Watch it at Amazon
25 out of 30 people found the following comment useful :- Did He Do It, Or Didn't He?, 2 October 2006 Author: ccthemovieman-1 from Lockport, NY, United States
This was an involving story of a military man accused of murdering civilians 15 years earlier and then going A.W.O.L. The whole story revolves around one question: did he do it or is he innocent?That question keeps the viewer guessing for much of the film and provides some very good suspense. It's another film, however, in which there is a strong anti-U.S. military flavor, so typical in films since the 1960s. Also, once you know the ending, I doubt if this would be a movie you would watch more than once. However, it's definitely worth a look and will entertain you for about two hours. Ashley Judd, Jim Caviezel and Morgan Freeman are three attractive lead actors, all interesting to watch, as usual.
28 out of 37 people found the following comment useful :- Like Ashley? You'd better., 27 August 2002 Author: George Parker from Orange County, CA USA
Because "High Crimes" sticks Judd in front of the camera in almost every scene as its contrived formula story full of cliche characters wells around her. Fortunately, Judd manages to hold this less than sterling film together as it worms and squirms its way through the story of a happy wife and trial lawyer who finds her husband might not be who she thought he was and has to try to wrest him from the clutches of a military courtmartial, a possible death sentence, and a coverup conspiracy. "High Crimes" is busy enough to hold interest through endless plotholes and implausibilities making for an okay no-brainer couch potato watch. A must see for Judd fans and a so-so watch for all others. (B-)
13 out of 15 people found the following comment useful :- Formulaic story saved by strong performances, 31 August 2002 Author: FlickJunkie-2 from Atlanta, GA
Morgan Freeman and Ashley Judd (`Kiss the Girls') team up again in this courtroom thriller, which is entertaining despite its worn plot and obvious ending. The reason it doesn't descend to a level consistent with the screenplay's unoriginality is the superior acting by the three principal performers.Claire (Ashley Judd) and Tom (James Caviezel) are living an idyllic and romantic married life, trying hard to have a baby. Everything is going swimmingly until one day Tom is arrested and charged with murder and war crimes dating back to his military service and raid in El Salvatore years earlier. It seems Tom's entire identity is a lie and his name is really Ron Chapman, a former Special Forces commando.Claire, who is conveniently a prominent defense lawyer, takes up his case determined to prove he is innocent, choosing to believe his denials despite the fact that everything she knows about him is a fabrication. She hires Charlie Grimes (Morgan Freeman) to assist her because until he became a broken down alcoholic, he was once one of the top lawyers in the military.The film is paced well and balanced between courtroom drama and other related storylines like constant death threats, a dirty general and a mystery man. It is fairly standard fare, but the presentation is engaging.Morgan Freeman is such a terrific actor, that even a trite script can't keep him down. He is wily and insolent as the washed up lawyer with a few tricks left up his sleeve. Freeman projects an unassuming power in his work, full of dynamism yet highly amiable. His interaction with Judd is wonderful, treating her with avuncular kindness and intellectual respect.Ashley Judd is a fine dramatic actor, who returns to serious drama after an ill advised detour into romantic comedy (`Someone Like You'). Judd is razor sharp in this film, coming across as bright, energetic and passionate. She is tough as nails and doesn't back down to pompous military officers or thugs trying to intimidate her.Jim Caviezel rounds out the cast with a strong performance as the accused. This is a tough character because he is so mysterious and duplicitous. Caviezel delivered a strong portrayal of an enigmatic character in `Angel Eyes', so he had some experience with this type of role. He handles the part well, appearing utterly sincere whether his character is telling the truth or not.Amanda Peet gives her standard performance as Claire's hair brained and sex obsessed sister. Peet is no serious dramatic talent, but she has this character down and comes across as believably ditzy and concerned about her sister despite their obvious sibling rivalry.This film doesn't fool anyone with its surprise ending, but it does deliver good suspense, a tried and true formula and some excellent performances. I rated it a 7/10. It's worth a look for viewers who like mysteries.
