cast Wasted on a Preposterously-Scripted Movie

[TimLRogersSTLMO · 2/10 · 17 November 2018]

One of those movies you just know you'll love because of the star power. I purposely didn't read reviews before watching. The movie is made-up of scenes from the past interspersed with the present. For some reason the director must have felt it important for the audience to know the precise chronology of the movie by including news clips of 9-11 that featured both NYC Mayor Rudy Giuliani and President Bush. It intermittently though needlessly hijacked a few of minutes of screen time, as it has no connection to the plot line whatsoever. Katie Holmes plays Channing's wife and mother to his little girl. The little girl has some malady they touch on at one point, but it's never mentioned again. Since none of the characters' relationships seem plausible, naturally you will be asking yourself WHY Katie's character would ever be compelled to marry such a glum, reclusive and emotionally distant man. Keep in mind he would have been wracked with guilt during their dating years, which took place before the movie's timeline. Adding to the drama, Katie suspects that Channing might be cheating on her. And while that tore her up emotionally, we find that Channing's confiding in her he had murdered two people as a child didn't register a reaction! Hilarious in hindsight! Bad bad, directing. Again, the main plot line centers on "murders" he committed at 8 years-old while living in the projects. NOTE: But they were not in fact murders; they were actually accidents that would be categorized as manslaughter (at-best), since there was no intent on the kid's part to murder anyone. This movie was droll & illogical. In summary: Disappointing.

For fans of the genre ONLY

[bowmanblue · 5/10 · 28 April 2015]

The phrase 'slow burner' was made for The Son of No One. It's about a cop with a secret from his childhood that's about to come back and haunt him while he battles to save his marriage.

Basically, it's a 'cop-on-the-edge' thriller. Only it's not much of a thriller. Drama would be a better description, as there's not much action in it.

It's not particularly dark and it's not particularly gritty. It's just slow. The plot is strung out through use of flashbacks which tell you things that you already know (only longer).

You may be tempted to watch this because Al Pacino and Ray Liotta feature heavily in the promotional material. However, be warned, they're not in it that much - barely passing characters.

Overall, it's okay, but only if you don't mind your films slow and brooding. Every actor does his or her job in the film. Nothing special.