After checking out the plot and storyline for Derailed , I can comfortably turn round say that the recommendations posted on here were correct. This film takes the sticks to the old formula and thusly gives a us a very solid thriller rather than an overblown big budget flick . Clive Owen was brilliant playing his role - they should of chosen him for 007 instead of Daniel Craig I felt , and he is the type of character that I felt nearly every man can relate to in someway especially the relationship he has with his boss and not to mention his lateness to work (2 things which I know all to well). However Jennifer Aniston really has done a fine performance and she proves that by taking on this daring role and telling us that her Friends days are well behind her . Vincent Cassel really makes your blood boil, and you do want to smash his face in !!! The settings , moods ,all make it gritty and realistic so beware this could happen to you ! The only draw backs were that the second half of the movie was a little too rushed but giving Owen's situation I was willing to let it slide and the ever so annoying Xibit still trying to scare us with his gun-toting ways . Apart from that all I can say is that it is worth a look , may not be everyones cup of tea but Aniston fans won't be let down . recommended indeed . DERAILED - A STRONG 7.5 OUT 10 .
Add a Review
-
shadowman1236 March 2006
-
philip-ct13 February 2006I was a bit hesitant about seeing the film because of the low ratings.
BUT despite false "endings" this is a film worth seeing. The three leads are good, although Clive Owen's character is three dimensional in a way that Vince Cassell's and Jennifer Aniston's aren't.
There is definitely a chemistry between Clive Owen and Jennifer Aniston, which goes a long way to making the premise of the film "work" and also makes the twists so sudden, so plausible, so believable, so odd! It's an atmospheric film aided by good music and interesting "minor" characters.
See this film, willing to suspend disbelief. It's not a great film, often a little implausible. But the genre it creates calls for one to "go for a ride" too.
It is a film that, with twists and turns, will keep you "derailed". It's a good thriller, and ends on a positive note.
Don't be put off seeing it. -
blanche-213 June 2008Clive Owen and Jennifer Aniston are two adulterer-wannabes who are "Derailed" from their plans in this 2005 film. It also stars Vincent Cassel, RZA, Tom Conti and Melissa George. Charles Schine (Owen) and Lucinda Harris (Aniston) meet on a commuter train; on the night they take a hotel room to begin their affair, it's broken into by a criminal, LaRoche, who steals from both of them, rapes Lucinda repeatedly, and then continues to blackmail Charles for large sums of money. Lucinda refuses to go to the police, saying that her husband will file for divorce and take her daughter away from her.
Normally I take a film for what it is, and even if it has holes, if I really like it, I'll accept those holes. "Derailed" doesn't have holes. It has gullies. The character of Charles is completely unlikable throughout the film and a constant source of frustration. His diabetic daughter has had two or three kidney transplants, all of which were rejected by her body. For seven years, he and his wife, a teacher, have been saving money for a new antirejection drug coming on the market that the insurance won't cover. And I'm supposed to believe that he just keeps meeting LaRoche, who beats him to a pulp every time they meet, and handing him this hard-earned money that will save his daughter's life. Instead of going to the police, he honors the wishes of Lucinda. Well, forget it. Gulley number one.
Gulley number two. A young man at the office, Winston (RZA) who has been in prison decides to help out Schine. Knowing how violent and ruthless LaRoche is, Schine and Winston go alone, and Winston has an unloaded gun. Not a wise move. Didn't Winston have any buddies that could have gone along?
Gulley number three. Schine says he has two mortgages on his house and talks about how they've scrimped and saved. Question: a man, a woman, a child and a dog live in what looked to be a 10,000 square foot home in a ritzy neighborhood - gosh, ever heard of downsizing? Bet the couple of million you'd have gotten for that place would buy a lot of antirejection drugs.
With a minimum of work, a terrific, exciting, scary story could have been made into a fantastic movie with just a little restructuring and some stronger motives that made sense. Schine really didn't have a reason not to go to the police, even if he said he was mugged and left Lucinda out of it.
Clive Owen made a big splash in "Closer" and was considered for the role of James Bond. He's handsome and a wonderful actor, but if he wants a big-time film career, he's going to have to do better than this. Aniston did a good job as Lucinda, and Cassel was absolutely terrific as the revolting LaRoche.
