Movies-TV

Garbage from hell. (With spoilers)

***SPOILERS*** ***SPOILERS*** OK, so Ashley Judd is this high-powered attorney, right? (So, yeah, already we've lost all plausibility. In one scene, she uses threatening legal jargon while wearing a ball gown. It's that kind of movie.)Anyway, she finds out that her husband is a) a fugitive; b) a former Marine; c) a suspected murderer; and d) someone who didn't give her his real name or life story from the time they met. I'm guessing most people would ask for a divorce. Certainly, if I were Ashley Judd's attorney in this movie, I'd have told her to dump the b**tard, even if he did look like Jim Caviezel.Unfortunately, Ashley acts as her own attorney, so she doesn't have anyone around to give her any good legal advice. (Is she acting as her own agent? Someone's not giving her good career advice, either, if she thought it was a good idea to appear in this.)Morgan Freeman's in this movie, but that doesn't save it. Nor does the "Duh, I told you to divorce the guy before all this crap happened ..." surprise ending.Of course, you don't have to listen to me. My friend I was with loved this movie, while I was shaking my hands at the screen, calling Ashley Judd's character stupid.

IF IT WASN'T......

for Freeman and Judd, this film would have been a flop. The plot was alright but I had the feeling from the beginning as the story unfolded, that the poor husband was in fact the guilty party. So the ending was no surprise to me. The military courtroom scenes leave alot to be desired, were weak and tedious.

I bought the DVD but sure would have been satisfied just to rent it.

An average courtroom drama

High Crimes sounds truly as a movie of high expectations. I must admit that my own expectations based on the actors starring in it (Ashley Judd and Morgan Freeman) were a bit too high.The acting is okay although the constellation of characters seems like a cliché I've seen too often in these kind of courtroom drama's; a husband being accused of murder, the wife fighting the system with a little help from an old hand with alcoholic problems.The plot is too thin and only 15 minutes old are you able to guess how the plot of the movie sticks together. There is not enough of drama in it to make it very exciting and the acting in the courtroom is just too thin.All things considered; if you feel like seeing a movie starring some famous actors but you do not want to do a lot of thinking during the movie then I will suggest High Crimes as the choice to make. On the other hand if you want to be surprised, shocked and entertained you would probably be better of by watching an other movie.

If You Can't Get Enough Morgan Freeman

HIGH CRIMES is strictly big-studio Hollywood assembly-line moviemaking. Not bad, per se, but if you've been watching major studio films for at least the last five years, this is nothing you haven't seen before.Now, Morgan Freeman is one of those actors that gives me reason enough to see a picture, even if he's just reading his grocery list. Ashley Judd does a professional enough job (and makes a couple of interesting faces), but Mr. Freeman's presence is the only element of this film that justifies a viewing.Thematically, what you have here is the "brilliant but broken-down, drunken lawyer gets a chance to redeem himself" plot that has been done to death (The Verdict {'82}, The People Against O'Hara {'51} and A Free Soul {'31}, to name but a few and give an idea how long this cliche has been around),
combined with the "powerless private citizen goes up against the entire military/government white male power structure (supply your favorite examples; there are 750 or so to choose from), with a dash of "is he or isn't he the guilty psycho killer" thrown in, including (KINDA-SORTA SPOILER) the now-obligatory "Gasp! We thought he was dead, but he just jumped back up again" climax.Assuming you haven't been living on a desert island your entire life and never saw any of these tired plot devices before, and/or will watch Morgan Freeman in just about anything (if only to listen to that wonderful voice), this isn't the worst two hours you'll ever spend. Just don't expect any surprises.

Freeman and Judd as mismatched lawyers

At the end I was convinced this needed to be a continuing series--either more movies, or if Ashley Judd and Morgan Freeman were wiling to do it--TV. These two had such a great chemistry when they got along.Judd did a good job most of the time, showing a lot of determination to get the job done. Freeman was different from many of his characters--I can't say I ever thought of him as a motorcycle-riding irresponsible drunk. And his office situation was comical.The process of getting the necessary information--well, it was frustrating but interesting.The opening was disturbing. If you can skip over the credits, do so. There are some really violent scenes in this movie as the events leading to the trial are recalled.****IF YOU HAVE NOT SEEN 'PRIMAL FEAR' PLEASE STOP HERE**** I have to say I was disappointed when I found out the truth. After all that work, all those efforts, ethical and otherwise, to save Judd' husband--and it was all for nothing. It reminded me of 'Primal Fear' except without a delicious performance by the likes of Edward Norton to ease the sting.

