High Crimes Reviews
The reason I say this is because if I had such a thing as a list of good looking actors, then my guess would be, Jim Caviezel would be at the top.
VERDICT: Watchable, but forgetable
[font=Arial][color=darkred]Judd is a hot-shot attorney (is there any other kind in the movies?) happily married to retired military man Ronald Chapman (Jim Caviezel). As they walk merrily from holiday shopping arm-in-arm they are besieged by a police sting and Ron is hauled away. An angry Judd learns that the military is charging her husband with massacring civilians in a brief engagement in El Salvador in the 1980s. Judd is determined to prove her hubby?s innocence and contacts the wily and aged defense lawyer Charlie Grimes (Freeman). And, you guessed it, he?s a crafty ole? dog that doesn?t ?play by all the rules.? So they team up and try to trump the military court and endless shadowy figures behind the scenes.[/color][/font]
[font=Arial][color=darkred]The killing point for ?High Crimes? is that the movie has a giant black hole of a plot that keeps expanding and sucking more inside. There are more subplots than you can shake a stick at, that is, if you?re one of those people that shake sticks at movies. Also included in the whole convoluted mess is an appointed defense attorney (Adam Scott), Judd?s sister (Amanda Peet) who moves in on base, Bruce Davison as a general looking to hide some things, a distrusting former friend of Ron?s, and even in the most far-fetched way a shady character who just happens to have been a boy who witnessed the El Salvador massacre.[/color][/font]
[font=Arial][color=darkred]With ?High Crimes? the film keeps twisting and turning and dropping red herrings, but there?s much too much going on and too little of it mattering. It seems like the film embodies a shark, afraid that if it stops moving it will die.[/color][/font]
[font=Arial][color=darkred]Director Carl Franklin has officially failed to deliver on whatever promise he showed with his earlier films ?Devil in a Blue Dress? and ?One False Move?. He mines the material as far as he can but seems uncertain as to where this large revolving tale is going. Inconsistencies and logic loop holes abound. ?High Crimes? seems exactly like one of those movies where the book was so good but then they lost so much of its feel during the translation of mediums.[/color][/font]
[font=Arial][color=darkred]Judd and Freeman do credible jobs and have a fairly sparkling chemistry between them; however, this is not a movie either will place at the top of their acting oeuvre. Her scenes in the court room as the strong willed woman give about all the characterization that she gets in the film. Freeman remains solid, despite being aloof for most of his screen time.[/color][/font]
[font=Arial][color=darkred]?High Crimes? is like a pulpy formulaic puff piece that keeps squirming and writhing until the lights in the theater go back up. It may be harmless but it?s also joyless. But at least, for now, it stops Freeman from doing another serial killer movie. For now?[/color][/font]
[font=Arial][color=darkred]Nate's Grade: C[/color][/font]
Claire defends her husband in the court case with the help of another lawyer, Charles Grimes (Morgan Freeman).They played off each other perfectly and Amanda Peet was very watchable in her underwritten role.
Despite its flaws, I was entertained and engrossed by the intriguing storyline but the final twist unfortunately became all too evident because the entire movie tried to convince us otherwise.