User Score
5.0

Mixed or average reviews- based on 44 Ratings

User score distribution:
  1. Positive: 23 out of 44
  2. Negative: 19 out of 44
Watch On

Review this movie

  1. Your Score
    0 out of 10
    Rate this:
    • 10
    • 9
    • 8
    • 7
    • 6
    • 5
    • 4
    • 3
    • 2
    • 1
    • 0
    • 0
  1. Submit
  2. Check Spelling
  1. ChadS.
    Apr 9, 2006
    5
    Julianne Moore's character is so pathetic and white-you-know-what, feeling sympathy towards her is hard to come by. Her carjacker is black, and yet she's comfortable amonst their young ones. Brenda reminds me a little of Brad Dourif's character in "Mississippi Burning" when he says, "But they're so cute when they're young," to Frances McDormand, who had been Julianne Moore's character is so pathetic and white-you-know-what, feeling sympathy towards her is hard to come by. Her carjacker is black, and yet she's comfortable amonst their young ones. Brenda reminds me a little of Brad Dourif's character in "Mississippi Burning" when he says, "But they're so cute when they're young," to Frances McDormand, who had been looking after the housekeeper's daughter. Moore is too talented an actress to dismiss as being overblown with her scenes with Jackson, but something is a little off. Also off, the way Falco's character is introduced. What's the point of misdirecting the audience into thinking that her vehicle poses a menace to Lorenzo? The detective's investigation would've gone a lot faster if Karen and her cohorts were mediums. Expand
  2. AlanNutter
    Sep 6, 2007
    8
    I can't understand the negative reaction to this movie. It depicts how one event can have massively far reaching consequences and illustrates it well. Julianne Moore was superb in this movie as one critic said, "she doesn't just act she goes on the attack". Recommended.
  3. K.Miller
    Feb 17, 2006
    0
    At the end of the movie, I felt like the movie theater should have been paying me to watch it, not the other way around. The movie was filled with a number of different stories and left most of them unfinished. Even the acting left me dissapointed. As my boyfriend said on the way home, the only good thing about the movie was Samuel L. Jackson's eyeglasses. (You'll see what I At the end of the movie, I felt like the movie theater should have been paying me to watch it, not the other way around. The movie was filled with a number of different stories and left most of them unfinished. Even the acting left me dissapointed. As my boyfriend said on the way home, the only good thing about the movie was Samuel L. Jackson's eyeglasses. (You'll see what I mean if you choose to watch it-but hopefully you won't.) Expand
  4. StevenS.
    Feb 17, 2006
    9
    I really liked this film...3 Complex performances...I can't understand all the anger in the reviews...Give it a chance..Very relevant.
  5. TheWhiskeyMan
    Feb 17, 2006
    0
    Awful!
  6. JudyT.
    Feb 18, 2006
    6
    Not bad, just not great. It does try to be too many things all at the same time. I am surprised that the writer couldn't do better with his own subject.
  7. AnthonyP.
    Mar 6, 2006
    9
    This unusual and evocative movie seems to have gotten under peoples skin. It is complex and ambitious in dealing with an extraordinarily painfull and real human issue. I think it angers or "bores" some critics because they don't want to deal with this pain. It goes for the gut such that that guardian of the soul, the intellect, can't process it readily. This movie is too much This unusual and evocative movie seems to have gotten under peoples skin. It is complex and ambitious in dealing with an extraordinarily painfull and real human issue. I think it angers or "bores" some critics because they don't want to deal with this pain. It goes for the gut such that that guardian of the soul, the intellect, can't process it readily. This movie is too much for them, it turns their empathy off. It's jaring and at the same time numbing in a way that occurs with really frightening, weighty experiences in real life , and some critics seem to be really angry about being thus confronted. Perhaps these people would rather be entertained. I too suffered some with this movie, but I felt like I was engaged with a quality of experience that authentically rendered a very real human condition I have not encoutered in film before. Crash, with its tough realism, seemed by comparison, an array of cunning vignettes woven together into a sampler: sharp and right on, but lacking the depth of Freedomland. Julianne Moore rendered this horribly difficult, troubling and troubled character palpably real. Only Meryl Streep could approach such complex psychology. I was deeply moved. I am amazed that so many professionals were so repulsed, perhaps, as they would be with such a person in real life,.Have these critics simply averted their minds, denying any interest in what makes such persons tick? So for them all this is simply beneath contempt? That is expedient and sad. Expand