Far better than what I was expecting.

KISS THE GIRLS stars Ashley Judd and Morgan Freeman reunite in HIGH CRIMES, a movie that turned out to be a lot better than I was expecting. The previews made this movie look like a high powered suspense thriller, but I was weary about the plot and I was suspecting a thousand different plot holes. But, I was wrong. This movie is executed wonderfully. Yes, there are the usual thriller cliches, but once you get past all that, this movie is really entertaining. The acting is not all that bad either. Judd is great and Freeman is perfect as always (the only thing about him is that I am still a little hazy as to the gold earring that he totes on his right ear). The supporting cast includes Jim Caviezel, Adam Scott, the very hott Amanda Peet, Bruce Davison and Tom Bower. All of whom do an exceptional job.This may look like just another one of those 'trial' movies, but this isn't. It is actually quite good if you just look past the typical plot and watch it. Other recommendations include A FEW GOOD MEN and RULES OF ENGAGEMENT. They are both a little different, but still go along the same lines.This film is for people who appreciate good, old-fashioned suspense thrillers. These kind of movies are the kind people need to show us that looks can be deceiving and that people are not always what they appear to be.HIGH CRIMES: 5/5.

Over Plotted But Strangely Entertaining

A USMC officer finds himself standing trial for the murder of civilians in Central America several years ago and his lawyer wife defends him . That's the plot of HIGH CRIMES a legal thriller that's a bit like John Grisham meets RULES OF ENGAGEMENT plus A FEW GOOD MEN . Hardly original but there's enough there to make a story . But then we have things like conspiracy agitprop and sibling conflict thrown into the mix along with a possible traitor in the legal team , not to mention lots of sentimental moments that feel that they belong in a chick flick TVM " What about alien invasions Theo ? Surely there must be an alien invasion there too somewhere ? " I also was thinking perhaps the producers had missed out that plot because there's times when watching this movie that I thought someone was playing " Movie Bingo " where the audience have to spot a movie reference . I'm certain during the Latin American scenes we were going to see a big Austrian appear and make wise cracks about a giant alien killing his men . As the audience are reminded of so many movies I too was puzzled why PREDATOR didn't get a mention As you can guess HIGH CRIMES suffers from unoriginality and an obsession with putting in too many ideas into the screenplay . Take Charlie Grimes for example . You'd think since he's played by Morgan Freeman that the actor would be able to flash out the role if he's two dimensional but no Charlie has all these quirks like he wears an earring and he drives a motorbike and worst of all he's a former alkie who has a scene where he has to get drunk in order to further the plotDespite pointing all this out to you I can't condemn HIGH CRIMES as being bad entertainment . I'm certainly not saying it's a good movie because it is rather ridiculous but I was entertained , probably because there's never a dull moment

Haven't we seen this before?

Director Carl Franklin should have stayed away from Joseph Finder's novel that is the basis for the film, or at least, he should have asked for a better adaptation. There is no originality in what we are watching. The characters come out as one dimensional. Morgan Freeman and Ashley Judd have collaborated before, to better results. In this film the logic of the screen play needed a strong hand, or at least a reality check. We know from the beginning what's going to happen. There is no real suspense in the story and the way it turns out. James Caviezel, as Tom is the only one that has any opportunity to shine.Better luck next time.

Waste of Time

HO HUM! We found the plot and characters to be completely unbelievable. Glad we didn't pay the ticket prices to see it when it first came out as I don't think I could have sat through it. At least being able to check it out from the library, we didn't waste money!

Jim Caviezel Became Jesus Christ in Mel Gibson's "The Passion of Christ"

I was interested to see this movie because I was very much aware of the actor Jim Caviezel-- but only because he played Jesus Christ in Mel Gibson's movie "The Passion of Christ" last year. It was great to see him in a non-religious movie. I was also grateful that though there was a loving "sex scene" in "High Crimes," it wasn't so bad that I couldn't watch it as a Christian. (I did think the sequence with the prostitutes was too raunchy.) I have seen Jim Caviezel on Christian TV and noted he said in playing Jesus, "I do what I always do when handed a script as far as studying, etc." Someone involved with Jim said about him that they immediately thought of him when casting Jesus because of his ability to portray vulnerability. So in "High Crimes" he made the perfect criminal: affectionate husband to the lawyer (played by Judd) who desperately wanted a child, could weep tenderly on cue and even pass a lie detector test when he was guilty! Can't wait to see what other movies he has played in...Ashley Judd always plays a great strong woman, in my view, and this movie was no exception. But I particularly liked Morgan Freeman's role as it was was not as "usual" as the other roles.The editing could have been better, especially since the show was dealing with war scenes from years before Judd's character met Caviezel's character.Flanagan

Highly Disappointing.

