The Next Three Days

"What if you had 72 hours to save everything you live for?"

2010 2h 13m EN

👍

7.1

SOLID

★7.1TMDB · 3,220

RomanceDramaThrillerCrime

Synopsis

Spoiler shield

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.

“What if you had 72 hours to save everything you live for?”

WhatsApp X Facebook Telegram

Where to watch · US

Amazon Prime VideoSubscription

Lionsgate+ Amazon ChannelSubscription

Amazon Prime Video with AdsSubscription

Howdy Amazon ChannelSubscription

Amazon VideoRent

Apple TV StoreRent

Google Play MoviesRent

Google Play MoviesBuy

YouTubeBuy

Fandango At HomeBuy

Cast

Russell Crowe
John Brennan
Elizabeth Banks
Lara Brennan
Ty Simpkins
Luke Brennan
Brian Dennehy
George Brennan
Helen Carey
Grace Brennan
Olivia Wilde
Nicole
Daniel Stern
Meyer Fisk
Jason Beghe
Detective Quinn

Credits

Behind the camera

Director: Paul Haggis
Writers: Paul Haggis, Guillaume Lemans, Fred Cavayé
Languages: English
Countries: United States of America

Want more? Switch to Cinephile mode in the header for DP, composer, budget, box office, production companies, keywords, and release history.

Did you know?

Fun facts 🍿

1 / 7

ERA

Did you know

Released 16 years ago.

MoodPlayr · trivia#01

2 / 7

DIRECTOR

Did you know

Directed by Paul Haggis, shot by Stéphane Fontaine. Note their partnership — DPs and directors often return to each other across a career.

MoodPlayr · trivia#02

3 / 7

DIRECTOR

Did you know

Original score by Danny Elfman. Worth a dedicated listen after — most great films lose half their impact without the score.

MoodPlayr · trivia#03

4 / 7

DIRECTOR

Did you know

Editor Jo Francis shaped the rhythm. On an edit-heavy film, the editor does more to control your pulse than the director.

MoodPlayr · trivia#04

5 / 7

CAST

Did you know

Russell Crowe and Elizabeth Banks and Ty Simpkins carry the top of the cast.

MoodPlayr · trivia#05

6 / 7

FACT

Did you know

Marketing tagline: "What if you had 72 hours to save everything you live for?".

MoodPlayr · trivia#06

7 / 7

WILD

Did you know

IMDB entry: tt1458175 — still the authoritative cross-reference for credits and trivia.

MoodPlayr · trivia#07

Cinephile deep dive

The take

Paul Haggis directs. Stéphane Fontaine behind the camera. Danny Elfman scores. Jo Francis cuts. Profitable at the box office. Produced in United States of America. Dialogue in English.

Trivia

Things worth knowing

1Released 16 years ago.
2Directed by Paul Haggis, shot by Stéphane Fontaine. Note their partnership — DPs and directors often return to each other across a career.
3Original score by Danny Elfman. Worth a dedicated listen after — most great films lose half their impact without the score.
4Editor Jo Francis shaped the rhythm. On an edit-heavy film, the editor does more to control your pulse than the director.
5Russell Crowe and Elizabeth Banks and Ty Simpkins carry the top of the cast.
6Marketing tagline: "What if you had 72 hours to save everything you live for?".
7IMDB entry: tt1458175 — still the authoritative cross-reference for credits and trivia.
8Classified under 14 themes, including "homicide", "falsely accused", "women's prison", "murder".
9Released under 30 different titles around the world.

The technical file

Cinematography: Stéphane Fontaine
Original score: Danny Elfman
Editing: Jo Francis
Production design: Laurence Bennett
Costume design: Abigail Murray
Makeup / hair: Camille Friend
Stunt coordinator: Manny Siverio
Runtime: 133 min · 2h 13m
Aspect ratio (typical): 1.37:1 (Academy)
Status: Released
Budget: $30,000,000
Box office: $67,448,651
Return: 225% of budget
Original language: EN
Certification (US): PG-13
IMDB: The Next Three Days (2010)

Also by

Paul Haggis

Stills · wallpapers

Selected frames

Full-resolution frames — open one to save it as a wallpaper.

Wallpaper

Trailers & featurettes

Watch the pieces

Community reviews

What people are saying

TheCakerBaker2013-07-03
★ 1/10
If Paul Haggis is going to keep on making movies, would somebody do us all a favor and sign him up for a basic screenwriting class? I mean, please, this film could be a lesson all on its own on how not to write a decent screenplay. Its all in here: one-dimensional characters, supremely poor pacing, multiple threads that go absolutely nowhere and completely implausible action sequences. And, you know, it's just a B-thriller. It's not like I haven't seen these mistakes time and time again. What really bothers me is just how highly it thinks of itself. It not only thinks it's interesting (which it isn't whatsoever), but it thinks it's smart, edgy, and it probably even thinks it's clever. I mean, there are so many characters who function for exactly one plot point and are then left behind in the dust. For example, this one chick who's name I forget (did they ever even say her name?) is introduced fairly early on in the film, and looks even like Russell Crowe's love interest. We see the very, very beginnings of a meaningful relationship forming and then it turns out that she was only a device to fill in a little potential plot hole (trying not to spoil the movie.) The same with Russell Crowe's parents, there are a handful of scattered scenes with them showing little glimpses of a meaningful relationship, and then the same exact friggin' thing is done, they're used as a simple (and illogical) plot mechanism. It's almost like one of Paul Haggis's friends was reading the script and said "hey, Paul, this is completely ridiculous, how could they possibly manage to _" and Haggis wrote in these characters as devices to satisfy the issue, realized they were one-dimensional, and wrote in a pseudo-intelligent relationship (which doesn't in reality make them any better.) And this is how the first 2/3 of the movie moves so dreadfully slowly. I mean, I'm absolutely confident that with a decent editor, the first hour and fifteen minutes could be whittled down to maybe half an hour. They could have especially left out the symbols that don't actually symbolize anything. Which seems silly to say, but the jar of quarters that keeps recurring in the movie not only has no plot significance, but has zero metaphorical significance. They barely explained what they were doing in their house. They were quite literally only in the film to make it look a little deeper. Not to make it more meaningful, but to make it look more meaningful. To make it "smart," and "edgy," and "clever." I don't usually have a problem with making it through a movie but I had to push to make it through this ludicrous, self-righteous mess.
JPV8522020-05-24
★ 8/10
Seen this movie a handful of times over the years, and still holds up so well. A solid thriller with fine performances by Russell Crowe and Elizabeth Banks, and features a great supporting cast in small parts (seems about 5 min. each), including Liam Neeson, Daniel Stern (wish he'd do more straight dramas), Brian Dennehy (RIP) and Olivia Wilde. Some nice suspense-filled moments throughout (the bump key scene still gets me). However, the final scene with detective "seeing" how the crime went down seemed like something the studio wanted to give a clear conclusion, and felt so unnecessary. 4.0/5