At the end of the film, when the action and plot devices really pick up, I realized that the first hour and something had been a real waste. It had been badly DERAILED. -
Yet another movie where the set designer was obviously more important than the writer. Yet another movie where the luxury of the hero's home totally undercut his "desperate" need for money.
The Schines seemed to be living in a two million dollar house jammed with enough generic knick-knacks to qualify for a Pottery Barn shoot location - and yet it has taken them 7 years to save the $100K for their daughter's operation? When Schine's wife asked him the perfectly reasonable question about why they couldn't just sell the house to get money, he replied that it was fully mortgaged. Guess what? If you sell the house, they don't make you pay the 100K in interest a year than he must be paying on his fully mortgaged $2 million.
In the end Schine was willing to kill for his daughter; but getting a dinky little two bedroom apartment in an ugly burb with a bad commute was out of the question.
If you really want to shock an audience today, forget the rapes and stabbings, just try making a movie with bad decor. -
hitchcockthelegend27 May 2012Derailed is directed by Mikael Håfström and adapted to screenplay by Stuart Beattie from James Siegel's novel. It stars Clive Owen, Jennifer Aniston, Vincent Cassell, Melissa George and RZA. Music is scored by Ed Shearmur and cinematography by Peter Biziou.
Charles (Owen) and Lucinda (Aniston) meet on a commuter train and in spite of the fact they are married, start flirting. Ending up in a hotel one night, they're beaten and robbed by LaRoche (Cassell) who promptly starts blackmailing Charles......
There's a decent thriller in the mix here, if only it had had a director able to hide the surprises and a writer capable of not making his male protagonist such an unlikable git! It's a shame because the premise is a good one, and there are good performances from an agreeable cast. Film essentially asks us to root for Charles as he battles with a reoccurring villain of some nastiness (Cassell genuinely unnerving), yet not only is he a love cheat (a lovely wife at home and a very sick daughter), he also makes ridiculous errors of judgement. While the holes in logic for some sequences are bafflingly poor. Still, it does have thrills and it doesn't soft soap the violence. Taken on popcorn thriller terms, it's above average and worth a watch, but it's not half as clever as it thinks it is. 6/10 -
AMIO-PatricioMunoz10 November 2005I saw a sneak preview of this film yesterday in Toronto (Younge & Eglington Theatre) There are some "cheesy" moments but I'm happy to say that they are far and few between.
The acting is not academy-award winning but you will be pleased with the performances.
It is an engaging film that brings you into a dark and gritty underworld that actually can feel quite real at times. You feel for the lead character.
One of the strengths of this film is character development.
It also has some twists that may actually surprise you in a good way.
I think the real downfall of this film is that it has a "Hollywood" ending. For me the film loses points for this.
One final note: the climax, although still good, was pieced together in such a way that it did not hold the tension enough for the theater audience. There was laughter and some heckling in my theater.
I wouldn't walk into this film expecting a ground-breaking film that will change the genre forever, but it is does have some good pacing and the story moved along quite nicely. It is an enjoyable film that I recommend. -
billion_mucks1 November 2007Don't miss "Derailed". It is far from a big production, yet its twists and turmoil grip the spectator and force him to highly concentrate and attach to the movie's agitated rhythm. The Neanderthal chemistry between the couple of Owen and Anniston, translates to off screen, giving a satisfactory acting result, although individually many faults can be advised. Vincent Cassel plays the thief with a chilling magnitude."The book manipulates the reader so he cannot advise what is coming next", says Owen's character to her daughter, while analyzing a book together, as a hidden preface. Mikael Häfstrøm (who is quite unknown) cuts into the Hollywood formula and plays with the character psychological aspects while dipping and destroying their life's with certain Hitchcock reminiscences- Don't be confused; this thriller follows the book of Hollywood and has it's own particularities. Now, if you like fast, exciting rides where you remain in the dark and eager to know, this movie is for you. Otherwise, if you like intellectual films; maybe you won't pack to "rail in" to this movie.
-
jotix10015 September 2006Imagine running out of the house to take the commuting train and suddenly you realize your wife got money out of your wallet because she asked you to stop at the ATM. What to do? Well, Charles Schine gets an offer he can't refuse. When the beautiful, and sexy, Lucinda Harris, offers to pay his fare, he is grateful for it. Promising to return the money, he becomes restless as he remembers about the angel that saved him.