I hate to say this, but "High Crimes" is just another clichéd, predictable courtroom drama. Though the trailers claim that the ending will "shock you", I found myself yawning at the supposed climax. For me, the "shocking ending" was the only thing that compelled to see this film. So as you can imagine, I was very disappointed. The ending may surprise you if you're particularly naïve, but the average moviegoer will figure out the ending long before it occurs. Not good.

The story centers around Claire Kubick (Ashley Judd), a high-powered attorney and a loving wife with a strong wish for a child of her own. Claire is happily married to Tom (James Caviezel,), a former Marine. Claire's life is perfect until one night while she and Tom are Christmas shopping federal agents corner them and take Tom into custody on multiple charges, including the murder of nine El Salvadorians on a military mission in 1988. Naturally, Claire is convinced of her husband's innocence and after a few twists and turns, Claire teams up with a newbie military lawyer (Adam Scott) and a once respected but now disgraced drunk military attorney named Charles Grimes (Morgan Freeman) who's main reason for taking the case is to try and make the military court look foolish. Together they battle the brutal world of military court. The question is, will they survive?

The plot is too muddled and confusing to be the least bit interesting and becomes very tiresome after awhile. The script is full of clichés and cheesy lines including one particularly laughable one recited by Judd, "I've already survived you. The question is, can you survive me?" One thing that especially annoyed me was how all of sorts of important information was given in the beginning of the film, but didn't come into play until the final sequences. How exactly is the audience supposed to remember all these important details unless they were taking notes?

The only reason to see "High Crimes" would be for the tremendous acting by Ashley Judd and Morgan Freeman. They both master their roles and have great chemistry together, probably because of their previous experience together in 1997's "Kiss The Girls". The supporting cast is also delightful. James Caviezel (from this years surprise hit, "The Count of Monte Cristo) is chilling in his role as Judd's husband. Amanda Peet and Adam Scott also put forth excellent performances.

Definitely One To Buy

I first saw this movie while on an overseas flight to London, and planned to fall asleep to the movie; but the plot twists keep you glued to the movie. Ashley Judd, Morgan Freeman, and James Caviezal were all outstanding (especially Caviezal.) As soon as the DVD was available I bought it along with two other copies (X-mas presents)this one is definitely worth owning.

Dreadfull Movie

A formula flick. Morgan Freeman always has great presence on the screen but haven't we seen the former great lawyer, now an alcoholic, resurrected to solve a mystery, so many many times before? Please! The ridiculous twist at the end completely invalidates the plot. Considering the ending. one has to ask "why did all those nonsensical events take place earlier in the story?" An insult to a viewers intelligence. A total waste of time. A big fat "F".

Despite it's promising cast, it's very vulgar and predictable and a waste of a good thriller

While the ideas were very good and interesting, there is always a "big twist" at the end, that pretty much you can easily predict by today. I've mentioned before, but I'll repeat, you've seen one good thriller, then you've seen them all. While it seemed like the director had good intentions, he tried too hard to shock the audience when really I could had written a better script. Another problem I had is that Ashley and Morgan are getting stereotyped, well Ashley more than Morgan, because they are signing onto these thrillers with the shocking ending. It gets old, they couldn't do it really after the excellent crime thriller "Kiss the Girls".When all is said and done, you're really just looking at the case of the movie when it ends and wondering why you bothered because you knew what would happen. Like I said, the cast wasn't the main problem, it was just script writing and the director's fault. There were some things I had questioned, like Ashley's character's reactions at certain times. They didn't seem appropriate or on cue when needed. Morgan was the only actor who was true and original, he and Jim had carried the film doing the best they could with what they had.If you want a predictable thriller, I would recommend, but I mean you can really save the watch. It's just not exciting any more to see them and the script could have been written by a 15 year old that has seen one too many high action crime thrillers.5/10

Very good and enjoyable

Very good and enjoyable thriller with great performances by Ashley Judd, Morgan Freeman and surprisingly good performance by Jim Caviezal. The movie is predictable I must admit that but anyway as I said before it's very enjoyable and you won't regret if you watch this cause really it's a must see movie. Probably the best thriller of the year so far.

