Very Cool!!!

everything you have heard about this movie is true.

Tells a fascinating and unsettling true story, and does so well, without pretending to have all the answers.

The acting in this movie is really good.

Tom Cutler (Samuel L. Jackson) is a former cop who now works cleaning up bloody crime scenes. He's a widower taking care of his teen daughter Rose (Keke Palmer). Cherie (Maggie Lawson) is his assistant. His latest job is a bloody scene at a mansion. The next day, he returns to find the homeowner Ann Norcut (Eva Mendes) completely unaware of what happened. Her husband is reported missing later. Eddie Lorenzo (Ed Harris) is Tom's friend still on the force. Det. Jim Vargas (Luis Guzmán) is investigating the missing man. It turns out that the man is about to testify against police corruption.Director Renny Harlin is competent but his style feels too limited. This has the look of an indie crime thriller with a lot of A-list talents. The Polaroid really threw me off and bug the heck out of me. This is definitely not a period piece. So why the Polaroid and where does he get the film? The tension is kept on a low boil. The problem is that the movie keeps secrets which seems very obvious. It makes the movie feel predictable. It's better off to lay out all the cards much earlier. It would allow the movie to build tension instead of wasting time trying to piece together Tom's history. If the audience is allowed to be on the same level as Tom, they would be allowed into the investigation. It also needs more action to heighten the tension.

I found this movie good but it could have been so much better with a few tweaks on the acting & flow of the film. The concept was really interesting and again, feel it could have been so much more than it ended up being. I enjoyed Samuel L. Jackson (as I always do). I found Eva Medes a little bit stiff in some sections where I would have expected a much more emotional pull at the heart strings. Ed Harris was decent - though again, I could have used more of a deeper emotional stirring. Keke Palmer was decent - though slightly hysterical/over-acting in one part that I found again was not moving like I wanted it to be. Luis Guzman was.. well.. Luis Guzman. I actually bought this movie on DVD because I really did like the concept and the basic film itself isn't terrible. I recommend it for people who can't handle the stronger thrillers but like a tiny plot twisting.

I've always liked both Samuel L Jackson and Ed Harris and when I saw this trailed on another DVD, I decided to get it. And I did get my money's worth. There is, however, one caveat and it has nothing to do with Jackson, Harris or any other aspect of the film as film. It is this: when we finally get to the twist, the plot is rather thin gruel, and that is especially irking given the intriguing build-up to the denouement. It could well have been the plot of made-for-TV movie, although Cleaner, of course, has higher production values.Another - slight - gripe is that in odd ways the direction promises more than it delivers. So, for example, we are given definite hints - as when the camera focuses on Jackson's character locking up once he is home - that the chap is overly paranoid about security. Yet in the event he isn't and such shots have no bearing on the film.In a way Cleaner demonstrates the dilemma faced by feature film given the recent substantial rise in quality of TV (think the daddy of them all, The Sopranos, then there's The Wire, Deadwood, Boardwalk Empire and several others). Making a substantial TV series of at least 12 episodes and, if the series if successful, several series now allows directors, writers and producers greater freedom and more time to develop plot and character and gives more room for subtlety (if that's what you like - many don't and merely want as many explosions, car chases and cheesy one-liners as 120 minutes will allow) and it is for them more satisfying. Why shoehorn everything into 90 minutes when you might well be allowed 12 full hours and can give a far more nuanced rendition of your material?So a film such as Cleaner - very well-made, well-acted, imaginatively directed and generally well-crafted - oddly loses out. It comes over, rather unfairly, as a one-trick pony. Having said all that, you won't regret spending your time watching Cleaner, but prepare yourself for a - slight - letdown at the end.

After watching (Die Hard 2 – 1990), (Cutthroat Island – 1995) and (The Long Kiss Goodnight – 1996) you've got to love director (Renny Harlin) as I did. Yet, the man that I loved got disappeared later. No glowing movies such as (Driven – 2001) and (Mindhunters – 2004) are proofs of that regrettably. So, after 20 years of Horror and Action, firstly super then trashy, (Harlin) thought why not changing the whole mood and trying something else with Crime / Mystery / Thriller ?! It's glossy, a bit edgy, centering on a rarely dealt with profession. But it is not as good as any of the important movies that (Harlin) did before, or any solid thriller you can remind either !It's in the script. At the start I noticed how a scene like the one in the bar was crowded of coincidences. (Ed Harris)'s character was awfully obvious. His no role assured that he's here for nothing but being the one who everybody searches for. Then I don't know who messed up the third act like this ? After thrilling 2 acts, the movie turns into another lower one. The problems are many. For instance : the hasty, or forced, matter of (Harris) as an ex-lover of (Eva Mendes) ??! Till the very end we didn't know does the lead have a connection to the murder of his wife's killer in jail, or not ? The easy unethical choice of the lead at the end, with not doing the right thing by telling the police about that dirty cops' book, disappoints a try to give the movie both the ideal hero and the public case.(Sam) can be anything with his charisma and human stock. (Eva) looked pretty, with less cold acting this round. (Ed) was a victim of injustice, or I just see him bigger of these I'm-so-evil kind of roles, which we all know that he makes it for the money, and anyone else him can do it instead of him. (Harlin) led the matters in low-toned no flashy way, using so tight close-ups mostly, achieving intense image and capable suspense. However coincidences, being predictable, fabricated third act.. these are problems that damage any movie, so how about a thriller ?! Hence it couldn't even work as a first-rate TV material, which – in best cases – it was about to be.This is a pilot of good cop-drama series, yet with partly flawed script. In the past, I have always blamed the writers for that. But now, I became so contented that the script is the responsibility of the writer along with the director who ever approved to film it.Dear (Renny), you used to make the brainless action in so brainy way. Come back to that. At least, there, not only the heat was hotter, but no blotches of that kind were allowed to be in the first place ! According to (Cleaner), changing the genre didn't work, and (Renny Harlin) is still disappeared.