Charles Schine lives in a suburb of Chicago. His pretty wife Deanna is a school teacher. They have a teen aged daughter who suffers from diabetes. Both have nice jobs, but they are by no means rich. Charles makes a mistake when he goes after the kind woman who rescued him in the train, Lucinda Harris. She is a financial adviser who works for a prestigious firm. Unfortunately, the sexual attraction for Lucinda gets the best of Charles. A sad mistake!
When Lucinda decides to spend time with Charles, they end up in a somewhat seedy hotel. Lucinda has refused several well known ones from the taxi ride because her husband might see them. After they begin making love, a guy breaks in the room. This guy wants to rob them, but he has more in mind. Charles is hurt badly, and Lucinda was raped. He suggests calling the police, but Lucinda declines, citing how she can't create a scandal.
The attacker doesn't take long to contact Charles to demand money from him in order to keep quiet. This menacing guy, LaRoche, wants more and more. Charles realizes he can't keep meeting his demands, but takes money that has been marked for Amy's possible kidney operation. With the help of a former inmate, now working in his office, Charles puts a plan in action, but it backfires on him. What can he do? He is really trapped and must keep on paying in order to get LaRoche away from him and his family.
Mikael Hafstrom, a talented Swedish director, making his Hollywoodd debut, directs Stuart Beattie's adaptation of James Siegel thriller. The film, while vilified by most comments in this forum, offers some interesting points. It's not as bad a film as some people make it out to be. Of course, in a way, the ending is not satisfactory. We have been presented a weak Charles Schine, who's supposed to be an intelligent man. Yet, Charles takes the easy way out, yielding to the brutish LaRoche, who's gotten the best of him. Charles Schine never have cheated on his wife, but the sexual Lucinda Harris makes him lose his head and his dignity, even if their affair is short lived.
Another thing that doesn't work quite as well in the film is the Lucinda Harris as portrayed by Jennifer Aniston. As a femme fatale, this actress seems to have been miscast. She is much too wholesome and pretty to project malice. There is a problem of credibility as to why Charles Schine, who would have taken an earlier train happens to be in the one that Lucinda Harris is riding. She is by no means in the same category of a Barbara Stanwyck, or even Glen Close, although her work in the film is more than adequate. Also, the ending kept reminding us of the Richard Gere's character in "Unfaithful" and it appears to reaffirm that yes, crime does pay, just don't get caught!
Clive Owen, a good actor, is seen as Charles Schine, the spineless man who tries to pay his blackmailer in order to keep him away. Jennifer Aniston's Lucinda is another story, as noted before. Vincent Cassel has done his share of creeps in other European movies. Melissa George, who plays Deanna, is only seen briefly. Tom Conti, a great actor, who is not seen too often these days, has a couple of good moments, although one would have liked to have seen him more. Giancarlo Esposito comes only at the end, as a Chicago detective investigating Winston's death.
The film was beautifully photographed by Peter Biziou, who shows us some Chicago views. Ed Shearmur's music plays well in the context of the film. One could only wish better material for Mikael Hafstrom on his next film. -
Jaleea19 February 2006I'm surprised to see some low ratings for this movie because I found it to be really good. I didn't find a boring moment thru out the whole movie and the ending was so twisted... it just brought everything together. I wasn't sure of what the movie was about so I was definitely caught off guard with the whole plot. It sort of starts out like a love story, then next thing you know the guns come flying. Its different from any other movie I've seen with realistic outcomes and life situations. At times I wasn't sure if I was on the good guy's or bad guy's side because in a way, the main character deserved some of what he got. And I also understood why the bad guys chose their targets without remorse. If I wasn't given a background of the main character, I don't think i would've felt bad for him. Anyway, its a good movie and I'd definitely recommend checking it out.
-
ClaytonDavis11 November 2006PRE Oscars REVIEW: I just saw a pre-screening of the film "Derailed" starring the great Clive Owen and Jennifer Aniston. What that means is that it wasn't a final version but very close to it. Well I must say I was eager to place Owen into contention for an Oscar nomination after last year popular "Closer." I'm sorry to say that he is out and it's due to the poor, predictable script.
