"Just Cause" was one of those movies that was set up in such a perfect way, and had one of the worst follow-throughs. It's really disappointing to see movies suck when they have so much potential, but this film is one of the best examples of that.
It's been a while since I've seen this film, but from what I can remember, Sean Connery plays an author/lawyer who takes on a case of someone who is on death row and he attempts to prove that he is innocent, all while there are multiple things going on at the same time. The idea for it seems fine, like I said, it's just the execution.
As the movie gradually progresses, you begin to learn that there really is no real depth to anything. Each characters personality is predictable and contrived. The performances from Connery, Fishburne and Harris are all meh, and that really takes the positive element out of it. You start to get bored after a while, mainly because you don't feel any attachment to the characters.
The one main problem with "Just Cause" is that its been done a thousand times. It doesn't take any risks to set itself up as a unique thriller. It takes the easy way out, and for a premise like this, thats really not the way to go. Because the audience has seen this type of film a thousand times, they see the ending coming from a mile away. It's the predictability that ruins it. The Glincher siblings played it safe, and for a film like this, it was the wrong play to make.