Customer Reviews

High Crimes [VHS]

5 star:		(30)
4 star:		(28)
3 star:		(22)
2 star:		(17)
1 star:		(8)

 

 

If you liked Morgan Freeman's and Ashley Judd's performances from "Kiss the Girls" almost 5 years ago, then you'll love them again in "High Crimes", a suspenseful thriller of a movie directed by Carl Franklin ("Devil in a Blue Dress"). The suspense of "High Crimes" takes place inside and outside of the courtroom as well...and it never lets up for a minute! The film focuses on Claire Kubik (Judd), a high-powered attorney, and her husband Tom (Jim Caviezel, "The Count of Monte Cristo"), a successful contractor with his own business, who are madly in love and are planning to have a family. But a burglary at their home triggers a chain of events that shatters their world. The FBI agents arrest Tom. The charge: Under his real name, Ronald Chapman, Tom, as a covert military operative, murdered civilians in El Salvador and has been a fugitive for the past 15 years. Tom admits he is Ronald and he was part of a clandestine operation that did result in a massacre for which Tom was blamed. But he assures Claire of his innocence and that the real perpetrators made Tom their fall guy because he alone could identify them as the men who gave and executed the order. As she prepares her husband in a top-secret military court, Claire realizes she needs help from someone who knows these rules -- and is willing to break them. She enlists the aid of Charlie Grimes (Freeman), a former military attorney who relishes the opportunity to take on the very hierarchy that disgraced him years earlier. And the film goes on from there. "High Crimes" is simply one of the best legal thrillers ever made since "A Civil Action". This is Ashley Judd's best performance since "Kiss the Girls" and "Double Jeopardy" and Morgan Freeman's best performance since "Kiss the Girls" and "Chain Reaction"! With two of the best actors today, a top-notch supporting cast (including Caviezel, Amanda Peet, Tom Bower), and explosive action, "High Crimes" is a film not to be missed! A terrific DVD addition to your collection!

Joseph Finder's bestselling novel comes to life in this well-made, though somewhat predictable, thriller as a savvy and love-struck lawyer is pitted against the military and its covert actions. Ashley Judd plays Claire Kubik, a lawyer on the way to a partnership until her husband is arrested for a military crime he swears he didn't commit. To defend him, Claire must navigate military law and threats, getting in deeper and more dangerously with every half-truth she uncovers.

The plot has fewer holes than most thrillers, although most viewers will see the "twist" a mile away. And that a law firm would jettison one of its promising stars because her husband was arrested is preposterous. Wouldn't they help in the defense? Still, given the holes in most thrillers these days, these lapses are minor. The acting is solid, with Judd creating a gutsy, smart woman who is capable of both unfaltering love and fury. Morgan Freeman does a fine job with his thin material as a once-alcoholic lawyer who is "a thorn in the military's side." James Caveziel, as Claire's husband, is less complex; his pleading got on my nerves by the end. Supporting roles by Amanda Peet (Claire's floozy sister) and Adam Smith (a young military lawyer) are adequate, though not highly memorable.

The strength of this film is in the pacing and the seamless way in which it unfolds. The issues it raises about the United States's involvement in El Salvador provide an interesting, though not fully developed, frame. Highly enjoyable, though not perfect, this film is a good way to spend two hours with a bowl of popcorn at hand.

"High Crimes" is based on a book of the same name by Joseph Finder, and is so frequently the case, the book is better than the movie. Which isn't to say that this is a bad movie; in fact, it is a very good one. In today's world, fascinated with trials and the legal system, the emphasis on courtroom events is to be expected, but as a retired lawyer with 30 years in the Courts, I find this aspect a bit ho-hum. But the underlying plot of a military atrocity being possibly covered up by the court martial of a scapegoat NCO is effectively rendered here. Ashley Judd, who I view as a B- level actress does a commendable job as the lawyer wife of the accused ex-soldier. Morgan Freeman, who I rank as an A- actor, and a favorite of mine, is excellent as the alchoholic ex-military lawyer who tries to help defend the accused, played very well by Jim Caviezel.It is a fast paced flic with a surprise twist ending that is a good effort and an enjoyable movie.

I watched this film and Changing Lanes this weekend, and they both have two things in common -- Amanda Peet and a silver Mercedes C240. I just thought that was interesting. Ok, now back to what I thought of this film. I was disappointed at the trailers released on TV for this film. It kept saying "... surprising ending" with Jim Caviezel looming under a hallway arch. That ruined the film for me. I knew what the ending was going to be even before watching the film. I watched it just to be sure anyway ;). I think Ashley Judd and Morgan Freeman work well together. Ashley Judd plays a no nonsense lawyer trying to defend her husband Jim Caviezel in a military court on the charge of murder. Morgan Freeman plays an ex-drunk attorney who's good at trying military cases. Together they have to peel back the layers of deception and coverups that happened 13 years ago.