The story was very underdeveloped and a bit unrealistic but the performances of Owen, Aniston, and Vincent Cassel kept the film moving. This movie was Unfaithful meets Matchstick Men meets Reindeer Games. I would recommend the film for a good popcorn flick but in terms of Oscar I would take it out of the game. Owen captures the nature of his character but flops in terms of staying in the location meaning his American accent. Although he is truly the hero of the story and you love the character. He got a couple of "claps" during the film. Aniston gives a very different performance than what we're used to but it works. She's very talented and I would love to see her nominated in the next coming years.
The standout of the cast is Vincent Cassel who's villainous, dark performance will go down in the books as one of the greatest villainous performances in the past years. He truly makes you hate him and you leave with a feeling in your stomach from him on screen. The worst part of the entire film was the terrible musical score which is very distracting and annoying but hopefully with better editing they'll get rid of it and hire someone new. So-so script and good performances make a pretty decent flick. -
otterswimshome11 January 2006This movie was incredibly predictable, and required way too much suspension of disbelief: "Hey, honey, I'm going to teach at a prison so I can murder the guy who ruined my life after I had an affair with his girlfriend..." Sure, an American suburban housewife is gonna get behind that and stand by her man. And the holes in the "detective work" are inexplicable.
The dialogue was predictable, the acting so-so: Clive Owen had some good moments in spite of the totally unbelievable dialogue, and RZA was rather good. He probably had the best lines, by the way.
Vincent Cassel chews the scenery in a lovely baddie role.
Jennifer Anniston is the real mystery here. I disagree with other reviewers who say she really broke out in this role: she tried to go for an enigmatic look, but she usually just looks blank. Which may be realistic in a confidence game, but has to be a lot more lush to be enjoyable to watch (see "House of Games" for better "blank"). -
bob-204318 December 2005I was avoiding the film because of the lower ratings it had received but after several recommendations, I went and saw it and was surprisingly pleased with the whole film from start to finish. In my opinion, this could be very well one of the best thrillers of the year. The trailer for it really doesn't do it justice for what the movie really is; a dark, suspenseful, edge of your seat thriller. Jennifer Aniston does a great job breaking out of her Friends character that everyone associates her with and that so few sitcom actors have been able to do. Don't wait for this one to come out on DVD. You definitely want to catch this one in the theater.
-
elitt16 November 2005Derailed is being advertised as Jennifer Aniston's big break-out role since the break-up with Brad Pitt. This film should be advertised as another "Fatal Attraction" or you reap what you sew.
The set up for this film is very much like the Adrian Lynne film from 1987, where you have a chance meeting between a beautiful woman (Aniston) on a train and an unhappy married man (Clive Owen) with a young sick daughter. The two of them hook up in a seedy hotel and get mugged by a thug. When the thug threatens Owen for money after the fact, everything snowballs into disaster.
The first reel of Derailed is very good. This guy just gets in deeper and deeper and the more he tries to handle things himself, the worse he makes things. It's obvious he should've gone to the police but Aniston's character says no and he can't resist those beady little eyes. Clive Owen's mistakes begin to get frustrating to watch. The second reel is more of a thriller and when more things unfold, the film gets more and more interesting. It also gets more convoluted as the film goes on.
This movie is loaded with problems. The two leads are very good, but it's hard to believe that Owen's wife would put up with a lot of the nonsense that he pulls to save his skin. Aniston, cast against type is also very believable in her role. She handles her toughest scene well. My issues are with the believability of the story and with many of the things going on with the leads. There is also a tacked on ending that simply does not belong. They added it because it seems that every movie these days needs to have a twist.