15 out of 24 people found the following comment useful :- Rotten to the Corps., 4 August 2004 Author: Robert J. Maxwell (rmax304823@yahoo.com) from Deming, New Mexico
*** This comment may contain spoilers ***
Let me see. Ashley Judd is married to this guy who is arrested and charged with massacring innocent civilians in Central America as a special ops agent in the Marine Corps. She's a lawyer and decides to defend him herself but, knowing nothing of Courts Martial, she hired ex-drunk Morgan Freeman to help her. Some shady stuff follows, the charges are withdrawn, and hubby turns out to be guilty after all and tries to off her. That's about all I understood.I used to teach classes to Marines at New River Air Station and every other class or so, one of them would show up with a black eye. I finally mentioned this one night and a student asked, "What does that tell you about the Marine Corps?" The students told me a lot more about the Marine Corps than this movie does. According to the movie the Corps is made up of beefy ugly bruits with haircuts you wouldn't believe, blustering and pompous, but they melt away like Wusses before Ashley Judd's fierce determination.I really like Ashley Judd, by the way. She has a trim figure and a plump, pretty, asymmetrical and highly expressive face. Her left eyebrow is always cocked in disbelief. She has dark greenish irises that have a tendency to roll heavenward when she's exasperated. And she's a competent actress too when given the chance to act. I like Morgan Freeman too. His face is made of lumps, in profile his nose seems lopped off at the end, and in this film his hair is long and wooly and combed crazily backward, as befits a recovering alcoholic. And he's the soul of reliability. If I wanted a doctor or a lawyer I'd look him up in one big jiffy. He can even be a credible drunk. Amanda Peet is properly sluttish but not really necessary. Paul Caveziel as the husband looks the part of the tough Marine but doesn't carry his weight, or maybe it's partly that the role doesn't give him a chance.But -- well, then there's the plot. Forget about any sociopolitical comments on Special Ops in Central America. It's a murder mystery. All along we're led to believe along with Judd that the military is made up of a bunch of conniving morons and heavies. Dark cars and pickups follow Judd around. A gang of unidentified thugs jump out of nowhere and try to beat Freeman's brains out. (Between the two of them, Judd and Freeman spend half the movie with braces, black eyes, and bandages.) In the end, or so it seems, the bad guys aren't the bad guys after all, but the good guy is a bad guy, or else maybe the bad guys and the good guy were both bad guys, or -- well, you get the picture, even if I didn't. The climax is just another woman-who-discovers-her-trusted-partner-is-a-murdere-and-is-now-going-to-murder-her scene. He trusses her up and is about to kill her, although his expectations are unclear. What I mean is, hubby has just had charges of mass murder withdrawn. He hasn't been acquitted so he's still chargeable and under suspicion. And Morgan Freeman has just uncovered evidence that hubby is guilty. Freeman calls Judd and gives her the dope. Now hubby is about to shoot his wife in their own home because she knows he's a murderer, right? But meanwhile Freeman knows too. And there will be blood all over the place if he shoots his wife. What does he have to gain by killing her? Absolutely nothing. It's as if, at this point, the writers had thrown away the rest of the script and said, "Let's stick in a woman-in-jeopardy climax. The audience is too stupid to notice that it doesn't belong."Judd and Freeman aside, this movie really doesn't have much to recommend it.It's doubly disappointing because the director was also responsible for the far superior, "One False Move." Well, maybe some other time.
6 out of 8 people found the following comment useful :- Liberalism on Trial : Splendid movie, 17 December 2006 Author: lord woodburry (deanofrpps@aol.com) from The Society NY
Claire Kubick (Ashley Judd) lives la dolce vita, a dedicated attorney and a young wife anxious to have a baby. Her husband Tom (James Caviezel) and she are out Christmas shopping when they are rushed by FBI. Taken into custody, Tom is charged with (sic) Murder First Degree and Desertion. Unbeknownst to Claire, Tom served in the Marine Corps and deserted pending murder charges, for having shot up a Latin American village. With faith in her husband's innocence, Claire, firmly committed to defend her husband, turns down a deal for six years. Together with an immature, inexperienced Marine legal officer and a washed-out civilian attorney, Claire sets out to ferret out the truth. Just what is the truth and does Claire really want to know? The answer is elementary even to dear Watson. Yet the movie does have some fine points about court-martials in spite of its error in using the civilian term Murder first degree. Conflict of Interest: In Defence of One's Relations The (American) Code of Professional Responsibility says that a lawyer shall exercise independent professional judgement. Obvious this means that the lawyer must stand above outside pressure to zealously represent the client. Less obviously the lawyer must stand apart from the client as well. Lets see this in action. Claire's decision to represent her husband is a bad but understandable. Close relatives should never undertake representation of family members. Yet the trial bar daily violates this apothegm. Egos the size of Texas fuel trial attorneys. None could possibly imagine anyone better. Yet a lawyer must make tough decisions, give advice clients don't want to hear and divorced from the client's emotions. How can our heroine do that when she has been busy trying to make babies with Tom? This conflict in roles between spouse and lawyer looms to great significance in the rejection of a plea to a lesser offense. The decision to turn down the deal for six years is reprehensible, but once again understandable. Despite clear guilt of desertion, it might not appear