IMDb user comments for
Domestic Disturbance (2001) Plus avec IMDbPro »

Filtre:

Meilleur Chronologique prolific Ils ont aimé Ils ont détesté Cacher les spoilers:

Page 1 sur 17:

[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11]

Index

170 commentaires au total

---

23 utilisateurs sur 31 ont trouvé ce commentaire utile :
Exceptionally mediocre, 25 mai 2002

Auteur : FlickJunkie-2 de Atlanta, GA

What is it with John Travolta? He can command just about any script he desires, and he signs on for the lead in this pedestrian rubbish? The man has talent, but he needs some serious career counseling. This script is not even TV grade. A kid has cried wolf a couple of times so the police don't bother to follow up when he claims he saw his step father murder someone; yes, that's very realistic. The screenplay would make any Wisconsin dairy farmer proud. It has so many holes that it is better classified as fantasy/comedy than drama.

I'm surprised that this product comes from director Harold Becker (`The Onion Field', "Malice') who has given us a couple of fine thrillers. Besides the flimsy script, the cinematography is annoyingly underexposed. If Becker was trying for a dark look, he achieved it, because the film is so dark that much of the time you can only tell who's speaking by voice recognition, and that's outdoors during the day!

If there is anything that saves this film from the abyss, it is the acting. Travolta is sometimes fantastic and sometimes awful. In this film he is very good, especially considering the material with which he has to work. Matthew O'Leary is particularly good as the troubled son. He gives a convincing performance, capturing the motivations of his character effectively with all the conflict one would expect from a kid in his situation. Vince Vaughn gives a decent performance, though he is a bit tentative when trying to be duplicitous. He is much more convincing as a villain than a good guy. Steve Buscemi is one of my favorite bad guys, extremely underrated and unappreciated for his consistently sleazy characters. Again, he gives us a terrifically slimy portrayal of Rick's former underworld buddy.

To enjoy this film you have to look beyond the tired plot, the unbelievable departures from reality and the poor cinematography. These are just too many liabilities to overcome. I rated it a 5/10.

---

20 utilisateurs sur 28 ont trouvé ce commentaire utile :
I thought that this one was pretty good., 3 mars 2004

Auteur : Scott LeBrun de Winnipeg, Canada

Frank Morrison (John Travolta) is a hard-working boat builder and devoted dad who is naturally wary of the new man (Vince Vaughn) in his ex-wife's (Teri Polo) life. His wariness turns into outright distrust when his son (Matt O'Leary) says that he saw this guy commit a murder. The problem is, nobody will believe the kid because he has a history of lying and getting into trouble. Frank becomes the only one who will believe the kid's story.

Enjoyable thriller is maybe a little bit better than most because it's actually mostly believable instead of contrived. It's a modest little movie, predictable as many thrillers are, but not unbearably so. It is also helped by genuinely good acting, especially by Travolta and Steve Buscemi, who plays the murdered man; refreshingly, Buscemi's character is not as quirky as others he's played before. Even O'Leary as the kid delivers an acceptable performance. The only thing that I had a problem with was that Polo looks a little too young to be playing the mother of a 12-year-old.

"Domestic Disturbance" is a good vehicle for Travolta and a good directorial effort for Harold Becker.

6/10

---

17 utilisateurs sur 23 ont trouvé ce commentaire utile :
Worth Renting For A Couple Of Bucks, 9 mai 2006

Auteur : ccthemovieman-1 de Lockport, NY, Etats-Unis

This was a decent thriller with good-guy "Frank Morrison" (John Travolta) trying to save his former family from the dangerous new husband. That's not a new theme in Hollywood movies (the dangerous husband) but this is acted well and presented without heavy-handedness. They were smart to keep the story relatively-short, too, at 89 minutes. As a consequence, nothing dragged.

To me, the film would have been more enjoyable had the 12-year-old boy been a nicer kid, but he's an annoying brat. The mother (Teri Polo) is not that endearing, either. Definitely a movie that will entertain but a one-look film and nothing more, especially with the ending being as predictable as it turned out.

---

10 utilisateurs sur 12 ont trouvé ce commentaire utile :
Bad and boring, 3 novembre 2002

Auteur : Brian B-2

Teri Polo is cute, but wooden and overdressed. otherwise, John Travolta sleepwalks, Vince Vaughan is stonefaced, rather than menacing. Steve Buscemi's cameo was the best part of the movie.

The plot is obvious, but contrived. The incompetence of the police is totally incredible.

why this movie was made is unclear. It shares a genre with many better examples.

---

5 utilisateurs sur 5 ont trouvé ce commentaire utile :
Practically defines "routine thriller.", 8 octobre 2003
Auteur : Robert J. Maxwell (rmax304823@yahoo.com) de Deming, New Mexico

*** Ce commentaire peut contenir des spoilers ***

SPOILERS.

