1. The HTF Tapatalk application has been discontinued. Please see the thread in the Forum Help & Feedback area for more information.
    Dismiss Notice

*** Official "HIGH CRIMES" Discussion Thread

Discussion in 'Archived Threads 2001-2004' started by Robert Crawford, Apr 5, 2002.

  1. Robert Crawford

    Robert Crawford Moderator
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Dec 9, 1998
    Messages:
    30,509
    Likes Received:
    5,786
    Location:
    Michigan
    Real Name:
    Robert
    This thread is now designated the Official Discussion Thread for "High Crimes". Please, post all comments, links to outside reviews, film and box office discussion items to this thread.
    All HTF member film reviews of "High Crimes" should be posted to this thread.
    Thank you for your consideration in this matter.
    Crawdaddy
     
  2. Rob Willey

    Rob Willey Screenwriter

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2000
    Messages:
    1,319
    Likes Received:
    60
    Real Name:
    Rob
    Nothing about the trailer for this one particularly appealed to me except the very end where it said "Directed by Carl Franklin". I'm such a big fan of his One False Move, I'm now interested in seeing how good the reviews are for his latest project.

    Rob
     
  3. Alex Spindler

    Alex Spindler Producer

    Joined:
    Jan 23, 2000
    Messages:
    3,971
    Likes Received:
    0
    From Terrell's Review

    2. If you have a witness in the film that said he didn't do it, then why do you have the defendant admit to being guilty in the end, completely making the witness who said he was innocent either lying, or completely irrelevant. Lack of logic.


    The witness, in this case the guy from El Salvador, only said specifically about the bombing incident. He was scared off by security before expanding on his information. I think he knew that her husband was really guilty, which was what I think the line about her not "caring about the truth, only about saving her husband". I don't remember him every saying that the one eyed guy was responsible for the massacre, only for the bombing. My thinking is that he wanted her to expose the general because he was basically reponsible for the bombing and the subsequent massacre.

    And the soldier was coerced into giving an airtight case. He wasn't anywhere near the scene, but I guess they wanted to have unanimous accounts on the incident.


    Not to say that the movie wasn't flawed, but that part seemed consistent.
     
  4. Terrell

    Terrell Producer

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2001
    Messages:
    3,216
    Likes Received:
    0
    I thought I remembered him specifically saying when asked did he"shoot" the people, he said no. And then he said the officer asked him was he certain because his career was only the line.


    Maybe that wasn't the case. But it sure sounded like that's what the military officer was asking him.
     
  5. Alex Spindler

    Alex Spindler Producer

    Joined:
    Jan 23, 2000
    Messages:
    3,971
    Likes Received:
    0
    Remember him saying "he wasn't even in the area". He couldn't have seen what was going on. He even made the point that all the other people said he had done the shooting, so what was one more witness.
     
  6. Seth Paxton

    Seth Paxton Lead Actor

    Joined:
    Nov 5, 1998
    Messages:
    7,585
    Likes Received:
    0
    High Crimes 3 of 10
    Semi-interesting story, but basically cliche-ridden for most of it. That cliched effect is tripled by the horrifically cliched direction, straight from a TV movie of the week meets MTV video. I'm not sure that I've seen Franklin do better work, but maybe some of it was also the cinematographer. But someone made some dreadful fake-dramatic choices with many shots.
    The dramatic zoom-in, one of the worst. And it's used really unnecessarily as well. It only adds to the hokey effect of seeing a film that you've already seen 20 times before.
    Beyond that, Freeman is outstanding, really incredible in such a run-of-the-mill role. It's nice to see an actor of color get a role that is totally removed from his ethnicity/skin color in any way. Freeman is so good at playing these lovable good guys too. He's smart, he's likeable, and he's not oppressed or treated differently or "down with the brothers" for some narrative angle in which only he can get info from other black characters.
    He's just a guy, period, a skillful lawyer no less. It's sad how rare that role remains for any actors of color, black or otherwise.
    Freeman has to be the champ among black actors at getting/taking/working these roles. Unforgiven makes nothing of his color, neither does Se7en. Time and again he is given interesting roles, challenging roles, and roles that seem in no way hinged to him being black, either in dialog or plot points. I find it very refreshing. Hey, how many black actors get to play the president? That in itself seems like a casting miracle and a long way from Glory or Driving Miss Daisy (which he was still awesome in of course).
    Angela Bassett has taken several "neutral" roles as well, ones that even go beyond any female stereotyping - Strange Days, Contact, The Score.
    Sam Jackson does so much freaking work that some of his roles do fit this neutral type as well. But obviously he has been waist-deep in "black" roles with stuff like Shaft or Jackie Brown as well (n****r every other word, hitting that black-as-gangster stereotype hard). He's so all over the place though that it shows he is more than capable of doing whatever it takes.
    Compare this with the Oscar-winning roles that Denzel and Berry just won for. Great acting, but clearly roles specific to their skin color. Plenty of white actors are given and rewarded for work that has nothing to do with them being white (like a key plot point). It's way overdue for such roles to become commonplace for black actors (as well as actors of other ethnicity) as well. It's a very short list of actors that have been able to get several of these neutral roles. Start thinking Asian or Hispanic actors and it's probably even worse.
    Just imagine that if every Italian actor always had to play a mobster, or if every Irish actor had to play Irish, etc. More often than not these actors are allowed to change their accent and play AGAINST their nationality or even ethnicity, rather than being forced to conform to it.
    It's just so silly to me.
    Also, High Crimes does break one other H'wood convention. The May-December romance is not used to build a relationship between the leads. Instead they are able to just be friends, period. Sadly that also is a curveball from modern Hollywood standards.
    Maybe I noticed these 2 items so much because of how cliched the rest of the film was. It stood out when the film walked the other direction from such favorite cliches after giving in to so many others.
    It's a lot to walk away from a 3/10 film with I suppose. [​IMG]
     

Share This Page