Loading...
Loading...

The Next Three Days is a 2010 thriller written and directed by Paul Haggis, running 133 minutes and shot on location in Pittsburgh. Russell Crowe plays John Brennan, a community college teacher whose wife Lara, played by Elizabeth Banks, is convicted of murdering her boss and sentenced to life. Liam Neeson appears briefly as an escape expert, with Brian Dennehy, Olivia Wilde, Lennie James and RZA in support.
I had never heard of this film until Netflix put it in front of me under recommended for you. So I clicked it largely out of curiosity, and I was pleasantly surprised. One point to Netflix. I will not be awarding a second.
I have never really loved a lot of Russell Crowe’s films, and I thought this one was on the better side of his work. It is also, for anybody keeping count, the third Crowe film I have covered on this site in roughly three weeks, which was not planned.
But it is not perfect by a long way.
Firstly, the title. The next three days. This film covers something in the region of three or more years. On its face that is nonsense.
In fairness, I went and looked into it, and there is actually an answer. The film is structured around time-stamped title cards that run throughout: the past three years, the past three months, the past three days. The title refers to the final window, the three days in which John has to actually execute the escape before Lara is transferred. So it is a reasonably elegant idea. The problem is that the film does not sell it clearly enough, because I finished it thinking precisely what you are thinking right now.
Then there is the son, who beefs with his mother for essentially the entire film, refusing to engage with her, turning away from her during visits. I would have had a very serious conversation with my child if they behaved that way toward their mother, who is in prison for something she did not do.
Except, and this is the most interesting thing I discovered afterwards, the film is deliberately leaving that open.
The Next Three Days is a remake of a 2008 French film called Pour elle, or Anything for Her, the directing debut of Fred Cavayé. And in the original, the wife’s innocence is established clearly from the beginning. Haggis changed that for his version. He deliberately seeds doubt throughout the entire runtime, with moments that cast genuine suspicion on Lara, and only confirms in the closing scenes, via a piece of evidence a detective uncovers, that she was innocent all along.
Do you agree with this review?
Reviewed on October 27, 2026
Life seems perfect for John Brennan until his wife, Lara, is arrested for a murder she says she didn’t commit. Three years into her sentence, John is struggling to hold his family together, raising their son and teaching at college while he pursues every means available to prove her innocence. With the rejection of their final appeal, Lara becomes suicidal and John decides there is only one possible, bearable solution: to break his wife out of prison.
Which means that for the whole film you are supposed to be quietly asking whether John is destroying his life, his career and his son’s childhood for a woman who actually committed murder. That is a considerably smarter structural choice than this film generally gets credit for, and it also recontextualises the son’s coldness toward her, since the boy has grown up in a world where everybody told him his mother is a killer.
Now, my actual problem with it. After everything. After John risks his life, spends years on this, and finally gets Lara out, they then have to work out a plan to collect their son. And Lara’s response to that is to open the car door and attempt to throw herself out of a moving vehicle.
They survive it. And then they simply get back in the car, and he locks the door, with an air of right, let us not do that again. It is never discussed. Nobody follows up on it. The film moves straight on to the next beat.
That is an enormous amount to walk past without comment, and it is the clearest example of the thing critics flagged at the time. The Rotten Tomatoes consensus states that Crowe and Banks give it their all, but their solid performances are not quite enough to compensate for the film’s uneven pace and implausible plot. It sits at 50 percent from critics, though audiences have been considerably kinder at 66 percent.
The Liam Neeson scene deserves a mention too. He turns up for essentially one sequence as a man who has escaped prison seven times, lays out exactly what John would have to be willing to do and become, and then leaves. It is an economical, extremely effective use of him, and it functions as the film’s thesis statement.
But setting all of that aside, the film did achieve the thing it set out to do, which is to make me sit there and genuinely ask the question it is built around. Would I do this for my wife?
Yeah. Probably.
It cost around thirty million dollars and took $67.4 million worldwide.
7 out of 10. Recommended, and credit to the algorithm for once.
The Verdict
7/10 — Recommended
2015