It's not bad considering that it was probably designed by a committee of recent film school graduates and greenlighted by a tight-lipped gaggle of MBAs. It has a certain splashy tension and there are lots of action scenes but it doesn't own an original thought. And on the other hand it's not bad enough to be revoltingly amusing.

The story is elementary. Travolta's ex wife has custody of their kid (Jason, what else) and she remarries a recently arrived guy (Vaughn) who is a business success and is on his way to becoming a pillar of the community. The problem with Vaughn is that he has a "past" in racketeering under a previous cognomen. Buscemi finds out where he's living, tracks him down, and applies a little blackmail logic, which is foolish because, as every moviegoer knows, when you try to extort money from a really rotten guy this is as likely to lead to the furnace of a brick factory as it is to a luxury condo in Boca Raton. The murder and disposal of the corpse is witnessed by Jason who tells everyone who will listen to him. Nobody listens to him. Except, after giving it due thought, Travolta realizes that Jason lies a lot, true -- but never to HIM. (This kid is a paragon of virtue.) So Travolta goes about uncovering the facts of the matter with the grudging help of the police and the sometimes fierce resistance of Vaughn. Things turn out as you expect. As I say, it's not original.

I lost count of the number of times someone gets whacked over the head (or is thrown against a wall or clipped on the jaw) and falls unconscious to the floor, only to wake up just in time to save his/her life or otherwise interfere with destiny. One example. Travolta is beaned by Vaughn with what seems to be a crowbar. He collapses in a heap. Vaughn sets fire to the building (somebody involved in this movie like fires). The building goes up like a torch around Travolta's body. We have several shots of a huge wooden ladder suspended from the ceiling just over his body. In each shot the ladder is more thoroughly burned. It will fall on Travolta at any moment. But does it? No. Slowly Travolta shakes his head, massages his occiput, looks up and sees the flaming ladder about to drop. He crawls out under it, gets to his feet and leaps into the water outside the boat house. What a close call. What a very very tired close call.

Travolta is okay, though. He gives a decent performance. So does everyone else for that matter. Whoever plays Vaughn stands out a bit from the others. He has the kind of bland face with a built-in open-mouth smile that could pass either for a priest's or a vampire's. But the juicy villain role is usually more attractive than that of the upright hero.

This virtue is small potatoes in a huge olla podrida. The movie rolls along in its self-satisfied way, with the cash registers clinking in the background, until finally the credits roll. It would be good if Travolta picked his material more carefully. Everything he does in this movie, every expression, every tonal quirk, all of it put together, does not add up to what he contributes during the few seconds in "Pulp Fiction" when he comes crouching out of the toilet and looks up to find Bruce Willis pointing a machine pistol at him.

---

10 utilisateurs sur 15 ont trouvé ce commentaire utile :
Predictable but well-made thriller., 31 décembre 2003

Auteur : gridoon

Predictable (you know exactly what the last scene will be like right from the start), contrived (the police really should have looked harder for evidence), but well-made, extremely well-acted (especially by Vince Vaughn) and psychologically accurate (the "baseball practice" scene was perfectly written and played). Might have been better if it had kept us in doubt a little longer about whether the kid is telling the truth or not. Still, the running time of the movie flies by, and that has to count for something, right? Some have complained about it being "too short", but surely this is preferable to the opposite, "too long". (**1/2)

---

5 utilisateurs sur 6 ont trouvé ce commentaire utile :
Domestic Clichéd Disturbance, 13 décembre 2008
Auteur : Senyales de Fraggle Rock

'Domestic Disturbance' is pretty much another typical Hollywood thriller. The thing with these movies is that they are very easy to predict. We already know what will happen in the end. So why watch it? Well, the plot might be interesting. In this case, it isn't bad but it gives the deja-vu impression. It isn't anything intricate enough to create suspense but what kept me entertained were the characters and actors. I liked Travolta's Frank. A hardworking down-to-earth boatmaker who's going through a slump in business because people prefer plastic over wood. But through it all he remains a good father and a kind person at heart. It was fun to watch Vince Vaughn play a sociopath. He does not overact and brilliantly maintains Rick's deceitful gentleman mask behind which hides someone dangerous. The child actor is clueless. Teri Polo is pretty much given a clichéd role but I liked her, especially in the scene where she discovers that Rick was the one who set fire. 'Domestic Disturbance' doesn't have much (or anything?) to offer in terms of novelty but it was not exactly boring for me so one can give it a go if there is nothing else better on offer.

---

3 utilisateurs sur 3 ont trouvé ce commentaire utile :
Sorry, that's asking too much..., 9 mai 2002
Auteur : JohnSol de Minneapolis, MN

*** Ce commentaire peut contenir des spoilers ***

Warning: Some spoilers here.

