The Unforgiveable w/ Sandra Bullock

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I couldn’t relate to people bring that upset about someone who killed a cop. But it was great acting.

Well, then. Hope you're ok when you need a cop...and he/she doesn't think the risk is worth it.

Oh I'll be fine. I handle things without them. I've never relied on cops for help. In my experience on a very good day they show up, swagger around, take a report, and then do nothing beyond that.

You haven't been around very long.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why should Ruth be remorseful ?

Yeah I think maybe OP didn't get the plot twist...

No. I got it. I think she was remorseful that the guy died. I thought that was clear. I was talking more along the lines of at whatever trial or judicial proceeding there was. She was a young woman without a criminal record placed in a very stressful and chaotic situation.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why should Ruth be remorseful ?

Yeah I think maybe OP didn't get the plot twist...

No. I got it. I think she was remorseful that the guy died. I thought that was clear. I was talking more along the lines of at whatever trial or judicial proceeding there was. She was a young woman without a criminal record placed in a very stressful and chaotic situation.

Do you mean resentful?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why should Ruth be remorseful ?

Yeah I think maybe OP didn't get the plot twist...

No. I got it. I think she was remorseful that the guy died. I thought that was clear. I was talking more along the lines of at whatever trial or judicial proceeding there was. She was a young woman without a criminal record placed in a very stressful and chaotic situation.

Do you mean resentful?

No. I am pretty good with my word choice here.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think a woman who is nearly 60 needs to stop playing characters in their 30s

I think she is a fantastic actress, especially of comedy but this vanity needs to stop. Not just her, either, so many of the aging plasticized actresses - Roberts, Garner, Kidman etc.

Her character is at least 40.

Sandra Bullock is 57

How old was she when her "sister" was under 10?

No. Sorry. Totally unbelievable. Unforgivable AND unbelievable.

You must not know anyone who has served real time in prison. It ages people like you wouldn’t believe. 20 years inside - she didn’t look too old to me at all.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I think a woman who is nearly 60 needs to stop playing characters in their 30s

I think she is a fantastic actress, especially of comedy but this vanity needs to stop. Not just her, either, so many of the aging plasticized actresses - Roberts, Garner, Kidman etc.

How about stop being a ageist prick??

[Anonymous]

I enjoyed the movie. DCUM can take the fun out of everything.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I enjoyed the movie. DCUM can take the fun out of everything.

My husband and I also liked the movie. It was a good twist neither of us thought about happening in this movie when sometimes we think we can spot the twist.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I couldn’t relate to people bring that upset about someone who killed a cop. But it was great acting.

Yes, you could *totally* tell they were acting!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Watched this on Netflix. I don't know. I think I wanted it to be something more than it was, especially with such a strong cast.

SPOILERS AHEAD.

I felt like it was kind of unsympathetic/hard-nosed for something that was supposed to be set in the present-day. I get that a police officer was killed and that doesn't garner any sympathy in the justice system, but by the same token the whole situation at the scene of the crime was chaotic. But maybe that's just me. I feel like Ruth would have been remorseful, but maybe that's why she was out in 20 years.

And the cop's family just kind of disintegrating. I would think law enforcement would work harder to take care of its own. And then the one brother goes from "leave it alone" to "an eye for an eye +1million."

And then the sister and her adoptive family. While I sort of get wanting to keep the past from her - she was five and it's HIGHLY unlikely she would have or would have been able to bury or suppress her memories. And there's no protection order that lasts 20 years and beyond the adulthood of the person in question. Like, was the idea that she would never knoiw anything about her past.

Anyway, I enjoyed Bullock's performance. Her storyline was interesting. I understand this was based on a BBC series from a decade or so ago. I think in film form they should have stripped out the cop's family storyline and made it about Ruth re-connecting with the world and her sister.

Watched it two days ago. A few observations.

Bullock is really a terrific actress and I admire her for settling into a character that's so physically unattractive. I find Bullock really beautiful so I am really impressed how they uglied her up for the part.

Her acting is really good and different from her usual funny/romcom parts.