This film does not have any powerfully dramatic scenes. It felt like a cookie cutter suspense thriller (the type John Grisham would write). In fact, at times it tries to be light and humorous. The ending did not really provide the audience a reason to empathize with Ashley Judd's character. It was kind of vague.

LEAP rating (each out of 5):
============================
L (Language) - 3 (nothing special, no memorable lines)
E (Erotica) - 0.5 (more from Peet than Judd)
A (Action) - 2.5 (mugging, car "accident")
P (Plot) - 3 (really predictable)

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

This suspenseful drama starring Ashley Judd and Morgan Freeman is really awesome! The surprising turn of events will keep you on the edge of your seat, and the performances are spectacular. Ashley Judd captures the intense emotion of her role exceptionally, and I think this should have been oscar-nominated. I also thought that Morgan Freeman was perfect for the role of the alchoholic lawyer. They are both excellent actors, and their chemistry is undeniable. This is a definete must-see!

There is such a thing as 'too many twists'.

Summary:
Claire Kubik (Ashley Judd) is a high-powered lawyer that is married to Tom Kubik/Ron Chapman (James Caviezel), a former Marine turned 'collector' (I think that's what he is; they don't ever really say). When some kids break into their house, the police take fingerprints and realize that Tom/Ron is actually a 'wanted' Marine because of his participation in the murders of some innocent peasants in El Salvador 10 some odd years before. So, after doing their Christmas shopping one evening, Tom/Ron is arrested by the FBI and sent to a military base to await trial for murder. Of course Claire decides she is going to defend him and picks up Charlie Grimes (Morgan Freeman) who has successfully defended a case against a military court before, as co-counsel.

With a bunch of twists and turns, Claire eventually gets Tom/Ron free only to find out that he really was the one that did it. In the end, Tom/Ron tries to kill her but with the help of one of the peasants that survived the attack (Emilio Rivera (I)), Tom/Ron is killed and Claire is free to set up shop with Charlie as attorneys.

My Comments:
In retrospect, this movie is pretty bad. I was sort of entertained by the movie when watching it, but was never really sucked into it and was able to predict every plot twist.

The major problem with the movie is that it is so contrived. What are the chances a defense lawyer is going to marry an ex-marine in hiding that is in need of an excellent defense lawyer? What are the chances that a peasant from that very village would live in the same city where all of this is taking place? The kids breaking into the house at the beginning of the movie makes no sense. And the biggest problem with the entire movie is the final twist when we find out that Tom/Ron did actually do it. When we find this out the entire movie falls apart. Why would the general dismiss the case? Why would the person that Tom/Ron said did do it, Maj. James Hernandez (Juan Carlos Hernández), act the way he did? It was just too forced to be a convincing and compelling story.

I should mention that Ashley Judd and Morgan Freeman are good in this, but then they are good in most of the films they do. But even their decent acting can't overcome the poor story and plot. As for James Caviezel, I don't particularly care for him as an actor and even though he was not too bad, his performance in The Count of Monte Cristo was much better than this.

Overall, the movie was a let down, even though I did not have high expectations going into it. There are much better movies out there; this one is not worth your time.

It's not a bad movie, but not an outstanding one either. If you're a fan of Judd or Freeman like me, watch it. If not, skip it.

Ashley Judd and Morgan Freeman are truly a dream team. I love to watch the two of them together. Apparently so do the two of them - because Judd was brought this project and requested that Freeman be brought on board.

This movie isn't bad - not bad at all - it's just predictable.

Judd's character and her husband (Jim Cavaziel) are lovey dovey (so you know something bad is going to happen to them) in love. What happens is her husband is arrested by the FBI and the military for mass murder. This is a big deal. Judd, being a famed defense lawyer, takes it upon herself to defend him in military court. She and everyone else knows that he has been framed. Or has he?

Freeman plays a former JAG corp lawyer who is now a recovering alocholic and assists Judd's character with the case.

The film is interesting and has some really exciting scenes, but even they weren't presented as well or as suspenseful as they could have been (I blame this on the director and editor, not the actors).

Speaking of the director...There are times when I really liked what he did with the film and others I didn't. One of the really neat things I liked was that on several occasions he did this "rough close up" (my term) effect that I haven't seen utilized since the old Dirty Harry and Bullitt type movies of the 1970's. It's really kind of cool and fit in this film. It's just a shame that there wasn't more action here. A decent car chase scene built into this film would have fit. There is one, but it's just a few seconds long (shame).

This film just wasn't enough to satisfy my appettite. It was too predictable and the audience only got to really know the lead characters well. It would have helped if we'd had more character data on the "villains" and been sent down a few more wrong paths and provided more red herrings.

I did like this film, but I know that so much more could have been done with it. I'm absolutely nuts about the two leads and I'd pay to see them read the newspaper aloud, but Hollywood really needs to pair the two of them up in an action packed action thriller. Let's get it right the next time.

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.