I watched this movie with my girlfriend on a Saturday night. For me that means it better be `ready for prime time', or I've wasted my time. Because I had no preconceptions about it and hadn't read any reviews, I was ready to give it a fair chance. I like both Travolta and Vaughn, so I thought I'd be OK. Although it did at least pass my first test of movie engagement - that I care about what happens to one or more of the characters - I found quickly that I was disappointed in having to suspend disbelief to the extent the writers asked me to. My companion was bothered when I became vocal with my objections to the weak plot, early on. She chided me, pointing out that "it's just a movie" (never an acceptable excuse for me) and that "things like this could happen in real life". For her sake, I did my best to hold back, but it wasn't easy. Suspending disbelief is one thing. Ignoring gaping holes in the plot is another.

The complete incompetence of the police department is by the far the most objectionable component of the impossible-to-swallow story line. How quick they are to dismiss serious accusations of wrongdoing, how unbelievable in there unwillingness to even perform a simple background check on a potential murderer, how unprofessional in not employing routine forensic tools to search for evidence (they find no sign of wrongdoing in Vaughn's vehicle? Come on.). It just made me angry. There are plenty of other examples of poor writing, but they've already been pointed out (as has the police piece, but I just couldn't resist).

Furthermore, I never bought the relationship between Vaughn and Travolta's ex-wife. Vaughn's character is so obviously shifty (and dangerous) that it's impossible to believe his new bride incapable of sensing anything wrong with him. It's an insult to her character. She only comes to her senses when the evidence slaps her in the face (which qualifies her to join the local police force, I suspect). As such, her role in the plot quickly becomes inconsequential and superficial.

I must admit reluctantly, though, that I did feel compelled to watch it all the way through. Yes, I did care what ultimately happened to the characters (both good and bad). Yes, the movie was successful in creating suspense, and both Travolta and Vaughn contributed to the sense of desperation that the writers clearly wanted to create. It's just that I felt cheated in the way I was set up. I agree with what many reviewers here have suggested - it does have the feeling of a made-for-TV movie. Too bad.

---

4 utilisateurs sur 5 ont trouvé ce commentaire utile :
Good Thriller, 7 avril 2002

Auteur : Luigi Di Pilla de Riehen, Suisse

I didn't expect much from this movie but at the end I was very satisfied with the story. In the first third of the film happened not much but the last two thirds were suspenseful and very entertaining. There were also some scary moments and the soundtrack was also top. The picture was clear and the actors did a great job here. I liked especially John Travolta and Vince Vaughn. Congratulation also to the director Harold Becker and thank you. I hope that Hollywood will create more films like this one because quality is no more the same than before. After I watched it again with my wife we upgraded our rating from 6/10 to 7/10.

---

7 utilisateurs sur 11 ont trouvé ce commentaire utile :
Tight Fast Moving Thriller!, 2 novembre 2002

Auteur : (bsmith5552@rogers.com) de Ottawa, Ontario, Canada

I guess I liked "Domestic Disturbance" more than most critics and visitors to this site. I thought it was a compact fast moving little thriller that packed a lot into its brief 89 minute running time.

Frank Morrison (John Travolta) and his ex-wife Susan (Teri Polo) have a 12 year old son Danny (Matthew O'Leary) who is taking their breakup and Susan's impending marriage to local hot shot Rick Barnes (Vince Vaughn) very hard. He is taken to running off and lying to his parents and the authorities. Frank meanwhile, tries to encourage Danny to give his new stepfather an even chance.

At Rick and Susan's wedding an uninvited guest Ray Coleman (Steve Buscemi) shows up and we learn that Rick has a past. When Susan announces that she is pregnant with Rick's child, Danny sneaks out of the house and into the back of Rick's car in order to get to his father's home. At the same time, Rick decides to rid himself of Coleman who is threatening to expose his past. Rick murders Coleman and Danny witness the act.

Danny must now convince his parents and the police of Rick's guilt. But because he has cried wolf so many times before, no one will believe him. To make matters worse Rick has threatened to do harm to his father if he talks. Susan unaware of all of this supports Rick. Frank on the other hand, begins to smell a rat.

Director Harold Becker keeps the story moving and at the same time, heightening the suspense. Travolta gives good performance as Frank. He wants his son back and has trouble at first convincing himself that Danny and his ex are in harm's way. Vaughn makes a chilling villain and young O'Leary is excellent as the son who is caught in one too many lies. And no one can play a slimy underworld type any better than Buscemi.

Don't read the reviews. This is a good movie.

---

---

Page 1 sur 17:

[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11]

Ajouter un autre commentaire

---

Liens liés

Plot summary	Notes	Récompenses
Critiques des Forums	Revues externes	Plot keywords
Principaux Détails	Your user comments	Your vote history