Nice cast in a good thriller

High Crimes a good thriller that stars Ashley Judd as Claire Kubik, a lawyer who's husband is a soldier who has been accused of murdering some Latin American villagers. Claire decides to defend her husband in the court case with the help of another lawyer, Charles Grimes (Morgan Freeman). Also, Lt. Terrence Embry (Adam Scott) assists them in their defence case. Unfortunately, different problems arise and Claire's life is turned upside down.High Crimes is quite a gripping thriller but one outstanding feature was the great acting from the cast. Morgan Freeman does a great job in his role. Ashley Judd also does a good performance in the lead role.Overall, this was a very enjoyable thriller that I would recommend.8/10

I knew there would be a twist at the end...

I just wasn't expecting 2 of them. I generally like cheesy thriller films like this one. It isn't everyone's cup of tea because a lot of it is predictable. I thought this was OK. I wish Ashley Judd did a better acting job; maybe one day she'll get better. And why is it any military trial in a film seems like a trial of misjustice. I sure hope real military courts don't try to exclude the truth just to make the government look good if they really did something wrong.FINAL VERDICT: Expect to see all the loop holes thrown in that you see in most court films. The lie detector, the person you think is telling the truth but is lying, and the person who is suspected of lying but is really honest. So, I recommend this if you are like me and like your average thriller movies. But, if you like films that actually require using your brain, then this isn't for you.

"High Crimes" is a well-done and entertaining two hours.

In one of the more interesting "extras" on a DVD, the author of the book explains very well how a novel and a film are such different media that he doesn't expect a movie of his book to be highly faithful to the story. I haven't read IMDb user comments yet, but I'd be willing to bet at least a few complain that "the book was better" or "they changed too many details".
Well, if the book's author understands and agrees with that, shouldn't we, if we are intelligent viewers??Critic Ebert gives a very accurate review of the movie. Ashley Judd is such a good actress, she is good in everything. As is Morgan Freeman, and it is obvious that they get along well on and off the screen. Here she plays a tough, competent lawyer who happens to be married to an ex-Marine. Freeman plays an ex-military lawyer who comes to her aid when her husband is arrested and accused of murder 12 years earlier in a Central American raid on a civilian village.SPOILERS, SPOILERS ** Through most of the film it appears that her husband is innocent and being set up by others, to cover up an illegal operation.
Near the very end, Freeman's nosing around in Mexico leads him to the truth, that her husband really was guilty. When he finds out she knows, an ugly showdown in their workshop ensues, her husband ends up dead. She and Freeman end up opening a law practice together.Every fictional story needs fabricated situations to set up subsequent story elements. Authors are just not smart enough to figure out what might happen in reality. I accept most of them as good storytelling, but one was very obviously too big a stretch to come off believably. Judd and Freeman were in a car at night and suddenly, a small explosion followed by oil sprayed on their windshield. What would you or I or anyone else do in that situation??
Slow down and stop to assess the situation, and let the vehicle pestering us get further ahead. What does Judd's character do? She keeps driving, in the same direction, at the same speed, until she skids and the vehicle slides and flips into a large ditch. That sequence was so implausible to me that it almost spoiled the viewing mood I was in right before.

Predictable

Predictable, jingoistic, hollow, and factually flawed. At least the USMC uniforms were largely correct, although why anyone would wear a Purple Heart without a Combat Action Ribbon is beyond me.Save your money; borrow a friend's video of this one in a month.

You be the Judd

I'm sorry for that awful pun...but I couldn't resist. Was the movie better than the book? Almost. Was the movie version good? Yes it was very good.

I was not completely taken in by the story, but Ashley Judd's acting was exceptional. I thought the courtroom scences could have been more dramatic. If you had seen "A Few Good Men" or "Rules of Engagement" you would know what I mean. And yet the judge's decision came so sudden I was taken off guard.

This film's strenght can be found in the acting. Especially Ashley Judd and Morgan Freeman. The dialouge was equally exceptional.

If I were Siskel and the other guy I'd give High Crimes "two thumbs up." (Or would that be four thumbs up?) Whatever, go see this one. Cammy Diaz