This movie succeeds only on the level of the performances and the effectiveness of the tension in many scenes. It's got a lot of edge of your seat moments, but afterwords when you think about whats happened in the film, you'll be scratching your head. It's certainly entertaining though and worth a look on DVD. (**1/2) -
forkerouac19 April 2006Jennifer Aniston remains her Friends character here; she is just behaving in some difficult to understand ways. Why would this smart, classy, charming character consort with a killer who comes up with the sleaziest, most dangerous shakedown scam possible? Love? Pretty hard to believe. But no other clues or explanations are provided. And why do the two criminal masterminds do such a poor job of hiding their tracks? They continue using the same locations to conduct their shakedowns. Further, the shakedowns rely on some pretty risky assumptions: a) that they will be able to knock-out but not kill or seriously debilitate the victim; b) that the victim will not fight to the death; c) that the victim will not do something to attract the attention of others, e.g., yell out the window; and d) most preposterously, the victim will not go to the police on his own. Movies of this type often rely on such shaky leaps, but here it is just too much. Clive Owen's character would rather jeopardize the life of his daughter (the payoff money was earmarked for her medical care) and cover up the murder of his friend just so that Jennifer Aniston's character doesn't have to face the possibility of divorce. No way. Meanwhile, Jennifer Aniston's character has no protection other than these assumptions. Once the scam has started, she has to sit at an office, pretending to be someone she is not, and where the victim knows where to find her, for days, even weeks. She must have spent every day sweating. When the victim came to see her, it would only have taken one co-worker to call her by her real name, and the scam would have been up. And if the victim had had the good sense to go to the police, Aniston would have been a sitting duck. Really a poorly put together scam, resulting in a rather disappointing movie.
-
JRmf22 July 2006I was initially attracted to this movie (I usually stick to IMDb 7+) merely from a perverted desire to see Ms Aniston (Lucinda Harris) ravished - she's usually in "nice" roles. But even though I entered the film with a good idea of what was going to happen, and without high expectations - nice straight guy gets scammed by pretty lady into sex scandal, blackmail and potential ruin of his life follow - the execution and twists in the plot (along with good acting) kept me engrossed for its almost 2 hours.
SPOILERS AHEAD Of course it's way over-the-top. Most scammers (Vincent Cassell as LaRoche) would be content to get the initial $20 grand and sulk off into the dark. Not this one. He metamorphises from a street alley, balaclava wearing hoodlum to a suave apparently cultured "executive" who is prepared to visit his victim's house, personally intimidate and demolish him and win his family's confidence. It's this aspect of the the villain as much as anything which makes the film.
Some have criticised Clive Owen (Charles Shine) for a "lifeless" performance, but I found him convincing as an ordinary guy who lives a very straight life and is simply willing to pay up for his mistake in the hope that his harasser will go away. Only at the end, when he has been driven to his wit's end, does he show real aggression and finish off his tormentor.
The deviousness of the trap in which he is caught is well expounded when Charles exposes Lucinda and LaRoche taking down another victim. The "net" has been well fabricated and would indeed be hard to escape.
The ending satisfies justice, with one final twist.
Good drama/thriller, worth seeing. 8/10 -
Derailed starts off and almost closely ends perfectly, but then the director probably figured while he was ahead to take advantage. The movie should have ended ten minutes earlier then it could have been just a good movie and something that I would recommend if you enjoy thrillers. Because the plot is very decent and it kept me going. The acting is average yet nevertheless believable. But the story also left huge rooms for questions and left us hanging.
I'm not a fan of Jennifer Annistan's, but surprisingly I loved her performance and character in the film. She played an excellent damsel in distress turned into a heartless villain perfectly. She's the only part of the movie I highly am giving the points too. Now, if you watch this film, do yourself a favor and end it when it hits 1 1/2 hours, otherwise you'll get mad at the ending... well... I warned you.
6/10 -
ininotores20 July 2008At first I thought wow, Clive Owen and Jennifer Aniston, 2 big names. Might be good. I was a bit disappointed. Aniston's character is very flat and one-dimensional in the movie - very forgettable. Clive's acting is convincing, but the plot sucks. The villain (Vincent Cassel) looked pathetic and hardly scary. Even though he commits lots of violent acts in the movie, he really doesn't inspire fear in me. He actually looked more convincing dressed up as an office colleague of Clive Owen's in one particular scene, than when he's dressed as a street thug. Perhaps its because he's a bit too skinny and his skin is too good, perhaps its because his facial features looking more like a 17th century European aristocrat than some Chicago street thug. I think he'd probably do better acting as a psycho-killer rather than a professional thug.