  8. MichaelL.
    Aug 23, 2006
    9
    Critics never cease to amaze me. If this film was an Eastern European import, I guarantee it would have received raves. Please note that Manohla Dargis of the New York times, who gave "Freedomland" a 10 (worst film of the year) awarded "Snakes on a Plane" a 70. Pete Travers of Rolling Stone panned "Freedomland", and gave "Pirates of the Carribean II" it's highest score. Enough said. Critics never cease to amaze me. If this film was an Eastern European import, I guarantee it would have received raves. Please note that Manohla Dargis of the New York times, who gave "Freedomland" a 10 (worst film of the year) awarded "Snakes on a Plane" a 70. Pete Travers of Rolling Stone panned "Freedomland", and gave "Pirates of the Carribean II" it's highest score. Enough said. If you're looking for dumbed-down non-stop action, explosions, cardboard characters, no social message, lots of blood and/or gore, "Freedomland" isn't for you. If you'd like to be challenged by a film that takes an obvious plot outcome yet still manages to create a stranglehold of dread, this is your film. Look, it's not a happy film--it's gloomy, it's fatalistic, and yes, it's too long...but it made me rethink my opinions of people like Susan Smith, and fully understand the tragedy of the uncared-for among us. The people and societal segments that slip through the cracks. This is powerful stuff, and you won't feel good when it's over. Moore is magnificent, and she allows her character's flaws to shine as if they were virtues. Jackson has never been better (except in "Snakes on a Plane", eh, Maohla?) as the detective who is trapped between his own shortcomings, his friends, his need for the truth, and his compassion. Edie Falco brings a quiet truth and dignity to the role of a long-suffering woman assisting in the case. What must be noted here: this is not a crime film. This is not "CSI"...it is a film about suffering, sadness, and the power of losing hope. It's devastating. It's not to be missed. Collapse
  9. HarryS.
    Feb 17, 2006
    10
    Really great,engaging drama with 3 fine performances.
  10. AdamL.
    Feb 18, 2006
    7
    Its not that bad. Not preachy as i had heard it would be. It held my interest as a mystery. They bad ratings were from people who want there to be a moral lesson or some such cornball bullsh.t. They should stick to movies like Crash. Which this movie was not like, thank God.
  11. KevinG.
    Feb 18, 2006
    9
    This is a really compelling story that centers around some fine performances by Julianne Moore, Samuel L. Jackson, and Edie Falco. The sour notes in this movie (and there are quite a few) come courtesy of schlock director Joe Roth who tries to package this dramatic story of racial tension and child violence as a commercially viable thriller. His pacing is clunky, his frames are awkward, This is a really compelling story that centers around some fine performances by Julianne Moore, Samuel L. Jackson, and Edie Falco. The sour notes in this movie (and there are quite a few) come courtesy of schlock director Joe Roth who tries to package this dramatic story of racial tension and child violence as a commercially viable thriller. His pacing is clunky, his frames are awkward, and he never bothers to seriously examine the psyche of his characters beyond what the fabulous cast is able to produce with their performances alone. If you can excuse a poor directing decision here and there, then this is definitely a movie worth seeing. Expand
  12. BruceB.
    Feb 22, 2006
    8
    I think a lot of people went to see a Bruce Willis shootum up bang bang action film. No wonder they didnt like it. This movie have very good performance, politica intrigue, psycological drama. It has flaw, but I enjoyed it.
  13. TomB.
    Feb 27, 2006
    2
    Here's why I can honestly say this movie was terrible: I went by myself, on a whim, and I had absolutely never heard of this movie or what it was about. And it's just really, really bad. One good scene with Edie Falco and one good scene between Julianne Moore and Sam Jackson get a point each. But this movie doesn't know what it's trying to say and makes poor black Here's why I can honestly say this movie was terrible: I went by myself, on a whim, and I had absolutely never heard of this movie or what it was about. And it's just really, really bad. One good scene with Edie Falco and one good scene between Julianne Moore and Sam Jackson get a point each. But this movie doesn't know what it's trying to say and makes poor black people look pretty stupid. A waste of time and money; don't bother with it. Expand
  14. RayM.
    Mar 2, 2006
    1