With that said, I find the ending completely anticlimatic and not really explored in the film. Like, they reunited, hugged, and that was that? It was unsatisfying.

And on a cynical note, I don't really understand why she had to pretend that she was the one who killed the cop. It was easy to prove who pulled the trigger by the powder and fingerprints. The 5-year old would have very little consequences. There may have been neglect or whatever charges but nothing as life-changing as the 20-year sentence and the stamp of the cop killer. There may have been a few years and some therapy and that's that. Why didn't she go that route?

I also don't understand why she wasn't arrested on the spot. Like, the kid shot the sheriff and then they went out for pancakes?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Watched this on Netflix. I don't know. I think I wanted it to be something more than it was, especially with such a strong cast.

SPOILERS AHEAD.

I felt like it was kind of unsympathetic/hard-nosed for something that was supposed to be set in the present-day. I get that a police officer was killed and that doesn't garner any sympathy in the justice system, but by the same token the whole situation at the scene of the crime was chaotic. But maybe that's just me. I feel like Ruth would have been remorseful, but maybe that's why she was out in 20 years.

And the cop's family just kind of disintegrating. I would think law enforcement would work harder to take care of its own. And then the one brother goes from "leave it alone" to "an eye for an eye +1million."

And then the sister and her adoptive family. While I sort of get wanting to keep the past from her - she was five and it's HIGHLY unlikely she would have or would have been able to bury or suppress her memories. And there's no protection order that lasts 20 years and beyond the adulthood of the person in question. Like, was the idea that she would never knoiw anything about her past.

Anyway, I enjoyed Bullock's performance. Her storyline was interesting. I understand this was based on a BBC series from a decade or so ago. I think in film form they should have stripped out the cop's family storyline and made it about Ruth re-connecting with the world and her sister.

Watched it two days ago. A few observations.

Bullock is really a terrific actress and I admire her for settling into a character that's so physically unattractive. I find Bullock really beautiful so I am really impressed how they uglied her up for the part.

Her acting is really good and different from her usual funny/romcom parts.

With that said, I find the ending completely anticlimatic and not really explored in the film. Like, they reunited, hugged, and that was that? It was unsatisfying.

And on a cynical note, I don't really understand why she had to pretend that she was the one who killed the cop. It was easy to prove who pulled the trigger by the powder and fingerprints. The 5-year old would have very little consequences. There may have been neglect or whatever charges but nothing as life-changing as the 20-year sentence and the stamp of the cop killer. There may have been a few years and some therapy and that's that. Why didn't she go that route?

I also don't understand why she wasn't arrested on the spot. Like, the kid shot the sheriff and then they went out for pancakes?

I'm logical like this, too. Made zero sense. And I could smell the 'twist' coming as soon as the little sister was introduced. So I really couldn't enjoy despite the strong performances.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I really loved it. I’m surprised by the many negative reviews. I thought it was a useful portrayal of how one event can ripple through so many people in so many different ways. [/quote

I agree! Watched it with my teens and they really liked it too.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Watched this on Netflix. I don't know. I think I wanted it to be something more than it was, especially with such a strong cast.

SPOILERS AHEAD.

I felt like it was kind of unsympathetic/hard-nosed for something that was supposed to be set in the present-day. I get that a police officer was killed and that doesn't garner any sympathy in the justice system, but by the same token the whole situation at the scene of the crime was chaotic. But maybe that's just me. I feel like Ruth would have been remorseful, but maybe that's why she was out in 20 years.

And the cop's family just kind of disintegrating. I would think law enforcement would work harder to take care of its own. And then the one brother goes from "leave it alone" to "an eye for an eye +1million."

And then the sister and her adoptive family. While I sort of get wanting to keep the past from her - she was five and it's HIGHLY unlikely she would have or would have been able to bury or suppress her memories. And there's no protection order that lasts 20 years and beyond the adulthood of the person in question. Like, was the idea that she would never knoiw anything about her past.

Anyway, I enjoyed Bullock's performance. Her storyline was interesting. I understand this was based on a BBC series from a decade or so ago. I think in film form they should have stripped out the cop's family storyline and made it about Ruth re-connecting with the world and her sister.

