K_Todorov "Control" had a good premise and idea. With Ray Liota playing a character sentenced to death but who is given a chance for freedom if he participates in an experiment to suppress his violent urges. What could have been an interesting character study about redemption ultimately became a sub-par often melodramatic movie that failed to deliver even the slightest bit of inside on the subject.Liota stars as Lee Ray Oliver a murderer sentenced to death but given a second chance if he participates in a chemical behavioral modification program run by Dr. Michael Copeland (played by William Defoe). The movie's first problem becomes quite apparent after a short while, Liota's character isn't portrayed as a truly evil person, yes he is shown killing people but only members of the mafia, in fact his only civilian victim doesn't even die. Which from the viewer's perspective partly ruins the motivation for the treatment Lee Ray is undertaking.The movie's plot feels confusing not because its hard to understand but because it doesn't know what direction to take. There are actually several sub-plots in it all of which after the final scene feel unfinished, and while some could have played a role in showing Liota's character new found compassion, rather ineffectively if I might add, there is the one dealing with Defoe's character that doesn't have any sort of impact on the central plot. The movie's direction does nothing to cloud the badly written plot, with a heavy dose of mediocrity it feels like you're watching a made for TV production.The only reason this is worth watching is the acting. With some decent to good performances by Liota, Defoe and Rodriguez (who plays Lee Ray's girlfriend in one of the sub-plots). Regrettably the supporting cast fails to keep on their level, making a lot of the supporting characters annoying or just simply badly acted.In the end "Control" fails to impress or use it's interesting ala "Clockwork Orange" premise. Giving us a final product whose melodramatic ending doesn't succeed in achieving any sort of emotional response from the viewer.

snorton-6 I just saw this film in a cinema in Bahrain, I think 2 years after it came out, or rather didn't come out in cinemas, as it went straight to DVD. When I think of all the rubbish that gets into the cinema, that's just insulting.I saw it 'cos of Defoe and Liotta, 2 of the greatest actors in cinema today. Yes, the film had some cheesy moments, but this is still a good film. The acting from Defoe and Liotta is generally excellent, and this is a good story, though it could have done with some better editing. Stephen Rea does a good job as Dafoe's boss, and whilst the ending is a bit predictable, it's a reasonable way to spend 2 hours or so.The alternative is watching something by Adam Sandler or Ben Stiller, none of which goes straight to video, and shows why the movie business is sometimes the craziest business in the world.Watch 2 great actors doing what they do best and enjoy that movies like this still get made. It's really quite good.

shanfloyd OK, the plot is nothing special. Willem Dafoe is a doctor who directs a research on a drug that has potentials to remove criminal tendencies of a man. Ray Liotta is a serial murderer, a death row convict who becomes his test subject. Dafoe places Liotta in controlled social environment after first part of the experiment looked promising. But things went wrong.Liotta is the major reason to watch this film. Really it's a treat every time to watch him in the role of a criminal. But who cares? He's still very much underrated by the industry. Anyways, Dafoe and Michelle Rodriguez are also fine. But the actors are not helped much by the screenplay. It is weak, often predictable, sometimes filled with unnecessary subplots and the ending is really unsatisfactory. I expected more surprises in the story... but it turned out to be just as I foresaw after half-an-hour of the film.

toskippy The premise of this movie is a decent one, if done before in other ways. There are reasons why some movies go straight-to-video; the utter predictability, laughably clichéd scenes and obvious subplots intended to lengthen the film are these reasons. Ray Liotta's intensity at the beginning should have been capitalized upon, but he loses it halfway through. The movie has all the earmarks of being rewritten as it was being shot.Some observations: What purpose does it serve to have TWO people gunning for the Ray Liotta character? The corrupt warden and "Russian mafia" hit-man contribute nothing to the storyline and could easily have been left out. The avenging brother would have been enough, and was not fleshed out. Liotta showing remorse, trying to befriend and help the man he shot and crippled, beginning to live a normal life, only to have the angry brother whose life was ruined bent on revenge.... now that could have been a good movie.Do we really need to know the Dafoe character's personal life? What does this contribute? The way he tells the story of his murdered son should be shown to acting students as an example of bad "mailing it in" acting. "He looked up at me and said, I'll be alright Dad... and then he died." This only exists to prop up the cheesy end scene, which should never have been included. A better ending would be to have Liotta die, and that's it! Gee, the undercover guys driving around in a large dark colored van. How original. And the pursuers all driving identical black sedans. Not original at all... and the "blood dripping on the shoulder" flashback scene was shown far too often. Gotta justify that CGI expenditure, I suppose.Why were the drugs taken as pills? Why not injections to make SURE? Why was the doctor allowed to go into Liotta's cell where he could be easily attacked? How is it that Defoe was beaten by Liotta the first time, but the second time Dafoe suddenly gets fighting skills and beats Liotta to a pulp? Ah, there is plenty more to pick at, but to save time, stay away from this one.