High Crimes (2002)

Brilliant and touching

best movie i've ever seen.

Absolutely the worst movie.

The first must-see film of the year.

First and foremost, let me put my pants on...Just kidding there... Seriously though, the thing here above ALL else, to me anyway, is that this is an EXPERTLY crafted Thriller in just about every way. Yes, WITHOUT the very gifted hand of this director, then perhaps some of the complaints others have mentioned here might have some merit. But, to me, the fact that the dang film was made SO frigg'n well, kind of excuses some of the more familiar aspects of the movie.Some here have stated that the movie has many 'Cliches'; this couldn't be farther from the truth. True, the story is not hugely original, but the quality of the execution and the acting are absolutely top notch. Jim Caviezel and Morgan Freeman are outstanding. Specifically, the way that the pacing and the scenes are crafted and put together, and the performances the director evoked from the actors are extremely well done. The story is gripping and fully engrossing. The Thriller and legal aspects of it are also most involving.Now, with that said... There is just ONE rather weighty detraction... BUT... and it is a very BIG BUT like Mariah Carey's... In my lowly and wretched opinion, I do not think that it ultimate takes away from the fact that WHILE you are watching the film, your belief is fully suspended and you are completely involved. Also, it doesn't take away from the expert way the film is put together and crafted and the way it is handled; that is pure art. However... and I am NOT gonna be specific here because I do NOT want to take away anything at all from your enjoyment of the film. I will just simply say that it has something to do with when the film is over... That is all I will say...One of the better crafted Thrillers that I have seen in quite a while; I remember when I very first saw it, that I didn't particularly like it. BUT... the main reason for this was that I didn't initially care for the ending (which I allude to above). However, I must say that now, several years later, I MUCH more appreciate the outstanding quality of the film and it's execution in and of itself. And, I now feel that that fact alone greatly outweighs my original reasons for not liking it. Sometimes a movie is made SO dang well, that even after it is over and you may question some of the specific developments in the story, you still come away feeling that it was a good and entertaining film...

Morgan Freeman and Ashley Judd, after starring in 1997's Kiss the Girls, reunite in this story about powerful attorney Claire Kubik (Judd), who finds her husband Tom Kubik (Jim Caviezel) arrested for the murder of Latin American villagers while he was in the Marines, with the name of Sgt. Ron Chapman. Claire teams up with Charlie Grimes (Freeman) to navigate through the military justice system in attempts to clear Tom, all while dealing with the deaths of key eyewitnesses.Like Kiss the Girls, this movie is full of mystery and tension that will captivate an audience and keep the movie's pace going strong despite its simple and predictable plot. Freeman is a calm yet dynamic actor, which is perfect in his role as he teams up once again with Judd, who herself gave an energetic and dramatic performance in her attorney role. Jim Caviezel gave a strong and mysterious performance as the accused Tom, whose unknown background will leave the audience guessing.With some good suspense and tension, it's a worthy courtroom drama for a popcorn movie night.Grade B-

A woman has to defend her husband after she learns that he may have killed someone while still serving in the military. she has to learn the ways of the military court, as civilian laws to not apply in military court., Morgan Freeman is pretty good in this,, Ashley Judd does a decent job,, the story however, is full of holes and hard to follow as far as the whole military cover up scandal going on.. Bruce Davison and Amanda Peet have supporting roles in the movie as well. our military officer accused of the crime comes off as a decent enough guy, but soon we learn that maybe he isn't who we think he is,, is there a military cover-up going on,, will the wife keep defending her husband,, watch and find out,, not a bad movie,, just a little hard to follow in the middle of the movie, made it a little confusing to piece together for me .

Lawyer Claire Kubik (Ashley Judd) finds herself in an interesting situation when her husband, Tom Kubik (Jim Caviezel) is arrested, and she has to defend him in court. Tom is revealed to actually be Ron Chapman, and is on trial for murdering Latin American villagers while he was in the marines. Claire finds that she will need help with the case, and is assisted by Charlie Grimes (Morgan Freeman). Most of the witnesses it seems have happened to die, and Claire will have a hard time proving the innocence of her husband.This film really fell short for me. It had a somewhat interesting plot, but the entire thing I thought to be entirely predictable, and I found myself having figured out the ending not too long through the movie. Which in the end was one of my bigger problems with the film. I read and heard many people saying "unpredictable" and "great twist", but I honestly just did not get it. Nowadays it seems that I just cannot hardly ever find a film that has a great ending, a few, but not many. All I can find myself thinking is where is Alfred Hitchcock? And to make it worse I thought the script was terrible. However, the film was not all bad. Ashley Judd and Morgan Freeman's performances were good, and it made most of the movie enjoyable. Jim Caviezel was good as well, but everyone else was mediocre, so in the end it did not really work out for me.Overall, High Crimes was not a great film, but interesting court scenes, and a few good performances by popular actors made this movie enjoyable for most crowds.