Rating:
Director: Carl Franklin
Writers: Yuri Zeltser & Cary Bickley
Producers: Arnon Milchan, Janet Yang, Jesse B' Franklin
Director of Photography: Theo Van De Sande
Cast: Ashley Judd, Morgan Freeman, Jim Caviezel, Amanda Peet
| HIGH CRIMES Rating: Director: Carl Franklin Writers: Yuri Zeltser & Cary Bickley Producers: Arnon Milchan, Janet Yang, Jesse B' Franklin Director of Photography: Theo Van De Sande Cast: Ashley Judd, Morgan Freeman, Jim Caviezel, Amanda Peet |
|
Review by: Ryan
Kugler
4/7/02
High Crimes is a hybrid of two of Hollywood's most popular genres, the military courtroom drama and the woman-in-jeopardy thriller. There are some good qualities and successful things in the production, but for the most part, it's standard Hollywood fare that doesn't really attempt anything new. If you've seen other films of it's kind like Rules of Engagement or Double Jeopardy (also starring Ashley Judd), or even this film's trailer, then you know exactly what you're going to get, plot point by plot point. It's one big game of connect-the-dots.
Ashley Judd plays Claire; a successful lawyer happily married to Jim Caviezel's Ron. They're the perfect couple without a care in the world, whose lives hit a snag when Ron is arrested and thrown into a military prison. At first, Claire doesn't know what the charges are or why the military is involved, but soon learns that Ron's being accused of the murder of nine civilians in El Salvador twelve years earlier.
Claire, who had no idea of Ron's previous military involvement or that this isn't even his real name, decides to take the case, along with a younger lawyer who's been assigned to his counsel. Before you can say A Few Good Men, Judd goads the burnt out, alcoholic, renegade lawyer Charlie Grimes (Morgan Freeman) into helping out with her husband's defense, since military law seems to be his specialty. Soon, the little guys are taking on some of the highest-ranking members of the military, all while Judd isn't even 100% sure of her husband's innocence.
This intriguing and well-done set-up gives way to a predictable and formulaic structure. We basically spend the next ninety minutes alternating between three types of scenes. A few minutes of the lawyers hashing out the next day's agenda, alternates with typical courtroom scenes, which alternates with Claire being stalked at night by military types angered by her involvement. And then, there's that "test screening" ending. By this I mean that there was probably a different ending originally attached that didn't satisfy test audiences, so the director was forced to tack on a different one. This film just doesn't know when to end, so we're given a false, happy one, followed twenty minutes later by a cynical and far less satisfying one.
The only real surprise that the film delivered for me was that it was directed by Carl Franklin. Yes indeed, the same Franklin that previously helmed the independent classic One False Move and the brilliantly acted adaptation of Devil in a Blue Dress. I suppose that the lure of a big slick Hollywood production enticed the director, who probably felt he could bring something new and exciting to both of these stale genres. Unfortunately, the generic script, predictable plot and overwrought dialogue overwhelm his visual style and the generally good performances that he elicits from his professional and accomplished cast.
Judd is good (which isn't really surprising, as she plays these kinds of heroines almost exclusively) and has some nice moments with co-star Freeman. The two have worked together in the past on the less successful Kiss the Girls, and they have nice chemistry together. Freeman is the film's strongest asset. He's perfect as the unconventional and unpredictable hippie lawyer who just happens to be "the best there is." He's one of our very finest actors, but continually picks projects of the lowest common denominator. I mean, can you really name a good movie that he's been in besides Glory, Seven and Shawshank Redemption? I can't. Caviezel is pretty much wasted in the thankless role of the accused husband. It's not all his fault as there's not much for him to work with, since almost all of his scenes consist of sitting in court looking worried. He gets some juicy scenes at the end, but it's not enough to call this a good performance, merely a serviceable one.
It's time for Hollywood to inject a little
originality into these types of films or stop making them altogether
(which won't happen, as they're usually quite successful). With
this latest attempt, we don't really get any surprises and the
ending is over-the-top and ludicrous, but I suppose I was somewhat
entertained by the melodramatic aspects and Freeman's performance.
I know that this is hardly a ringing endorsement, but if you like
these types of films and Death to Smoochy is sold-out,
you could do far worse than High Crimes.
Agree? Disagree? Talk about it in the forums.
|
|
|
|
|