By the end of the movie, I was really unimpressed. Yes the plot didn't really turn out like anyone had suspected, but its more of a "oh right, so what?" feeling I had, rather than a "oh my god. I can't believe it" feeling. By then I was just waiting, sitting there, hoping that something good - something really good - better come along soon, because I've not even gotten excited yet. But it never happened - and I never got excited or scared once throughout the whole movie.
I really wouldn't pay to watch this at the cinema - it would be like when I watched SWAT at the movies a few years ago. It feels like my money would be better spent elsewhere. Probably okay to watch this at home if you didn't have to pay like full price to rent this - if this movie was in the bargain bins somewhere in the video store. -
curiouslurker1 April 2006A suspenseful "thriller" that could have been a great movie. I say "could have", because it was simply mediocre. Clive Owen carries the movie, but even he isn't at his best due to the bumpy direction. Dialogue doesn't flow or come naturally, and things drag out where they could have been omitted from the movie entirely. The plot in itself is great, and Vincent Cassel steals almost every scene he's in, but I found myself wanting to fast forward through parts of it. I don't think this was a great vehicle for Jennifer Aniston. She doesn't take as big a role in the movie as the trailers lead us to believe, when she does have dialogue, too often she's limited to squeals and whimpers. I can't say I didn't like Derailed, but it's definitely not one of those movies I'd want to watch again.
-
andy-armstrong5 February 2006Derailed is a tight, smart, and dangerous movie about risks. Based on the novel by the same name, it's hard to believe the book could be much better.
Jennifer Aniston gives a great performance, as does Clive Owen. The directing is spot on and the music is simple yet effective. One knock may be the film's cinematography; it looks like you've seen it or a movie like it before. Nothing special about the visual style.
Beware though, this movie is serious in all aspects. It can be violent, foul-mouthed,and at times really thrilling. Those are things thrillers usually aren't.
Luckily, Derailed never goes off the tracks and in the end makes it all the way to the credits. See it, rent it, or buy it. You'll believe that Hitchcock still lives. -
shinshin126 February 2006Now, I'm not well versed in classic thrillers and geniuses like Hitchcock, but I do know a good movie when I see it and this one is good.
The performances are good and your interest is captured and kept from the beginning to the end.
Now it's not perfect and while watching the movie you question certain things as it goes along but its not glaring lapses of logic that leave you thinking yeah right. For example Owen's character never goes to his wife though at various points he seems quite willing to go to the police if Jennifer's character will agree. And even though Jennifer's character understandably doesn't want to report the crime the blackmail will simply stop if Owen told his wife. Which to me, better to risk your marriage by telling the truth rather than risk the life of your child by paying the money.
The weakest part was the ending. The fact that the blackmailer survives and tries to get revenge is a little is like those corny horror movies where you think the evil person is dead but they come back one last time to wreak havoc for a few extra minutes.
But all in all it was not time wasted and I do recommend it. -
Rogue-3220 November 2005I can understand why Anniston wanted to do this role, since she -=- SPOILER ALERT -=- gets to play majorly against type (as the supposedly 'nice' girl who's really - oh no! - part of the scam), but I'm at a loss to figure out what Clive Owen is doing in this sub-par, unoriginal, ugly and overly violent excuse for a thriller.
It's obvious from the get-go (as so many people before me have stated) that Anniston's character is not a victim in the scenario - the second she shows up, we know this, if we've been paying attention to the countless 'femme fatale' movies that have been made prior to this one ~ she's the bait, and Owen's character is going to be sorry he met her, big-time. I can tolerate an obvious set up, if the story from then on is at least played out with some panache, but no such luck here; it's just one cringingly vile scene after the other, with the payoff -=- SPOILER ALERT -=- being that Owen gets to have his revenge against the bad guy TWICE. Whooptie Doo. And plot holes? Fuggedaboudit. One after the other, blatantly stupid stuff, not even worth discussing here. The title works, though, as a commentary on the screenplay, which most definitely veers way off track. -
matija5 March 2006Clive Owen convincingly portrays an everyman who lives a life where every day is the same - until he unexpectedly meets a woman on a train and his life starts going off in new directions.
When that turns bad, his old habits reassert himself: instead of forming a plan with built-in alternatives, or being a brilliant improviser (like so many other thriller heroes), he forms simple plans and is always at a loss when they fail.