such to a loving spouse. A spouse might accept as given Tom's declaration that he deserted out of fear; a court-martial would not. Tom's desertion has two aggravating factors: pending charges and in armed conflict. In the military the desertion charge might be considered more serious by many military judges and panel member (jurors) than murdering a foreigner, particularly when the foreigner is killed in reprisal. Punishment parties are regarded as a necessary part of military muscle, even if editors of the Times think it ought not be so. The very admission of such a "fear" in a military court would cook him and push the sentence to the max. The Times to the country, Clemenceau's adage "military justice is to justice as military music is to music" still pertains. As stirring as military music might be, even the Air Force, after legendary General Harmon, chose not to keep up with the pop chart. Military Legal Officers: JAGs on trial The standard charge given by dear old Judge Dennison in my time in the service read, "Military counsel are lawyers duly qualified by the bars of their home state and are certified by the Judge Advocate General to try and defend court-martials." What exactly does that mean? The nerdy military defense counsel is characteristic, not merely a micro-aberration. Most military lawyers are new to law, young and inexperienced. To a polished lawyer they might appear to be utterly incapable. "Was I ever that bad?," Claire might have enquired. (You were even if your Texas-sized ego can't admit.) The appeal of the military in recruiting is precisely that the young lawyer will get many early opportunities to defend major cases. Everyone learns somewhere, a thought which perhaps would not seem comforting to Tom but is the very point of JAG recruiting officers. What responds to this call is "a wide variety of talent." Do you suppose it could be any different? In this movie, the young lieutenant, if focused at all,concentrates his energies not on the case but on Claire's rather loose sister who has become the defence team's camp follower. Military society is a close one. Thus the prosecutors and defense counsel do more than drink together: enemies in court, friends without. Does this work in the defendant's favor? I doubt it. A very sharp prosecutor might have abandoned the war crimes charge which could draw empathy for the accused from a military panel (jury) in order to concentrate on the desertion charge which will earn the accused no favor. Yet, although not discussed in this movie, the military ties the hands of the prosecutor as much or at least as effectively by limiting the prosecutor's tactical discretion as it mutes the defense by over-loading it with youth and inexperience. Effete Liberal Society The movie does not limit itself to a probing critique of the JAG Corps; it strikes out at effete liberal society and its askewed values. Theoretically as part of a commitment to an independent legal profession, civilian society lives by the rule that lawyers must rush to the defence of unpopular causes and unpopular people. Indeed Claire is celebrated for having taken on the defence of slimy characters who have committed evil deeds. But liberal society sanctions defence for some evils and not others. The fanfare and flush of victory in a miscreant's cause are just tapering off when, without much ceremony, Claire is tossed from the exalted corner office for undertaking the defence of an accused war criminal. According to its own standard of political correctness, liberal society picks and chooses which nastiness is nice enough to be defended.
4 out of 5 people found the following comment useful :- Totally illogical plot, 26 April 2003 Author: Heinz57 from Colorado Springs
Though the acting is first rate, to be expected from a first class cast, the logic used is so badly flawed, it severely impacted the enjoyment of this movie for me. The only thing uncertain is, whether the writer simply has never heard of, much less understands, logic, or whether he used this as a gimmick to muddy the waters to the point where no one would be able to predict the outcome, BECAUSE of the extensive use of illogic. I would give it at most 2 stars of five, and that high only because I really like Morgan Freeman and Ashley Judd (not necessarily in this order ;-) ) (Why did they agree to make such a non sequitur dreck?)
4 out of 5 people found the following comment useful :- High Crimes: 7/10, 10 October 2002 Author: movieguy1021 (Movieguy1021@comcast.net) from Anywhere, USA
In High Crimes, director Carl Franklin shows us an ideal life gone wrong. Claire Kubik is one of them. She's happily married to husband Tom (Jim Caviezel). In fact, he's such a great husband that we don't find out his occupation. Claire, who is played actually well by Ashley Judd, couldn't love Tom more. Until he gets arrested for something that he supposedly didn't do. Did he or did he not? An hour and a half is spent contenplating the fact.The acting is surprisedly well, especially by Caviezel. I didn't understand why he had that "outburst" at the end, but that's a minor detail. Judd is equally good as Claire, except she seemed to be too slow at some parts. So did the pacing. It seemed to drag on a little, and the genre seemed to be more like a courtroom drama instead of a crime thriller.Morgan Freeman is OK as the lawyer Claire hires. His acting seemed a little forced at times, though. The plot, though nothing new, was one of those that were predictable, but I was enjoying it too much to care. It's very entertaining if you just sit back and watch it instead of scrutinizing every little detail of it.But, at the end, after the final court scene, it seems to continue on for a little long after spending an hour and a half leading up to that part. The running time was a little long. And the ever-lovable Amanda Peet plays a role where she could have gotten more time and shown off her acting ability. If you sit back for two hours and leave your mind on hold, it's a very entertaining yarn.My rating: 7/10Rated PG-13 violence and some language.