    It wasn't that this movie was bad...it was just boring. Marcus C hit the nail on the head: it felt like a made for TV movie. The scenes were constantly repeated and only inched the story forward. After I found out the ending, I thought "I waded through all this for THIS?" No twists and turns, no underlying message or theme.
  15. ReeseW.
    May 26, 2006
    10
    Amazing movie! Julianne Moore is perfect! She gave an superb outstanding performance.
  16. RyanP.
    Jul 27, 2006
    1
    It takes good actors like Julianne Moore and Samuel L. Jackson to have the guts to try and promote this garbage before it came out. I decided to pass on this on in the theaters thank God. Don't torture your DVD player by making it play this movie for you. It's just plain awful!
  17. Brennan
    Feb 17, 2006
    0
    Rarely will a movie inspire me to write a few words about it. There is a scene in this movie in which Julianne Moore is screaming in agony at the top of her lungs for minutes. This pretty much sums up my feelings about this movie. Half of the theater laughed all the way through the movie while the other half slept.
  18. TomK.
    Feb 17, 2006
    8
    Jackson and Moore were very good. The story was solid, but it tried saying so much that it sometimes missed.
  19. AllanA.
    Feb 19, 2006
    8
    This is a movie about what exists today. It shows the dark side of human nature. Moore and Jackson give amazing performances.
  20. MarcusC.
    Feb 22, 2006
    1
    Two great actors, one terrible movie. Although, Julianne Moore does pull off a few geat scenes, this movie can't even live up to made-for-TV status. Felt more like 3 movies crammed together, all of them bad. What's this film trying to say? Is it a social commentary? A thriller? Who knows! More importantly, don't waste your money trying to find out. Don't even rent this one.
  21. TonyB.
    Jul 18, 2006
    7
    Overly complicated and sprawling at times, pretentiously photographed at others, this is still an effectively troubling film. Julianne Moore, Samuel L. Jackson and Edie Falco, supported by an excellent cast, are superb. Freedomland delves into more issues than any one film ought to perhaps but each is worth exploring and each is given no simple answers.
  22. AdamG
    May 17, 2007
    1
    The movie never seemed to go anywhere or accomplish anything; it simply had nothing to prove. Small amounts of activity/action combined with exhaustively long "talks" from Samuel and company along with a boring storyline make this movie intolerable.
  23. Jan 6, 2015
    6
    Exploring racism and police misconduct in a mixed neighborhood, Freedomland had ambitious goals and tried to tell it's story without taking a position. As the film moves forward, it becomes very clear which way the films writers are leaning, and it defeats the films intended purpose. Julianna Moore plays a woman who claims she was carjacked in the black part of town. Samuel L. Jackson, oneExploring racism and police misconduct in a mixed neighborhood, Freedomland had ambitious goals and tried to tell it's story without taking a position. As the film moves forward, it becomes very clear which way the films writers are leaning, and it defeats the films intended purpose. Julianna Moore plays a woman who claims she was carjacked in the black part of town. Samuel L. Jackson, one of the detectives assigned to the area, goes to investigate, and when he interviews the victim, she drops a bombshell, telling Jackson that her 5 year old son was in the car. We all know that Samuel L. Jackson is a legend and he performed like one in this film, but the problem was Julianne Moore. I get that she's playing a mother who is missing her kid, but she was so whiny and out of it the whole film, that every scene she was in was just painful to watch. Add to that the fact that she's trying to use some southern redneck accent, and she was barely understandable. A white woman claiming her child was kidnapped by a black man is the premise of the film and leads to the police putting down the hammer on the black part of town. It was a story that could have gone in so many terrific directions, but instead it falls flat on it's face, with nonsensical sub-plots, shotty performances, and of course a writer who did anything but tell his story objectively. The investigative part of the film was pretty interesting and Samuel L. Jackson is always great, but overall Freedomland is a cliche, that plays on racial conflict in order to get people to watch it. Expand
Metascore
43

Mixed or average reviews - based on 35 Critics

Critic score distribution:
  1. Positive: 12 out of 35
  2. Negative: 9 out of 35
  1. The film is, above all, a moving portrait of hurting souls, brought to life in compelling performances.
  2. Reviewed by: Brian Lowry
    50
    Despite a few raw moments, pic feels like a Lifetime movie with a marquee cast.
  3. 50
    Only Edie Falco, appearing as a bereft mother leading a citizen's group that searches for missing children, suggests the great film that Freedomland might have been.