High Crimes

Rating:
Summary: Highly, highly recommended
Review: This movie took me by surprise. I was expecting a standard Hollywood crap-a-thon, but instead, I got a brilliantly acted, sharply directed and tightly written bullet of a thriller. By far the most exciting movie so far this year ... The DVD has the director's commentary -- should be interesting. Definitely a buy.

Rating:
Summary: High Expectations, Low Results: Mediocre Thriller from Judd
Review: Beside the critically praised "Devil in a Blue Dress," Carl Franklin's "High Crimes" looks inferior in every respect -- story, predictable; characters, unmemorable, and even acting itself on the side of reliable Ashley Judd and Morgan Freeman, not-so-impressive as the hitman Don Cheadle in the former. In a word, this film is a great disappointment.

The plot is about a first-rate lawyer Claire Kubik (Judd) whose life changes out of the blue when her beloved husband is arrested on the street of San Fransico by FBI. Her love Jim Caviezel, it is claimed, is in fact an ex-marine who is once charged for killing innocent civilians during the mission in El Salvador. Claire stands up for her husband, now in unfamiliar territory of military court, with a help from Morgan Freeman's laywer Grimes, but she soon finds out that "Everything You trust, Everything You Know, May be a Lie," as the tugline of the film goes.

The film treads on every clithed method of spending time, like some made-for-TV thriller, and practically what it shows on the screen is only the basics of story without any added skills or flavor. There is no time for us to be drawn into this too rudimentary storyline, as we only observe the progress of the "case," which is too busy to explain itself before the audience. The "by the number" fashion of unfolding the story is too painful to watch for all the good cast thrown in this film.

If you think my review too unkind, compare this with such works as "Rules of Engagement" by William Friedkin. The latter is a flawed film, but knows how to generate tension of the war, make the audience fell the need for the characters to regain their lost dignity, and most of all, the atomosphere of the court scenes, which are sadly lacking in "High Crimes." Surely we are told here that in the military world, it is not "judge", but "investigating officier"; it is not "jury", but "members." However, this image of rigid, strict, by-the-book authority of the marine is not fully developed, and the case ends somehow in a disappointing way. Like this (at first) promising sides of the film, many things pop up in the film, only to be wasted in a half-baked way; we see romance, we see war; we see the court; we see Amanda Peet as a vivacious sister of Clair, but none of them work, probably because of the pointless development of them.

Freeman shows unexpected comical side with his acting as a down-and-out lawyer, and Judd herself is good (but often painful to watch, again after "Kiss the Girls") but those two cannot save the too routine storytelling of the film. Even the location of San Fransisco and its dry, moody picture cannot help much in this low patches of "High Crimes"

Rating:
Summary: Makes it real
Review: This movie is one of the best out in todays world of movie. It holds your interest and give you good entertainment for your money. Its to bad Hollywood can't make more like this. I can't wait to get it on DVD. If you don'r see this, you will have miss a great movie.

Rating:
Summary: Ho Hum...if you've got nothing better to do....
Review: This film has some great acting talent in it: Morgan Freeman, Jim Caviezel, Ashley Judd and Amanda Peet. If they had been given a good script, this "could have been a contender." As it is, it is Exhibit A for if you throw great acting talent at a limp vehicle, it will remain mostly limp. There are some moments that are good, simply because these actors are capable of rising about the predictible, threadbare material. Someone should have shown everyone involved in this film though a screening of Lumet's "The Verdict" if they wanted to see what a great courtroom drama with other plot issues was all about. This is about an ex-Marine, Caviezel, who supposedly ran amok in el Salvador killing civilians. He is found living under an alias, put on trial and his wife is allowed to defend him (Judd). She hires Freeman as her co-counsel since he is an actual military lawyer. From that moment on, it is a paint by numbers screenplay and I can't help but wonder why director Carl Franklin has sunk to such depths with his material. I remember the days when he did bold, edgy, risky work and evidently those moments are now in the past.

Rating:
Summary: Highly Disappointing.
Review: 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.

Rating:
Summary: Who's Joseph Finder?
Review: I am writing this review to all of those out there who have read this book. If you have not, please do. The book has fifty times the action.

Anyway, I went in expecting the basic story outline. I was sadly disappointed. For all those of you who have read the book, I will briefly list the major differences. First of all, Ashley Judd plays "Claire Kubik" and her husband is "Tom Kubik." What's the problem? In the book, her husband is concealing the name "Ron Kubik," and has an alias of "Tom Chapman." Very confusing for us bookworms.

Second, how many murder specifications was he accused for? In the book, it's 87...the movie, it's 9. Enough said.

By the way, did you know that in the movie, Claire does not have a 9 year old daughter named Annie? In fact, she has no children.
I have a 1,000 word limit, so I have to make this brief. In the movie: General Marks does not testify, the polygraph scenes are distorted, Claire has no private investigator, Claire never went to Harvard (nor does she teach a class), the Spanish guy was NOT in the book, and Hernandez plays a small role.

