@TBerky said:

(SPOILERS IF YOU SCROLL TOO FAR)

1. It seemed pretty obvious from the beginning that what we are being presented is not the full/true story.

Yes, especially as the flashbacks never actually showed "the murder" until the end.

1. It seems unlikely that the original crime would have been decided as it was, as there was no evidence/witnesses to the instant of the crime, just circumstantial evidence. Shadow of a doubt and all that.

Also wouldn't the fingerprints be on the gun? But maybe Bullocks character didn't know all this at the time and didn't want to take that chance, so she just confessed.

1. Finally, (spoilers follow)..... ...... Even if the main character goes on the talk show circuit, to clear her reputation, the younger sister will suffer the same persecution.

I'm not sure the sister would've been persecuted in the same way because she was only 5 at the time.

1. Still an adequate movie, with Sandra really pushing into a very intense character, Viola Davis seemed more strident than necessary and the turn-around too quick, Vincent D'Onofrio... solid character. Rob Morgan was too cliched and bitter... and why did he put Sandra in a place (where he placed people before) that had known felons????

Wasn't that place just a hostel for released women who did time? So not really in his control, plus she had nowhere else to stay anyway by the looks of it.

I'm wondering what the point was of Jon Bernthal's character was. He was meant to be the love interest, but he was introduced rather lazily...someone who just so happened to be interested in her immediately. And then nothing resolved for them.

But overall, an adequate movie as you say. Great acting by SB but really contrived and unbelievable characters (those two brother who wanted revenge being another example).

I don't know what the justice system is like in the US, but at least where I live in, the little kid who did the shooting most likely wouldn't have done a single day of detention and the social services would've gotten involved and worst case scenario they would've gotten the kid a foster family, which obviously ended up happening either way, but in addition ol' Ruth ended up taking a pointless murder sentence and wasting the 'best years' of her life in prison. So it's kind of hard to understand what was the point of her taking responsibility for the killing. Besides that I would assume forensic science even back then would've been able to point out the inconsistencies with the fingerprints, gunpowder residue and the angle at which the firearm was discharged. It would've made an interesting case for the prosecution to prove that SB crawled down the basement stairs like a reptile and took a shot at the poor sheriff from a prone position while lying on the stairs. Also what is with movies nowadays when they show a person years before in the past she/he looks virtually identical to the person she is supposed to be today. I understand it can be difficult to make Sandra Bullock look young, but come on now. It is almost comical how SB looks about 60 years old in the scenes where she is with her five year old sister. Reminds me of that recent Saw movie for example, where they made Chris look decades younger simply by making him wear a baseball cap backwards. This movie could've been decent, but the story is ultimately kind of crappy and add in a lot pointless yelling and hysterious behaviour and some token wokeness and you end up with a subpar movie.

The "reveal" really ruined the movie. It's a really stupid way to try and absolve SB's character and make her an innocent noble martyr, while also making the son(s) of the sheriff the villains even though their entire lives were ruined by SB's actions. I mean would the cops have really thrown that little girl in jail? And that shotgun was twice as big as she was, the recoil probably would have killed her.

That whole thing was just incredibly dumb. It completely undermines SB's story arc. And because the sister was a little girl we don't see her suffer any consequences for killing a cop because, well, she was a little girl. Who blew a dude's head off with a shotgun. Happy ending!

It is almost comical how SB looks about 60 years old in the scenes where she is with her five year old sister.

I think they did a decent job de-aging her, but the problem is I know SB is pushing 60 in real life and the sister was a little kid, then the story picks up 20 years after that so the sister must be 25-ish which would make SB's character no older than 40s tops. That was really distracting. I mean she still looks ok for pushing 60 but she was too old for this role. She did a decent acting job so I guess I can't complain, but it was very distracting trying to reason that obvious age gap.

@cswood said:

And that shotgun was twice as big as she was, the recoil probably would have killed her.

This is also what I was thinking. How could a 5 year old lift a shotgun, let alone aim and fire one.

She did a decent acting job so I guess I can't complain, but it was very distracting trying to reason that obvious age gap.

Yes, this was the case in the beginning for me too...initially I thought she was the mum (maybe that would've been better). But as the film went on I stopped noticing because as you said, her acting was good.

While I don't think SB looks 60, I agree with @aholejones that there was practically no difference in how she looks from 20 years ago except for a fringe!