3 out of 4 people found the following comment useful :- An Enjoyable night at the movies!, 5 May 2002 Author: Robert W. (Robert_duder@hotmail.com) from Ontario, Canada
I had little expectations for this film but I was pleasantly surprised when I was sitting in the middle of it. The film is yes perhaps predictable and we've seen it all before but something about it is full of high energy and scares and thrills and it's the perfect night at the movies. Ashley Judd plays a high profile attourney who's life is turned upside down when her carpenter husband is arrested for murder years earlier while in the army. The twist is she didn't know he was ever in the army and everything from her husbands name to where he was during the murder is all new to her. Still she manages to trust him as best she can and offers to help the young, naieve army attourney who has been assigned to her husbands case. To help them both with this heavy case that could bring the death penalty to her beloved husband they hire former Army Lawyer Charlie Grimes (played by Morgan Freeman.) Freeman is...well he's Morgan Freeman he doesn't really have to BE anything...but as usual he churns out a wonderful performance as the alcoholic lawyer who was discharged for dishonarable conduct. The case unfolds like a perfect mystery as the team of three along with Judd's sister played by Amanda Peet (who turns out can actually act...who knew) tries to find the truth behind the military cover up that ended up with the deaths of nine innocent civilians. All the pieces fit together and you're following the film on the edge of your seat and rooting for Judd's character. Everyone in this film plays a part and they play it just wonderfully. This movie is a real nail biter, with plenty of cheap scares and drama. Morgan Freeman, who during the course of the movie goes from recovered Alcoholic to re-newed Alcoholic is interesting enough to hold the whole movie but he doesn't have to. Unfortunately as with some good things...there is always a downside. The ending is a cheap, ridiculous thrill that is more of a let down than anything. After collecting all these facts that add up perfectly in everyone's mind including the audience, every single one of those facts are forgotten and tossed aside in order for a ridiculous supposed "surprise ending" which is not a shock or surprise or even a "oh my" ending. Such an enormous let down for such a fantasic film. Why they thought they had to end it like this is ridiculous. However...in saying that don't let that stop you from checking out this movie because it's well worth your ten bucks at the theatre, you won't be disappointed. I give this film a strong 8.5/10 but easily...without the ending could be taken as a 10/10 movie.
7 out of 12 people found the following comment useful :- Jon Monsarrat review: moving, but plot holes, 12 April 2002 Author: Jon Monsarrat (jonmon) from United States
I'm an action movie guy, so "High Crimes" is right up my alley. And I enjoyed "Kiss the Girls" (although not Nurse Betty).In fact, I did enjoy High Crimes, which is a standard Hollywood suspense / crime flick. It was only afterwards that I realized that it was all smoke and mirrors. The scary music and choreography succeeded in setting up a suspenseful, moderately engaging film that I would call solid, nothing special.But after leaving the theater, I was surprised to get caught out. Usually I am quick-witted enough to notice. "High Crimes" contains some throw-away characters, is a little too clever for its own good with the plot twists, and some loose ends dangle at the end, which I did not find satisfying.The acting is OK and it's hard to make Ashley Judd look bad, even when her on-screen character has some bruises.Who should see this film:-- Action / suspense movie buffs who have nothing better todo on a rainy day, and who aren't expecting the well-plottedand original Kiss the Girls.-- I can't think of anyone else.I'll give High Crimes a 6 out of 10.
1 out of 1 people found the following comment useful :- Bordering on the dumbest movie I've ever paid money to see., 31 October 2007 Author: firephly-1 from United States
Let me see now. The movie opens with Judd getting a child molester off on a legal technicality and her law firm promotes her for it. But when her firm finds out that she's representing a (supposedly) wrongly accused military hero in a high-profile case, they make it clear her job is in jeopardy.It goes downhill from there.The Marines spend a good deal of time trying to kill Judd et al. The only reason for them to be doing so is because the accused is innocent and proving that will embarrass the government and/or the Marine Corps. But it turns out the accused was guilty as sin. So why were the Marines trying to black-bag Judd and Freeman? About the only mainstream action films I've ever seen that were worse than this are "No Retreat, No Surrender" (when the ghost of Bruce Lee showed up speaking badly dubbed English, 2/3 of the audience in the theater got up and left) and the Burt Reynolds movie "Heat" (the DVD version isn't gawdawful (merely awful), but the theatrical release looked like 3 badly done attempts at a TV pilot movie cobbled together into some sort of revenue-recovery-project movie).Not even if you're an fan of "bad" movies should see this piece of garbage. It's not even "funny" bad. Just bad.
Add another comment