However, despite all these faults, I do believe that this movie was a great production. Morgan Freeman and Ashley Judd do act out their parts flawlessly. Action scenes, and SOME events are well carried out. Five of my friends who saw the movie with me but didn't read the book said it was great.

I encourage everyone who has read this review to PLEASE read the book before seeing this movie. It is 382 pages long, but it's so action packed that I could not put it down. Those of you who have seen the movie, the book ending is at least two thousand times better. Thanks for taking the time to listen.

P.S. Readers, the beginning and ending of the book are not portrayed at ALL in the movie.

Rating:
Summary: awesome
Review: i went to see this movie last weekend and it was great. they had u up until the end. it was worth every penny. i would recomend this to anyone who likes thrillers or an adrenaline rush.

Rating:
Summary: Enjoyed
Review: I absolutely love Ashley Judd and Morgan Freeman. They are fabulous in this movie. It was worth the price of admission and I was glad I watched it. The ending was disappointing and somewhat predictable but overall it was entertaining.

Rating:
Summary: Not what I expected
Review: When I went to the movies on April 5th I expected sheer thrills and suspense with a good storyline. I got one and some of the others. The acting was very good, but could've been better. Jim Caveizal throws down a great performance as the husband of an attorney, cheesily acted by Ashley Judd. Morgan Freeman does very good as an old drunken attorney and Amanda Peete puts contributes with a fair wild sister. The storyline was great, but the filmed dragged on. Yet, it results in a surprising ending that chilled me through.

Rating:
Summary: Riddled with predictability and lackluster solutions.
Review: Proving their worth as actors and their insatiable ability to carry substandard material to undeserved heights, Ashley Judd and Morgan Freeman pair up once again in "High Crimes," a political thriller with one too many agendas. The film introduces various important characters who populate various subplots that range from intrical to downright out of place; the problem with this is that the movie decides to resolve that which needs no outright solution, and leaves the far more interesting material out to dry.

Judd stars as Claire Kubik, an successful attorney who lives outside of San Francisco with her ex-Marine husband, Tom, played by Jim Caviezel. The two enjoy a fabulous lifestyle, that which allows them such privileges as the ability to engage in [intercourse] before Claire trots off to work, and provides them with ample time to spend together (you know, the whole happily-ever-after shebang). Accompanying Claire's status as a testament to her wealth is her dead-beat sister, Jackie (Amanda Peet), whom she gives money to keep her on her feet; she will later be needlessly stitched into the story for reasons beyond my comprehension.

The movie picks up a slight amount of momentum when Tom is taken by FBI agents, while Claire tries desperately to uncover the charges. She is told that the man she knows to be Tom Kubik is actually named Ron Chapman, whom, she later discovers, is being accused of the murder of nine innocent civilians in a small town in Mexico during an operation to root out a nefarious terrorist. Tom/Ron persists that he is innocent, offering to take a polygraph test for Claire, and warning her of just how dangerous those surrounding her can be.

So what's a gal to do? In this case, enlist the help of a local attorney who has a history with the bottle, and basically throw around some bad ... attitude and acting zeal in order to beat the bad guys. This gives Judd a chance to reunite with "Kiss the Girls" costar Freeman, who jumps right back into his Alex Cross persona as Charles Grimes. Together, the two uncover clues and small pieces of evidence, that which leads Claire to suspect a conspiracy aimed at bringing her husband down.

The acting zeal for the film is incredible, allowing Judd and Freeman many opportunities to play off one another's smarts and shortcomings. Anyone who appreciated their performances in "Girls" will no doubt find a comfort zone in watching these two amazing talents resurrect their charisma.

The film itself fares less well. It poses the question of Tom/Ron's innocence in a manner that is formulaic and predictable, supplying us with several tear-filled moments of tenderness between husband and wife that showcase good acting, but do nothing to deter our own theories about his character. This plot line paves the road for the film's anti-climactic conclusion, where what we suspect will happen does, and what we hope won't happen also does.

And then there is the issue of the various subplots I mentioned above, from the useless involvement of Jackie to the inclusion of Grimes' problem with alcohol. Such scripting tactics are exactly the thing the film doesn't need, and yet, it sees fit to offer solutions to these problems, rather than tackle a resolution to the more intriguing matters at hand.

I commend director Carl Franklin for his ability to instill some measurable suspense within the overall lacking story, but Freeman and Judd remain the sole life force of the film, playing their characters with a zeal and wit that is a welcome throwback to their previous interaction. The film wants to deal with big issues like corrupted ideals, conspiracy amongst those whose job is to serve and protect, and so on, but in the end, "High Crimes" is just another courtroom drama that is riddled with predictability and lackluster solutions to uninvolving problems.