This is a must-see and one of the best documentaries - and films - of this year.

It’s fine. It's literally the definition of a fine movie. You’ve seen it before, you know every beat and outcome before the characters even do. Only question is how much escapism you’re looking for.

True to its essence, the characters remain on the same line and manage to entertain the viewer, each highlighting their own distinctive qualities or touches.

There's a more than satisfactory amount of boom-boom in the movie's trim running time.

This is a comically bad movie. Judd Nelson used to be a good actor - not in this - it broke my heart to see his acting so horrendous! His performance was truly awful- Given, the script was terrible and the directing was too, but it broke my heart to see how bad the acting was. His wife/story line part didn't even fit into movie at all. He was more emotional about his partner that he supposedly didn't like than his dying wife. And why didn't they like each other - it is like they tried to manufacture animosity but never gave any clues as to what the issues were. There are too many things wrong with this one to list them! I wanted the wife to hurry and die so we could get back to the movie. I laughed every time they mentioned needing to hurry and do something because they talked and moved so slowly in every step! HA! HA! I would never recommend this to anyone.

Overall a good movie that grabs you for the 1st few minutes and then kind of drags a bit. I wish the movie would have explored the psycho killers more so you knew what made them that way... The movie was only 1 1/2 hours so even if they added another 15 minutes, it would have helped. Also, there was no urgency to find the girl. The detectives upon discovering the photo and other evidence in the car should have brought in search dogs and at least made an attempt to find her. They wouldn't have had to go into the woods very far. But then, we wouldn't have had the movie.... But overall a good film. The filmography was beautiful.

A bound and gagged woman in central Florida is driven to an out of reach location in the middle of the night by a stranger and has her photograph taken as she's tied against a tree in the woods. Leaving her alive and alone, the man drives off and somewhere on his trip suddenly has a deer go through his windshield killing him. An experienced detective named Emory Lane (Judd Nelson)--who's at home with his terminally ill wife Sirena (Joey Lauren Adams)--is called out to what initially looks like a normal car wreck but because there is a photograph, blood and handcuff keys the police want to look further into the suspicious evidence that might point to foul play.A young, former west coast detective named Zeth Arnold (Deven Sawa) is called in as an apprentice in account of Lane being tied up in his personal life. They frequently butt heads as Arnold is over-confident and has a somewhat brash way of handling the case than the by-the-book veteran. Judd Nelson plays the character somewhat reserved and contemplative to the point of appearing detached. His character has trust issues, but gives some leeway as he can't be two places at once. Devon Sawa delivers some dry banter and his character speaks what's on his mind, which comes off as cocky but might actually have something to offer under that rookie demeanor.There are hundreds of miles of roadway and five hundred thousand acres of swamp to comb through, so the detectives start with what they know. They question the dead man named Macey's neighbors, who explain that he was a loner, not right in the head and doesn't have any living relatives that he keeps in touch with. The girl is identified as Daphne (Clare Kramer) by a friend who said she just talked to her last night but is currently missing. A profiler is called in and suggests that there might be an accomplice that he seeks approval from. Taking cues from John Lithgow in "Dexter" of who you wouldn't expect, Tom Arnold brings a good-guy face to his role as Simon but makes you think twice about what's underneath. From one revelation to the next the detectives uncover an underground network, which gives them more to contend with to save the young woman's life before it's too late.This is a gradually paced drama about searching for answers. It also deals with saving a life and watching one depart. Lane's wife is cooped up with nowhere to go, and he wants to stay but has everywhere to be; though he eventually uses the time away to push aside his feelings and in an odd sense cope. What a viewer gets: a basic story about human suffering that isn't confusing or muddled with layer upon layer of twists as it keeps it conventional as far as crime plots go. This is more held back than the typical shoot-'em-up-warrantless-bustin'-down-the-door-alcoholic features you normally see in the genre. This injects some feelings and leaves ample room open for the viewer's own interpretations, as well as the actions and motivations in the movie seem reasonable.The major issue with "Endure" is it doesn't always capitalize on its own story line due to trying to meld two different subplots and be thoroughly realistic while at it. This isn't going for the usual cinematic experience, as the editing and cinematography are restrained, the dialogue is close enough to how real people speak and the situation isn't glamorized or sensationalized. There's drama to be had here though the delivery felt somewhat flat and the characters didn't end up being as memorable as they could have. At times it comes across as cut and dry, even when a piece of evidence is unraveled to get closer to finding the victim while she's still alive. Not until the latter portion is there much in the way of being gripping. There's no sense in over-dramatizing the story like so many do and force it, but the atmosphere feels calm and relaxed to the point of being dozy and less important than it should be, as the dire circumstances at hand don't always have the capability of captivating one's undivided attention for the then and now. (Also submitted on Cinema Freaks, http://docuniverse.blogspot.com)

Can you find someone in the middle of nowhere with no clues? After an attacker, who kidnaps a woman and ties her to a tree in the middle of a forest, dies in a car accident there are no clues to where she is at. Detective Lane (Nelson) and his partner Arnold (Sawa) are in charge of finding her before it's too late. From the opening shot the movie grabs you and doesn't let go...for 20 minutes. It slows down quite a bit, but does pick up at the end. This was actually a pretty good movie, but it would have been much better as a "Without A Trace" episode. The movie really did drag a lot in the middle, and if it was a 60 min show it would have been great. The extra half hour hurt it a little. The acting was not terrible, but Judd Nelson is past his days of carrying a movie. Tom Arnold, who is in it for about 10 min, is very creepy. I would be interested to see if he takes on more roles like this one. Overall, not a bad movie, just a little too long. As a TV show I would say A-, as a full length movie, I give it a B-.Would I watch again? - I don't think I will