Other people feel that there are plot holes in this movie, but I feel that it just shows an everyman who is a slow starter, not the dynamic super-hero so many other protagonists turn into at the first sign of trouble.
Recommended. -
harry_tk_yung10 January 2006Derailed is a movie that is hard to talk about without invoking some spoilers, however unintentional they may be. I'll therefore leave the spoiler warning on although none is intended.
The story starts with an encounter on a train and I'm sure you can name half a dozen movies starting this way without thinking hard*. This one quickly develops into a situation that brings to mind "Fatal attraction", similar, but not identical. Here, both are married. In the hotel room, when they are just about to get into the act, a mugger materializes, beating the man semi-unconscious and raping the woman. But the nightmare is not over, only just beginning. The crook begins to blackmail the man, repeatedly. Things turn nastier and nastier, with some rather violent deaths. There are also the usual main twist and twist-when-everything-appears-to-be-over, something pretty standard with thrillers.
This movie is quite tough to watch. Although the violence is not particularly visually graphic compared with many other movies, it's the abruptness and intensity of the psychopathic character portrayed by Vincent Cassel that's disturbing. We have of course seen him in many similar roles but here he really pulls all the plugs, going all out. The pain inflicted on Clive Owen's character is almost physically palpable.
Of the two twists I mentioned, the main twist is very easy to guess, at least for people familiar with the suspense thriller genre. The final twist is actually not bad, echoing the teasing opening scene, with a couple of red herrings thrown in. But then, one should also remember a golden rule about such things in a suspense movie, when they spare no pain in showing you a recurring motif object (e.g. the bottle of poison in "Gloomy Sunday") you pretty well know that the movie is not going to end until SOMETHING is done with it. I'll say no more.
My biggest beef with this movie is the extent to which you have to suspend your belief, and I am not in the least intolerant of plot holes. But for the things to happen in "Derailed" the way they do, the Chicago police force would have to be incompetent to a degree that is absolutely beyond belief.
While Jennifer Aniston's character is underdeveloped, which is not her fault, we do see some complexity in Clive Owen's character that is very passive initially, then driven gradually by anger down a path of no return. Owen delivered.
* Some examples are: Strangers on a train (1951), Notre histoire (1984), Before sunrise (1995), Anthony Zimmer (2005) -
ecwjedi6 November 2005Derailed is like Fatal Attraction if done by Hitchcock. Going into a sneak preview I did not know much about the film so I was surprised when it strayed from the affair between the characters played by Clive Owen and Jennifer Aniston and became more of a mystery that focused on Owen's character. Yes there are some things in Derailed that my not make much sense when the film is over but they work well enough not to detract from the overall enjoyment in watching the film. As Owen's character keeps getting into more and more trouble you can't helped but be sucked into his world and root for him to make things right, just like in many a Hitchcock film. Over all, Derailed isn't going to change the way you look at movies or anything but during the time you spend watching it Derailed will successfully take your mind off of other things and give you some enjoyable entertainment. What else could you ask for from a movie?
no quote -
mocpacific3 April 2006It starts so promisingly that thoughts of "Fatal Attraction" even "Brief Encounter" came to mind but, unfortunately, it degenerates into a rushed, thoughtless TV movie of the week. I can put up with nonsense and suspend my disbelief like the next guy but you have to have all the other elements in place for me to buy whatever it is you're selling. Here the script gives up a wallop just a the right time and then pretends to have accomplished its mission when the wallop should be the beginning of the mission. Clive Owen is a phenomenal actor a true film creature at a pair with the greatest and the best, although I think he is overdoing it a bit. He's everywhere. No, Mr Owen, less is more. Vincent Cassel is terrifying, brilliantly so. Pity that the script doesn't allow him to become a real character and Jennifer Aniston, what can I say? Whenever I mention she's not made for the big screen, her defenders always shout: "Have you seen The Good Girl?" Well, yes, I have and I was fooled like everyone else. She's not in tune with the medium, her performances are just that, performances and not particularly good. Did you see "Rumor Has It"? She's too much of a personality and not enough of an actress. We'll be seeing re runs of Friend for years to come. I think that will remain the Jennifer Aniston that everyone knows and likes.