Watched it two days ago. A few observations.

Bullock is really a terrific actress and I admire her for settling into a character that's so physically unattractive. I find Bullock really beautiful so I am really impressed how they uglied her up for the part.

Her acting is really good and different from her usual funny/romcom parts.

With that said, I find the ending completely anticlimatic and not really explored in the film. Like, they reunited, hugged, and that was that? It was unsatisfying.

And on a cynical note, I don't really understand why she had to pretend that she was the one who killed the cop. It was easy to prove who pulled the trigger by the powder and fingerprints. The 5-year old would have very little consequences. There may have been neglect or whatever charges but nothing as life-changing as the 20-year sentence and the stamp of the cop killer. There may have been a few years and some therapy and that's that. Why didn't she go that route?

I also don't understand why she wasn't arrested on the spot. Like, the kid shot the sheriff and then they went out for pancakes?

In one of the flashbacks, you see Sandra’s character pointing the gun at the other cops to get away. They let her get in the truck and drive away. And she makes the decision to take the blame in the coffee shop because Katie doesn’t remember what just happened. She’s trying to protect her and keep it that way. I agree that it’s possible the less traumatic thing would’ve been to tell the truth, but hindsight is 20/20. In the moment, she took the blame to save Katie from that guilt and consequences.

[Anonymous]

Oy. After a year of absolutely nothing being produced, I'm grateful for anything new to watch.

Watched it last night. Enjoyed it well enough.

It's TV. It's not supposed to change your life.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Watched this on Netflix. I don't know. I think I wanted it to be something more than it was, especially with such a strong cast.

SPOILERS AHEAD.

I felt like it was kind of unsympathetic/hard-nosed for something that was supposed to be set in the present-day. I get that a police officer was killed and that doesn't garner any sympathy in the justice system, but by the same token the whole situation at the scene of the crime was chaotic. But maybe that's just me. I feel like Ruth would have been remorseful, but maybe that's why she was out in 20 years.

And the cop's family just kind of disintegrating. I would think law enforcement would work harder to take care of its own. And then the one brother goes from "leave it alone" to "an eye for an eye +1million."

And then the sister and her adoptive family. While I sort of get wanting to keep the past from her - she was five and it's HIGHLY unlikely she would have or would have been able to bury or suppress her memories. And there's no protection order that lasts 20 years and beyond the adulthood of the person in question. Like, was the idea that she would never knoiw anything about her past.

Anyway, I enjoyed Bullock's performance. Her storyline was interesting. I understand this was based on a BBC series from a decade or so ago. I think in film form they should have stripped out the cop's family storyline and made it about Ruth re-connecting with the world and her sister.

Watched it two days ago. A few observations.

Bullock is really a terrific actress and I admire her for settling into a character that's so physically unattractive. I find Bullock really beautiful so I am really impressed how they uglied her up for the part.

Her acting is really good and different from her usual funny/romcom parts.

With that said, I find the ending completely anticlimatic and not really explored in the film. Like, they reunited, hugged, and that was that? It was unsatisfying.

And on a cynical note, I don't really understand why she had to pretend that she was the one who killed the cop. It was easy to prove who pulled the trigger by the powder and fingerprints. The 5-year old would have very little consequences. There may have been neglect or whatever charges but nothing as life-changing as the 20-year sentence and the stamp of the cop killer. There may have been a few years and some therapy and that's that. Why didn't she go that route?

I also don't understand why she wasn't arrested on the spot. Like, the kid shot the sheriff and then they went out for pancakes?

In one of the flashbacks, you see Sandra’s character pointing the gun at the other cops to get away. They let her get in the truck and drive away. And she makes the decision to take the blame in the coffee shop because Katie doesn’t remember what just happened. She’s trying to protect her and keep it that way. I agree that it’s possible the less traumatic thing would’ve been to tell the truth, but hindsight is 20/20. In the moment, she took the blame to save Katie from that guilt and consequences.

+1. All of this.