*** Official "HIGH CRIMES" Review Thread

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

  1. Robert Crawford

    Robert Crawford Moderator

    Dec 9, 1998
    Likes Received:
    Real Name:
    This thread is now the Official Review Thread for "High Crimes". Please post all HTF member reviews in this thread.
    Any other comments, links to other reviews, or discussion items will be deleted from this thread without warning!
    If you need to discuss those type of issues, I have designated an Official Discussion Thread which can be found at this link.
  2. Patrick Sun

    Patrick Sun Moderator

    Jun 30, 1999
    Likes Received:
    Okay, I admit it, I enjoy staring at movies that feature Ashley Judd. With that admission out of the way, her new film, "High Crimes" was an okay effort, but imminently forgettable once you exit the movie theater. It's got some strange turns and but is ultimately predictable because the core story has been told many times.

    The performances are good, I did enjoy Morgan Freeman in this film, the man always brings a certain amount of gravitas/charm to the role he plays, even if they aren't too fleshed out. Judd also has some good scenes that show the strong resolve of a resourceful woman. Jim Cavaziel is okay playing the husband whose past lands him in a military court martial for 1st degree murder of 9 people, plus he does a little too much crying in my estimation. Amanada Peet almost steals the show had she been in more scenes as the smart alec sister of Judd's character. Adam Scott does okay, and provided a few laughs himself.

    So, if you're a fan of Ashley Judd, you'll enjoy it, but I would not make a huge effort to go see it.

    I give it 2.5 stars, or a grade of C+.
  3. Alex Spindler

    Alex Spindler Producer

    Jan 23, 2000
    Likes Received:
    Chock this one up to an enjoyable but disposable thriller, one of several that Ashley Judd and/or Morgan Freeman have been involved with. I will give them this, however - they have wonderful chemistry together, and its great seeing them together again.
    The movie itself is fairly compelling, but really abandons some plots pretty quickly. The setup is certainly an attention grabber - A man and his high-profile wife are taken down by a federal task force because he's wanted for capital murder from a military operation. It all goes very well paced for a great stretch. We get so see a minor peek into the military justice system, although it is so completely glossed over that Rules of Engagement and even Hart's War represented it better. For the most part, the movie bogs itself down with false scares and red herrings. And just as it was getting to the part where you were hoping for the big surprise, it just stops. Every single thing falls apart at that point. This is really unfortunate, because I was pretty well sold on it to that point.
    The actors generally do a fair job. Ashley Judd is as watchable as ever, and really gives the role what she can. Morgan Freeman can do little wrong except that he keeps chosing films like this. Together, they do very very well. I think they could do something really great if they had some good material to work off of. Amanda Peet tries, but she doesn't have much to work with. The rest of the cast, including Caviezel, do acceptable work.
    I fault the director for falling back on so many variations of the "cat jumping out followed by the real scare". Which is so disappointing given how much promise he showed with One False Move. This looks to have been directed by anyone else who has been behind the disposable thrillers of late.
    Looking over the movie as a whole, the last section really harms the movie that precedes it. The actors, however, keep your attention and just about make the trip worthwhile. If you are an Ashley Judd or Morgan Freeman fan, that will probably be enough. [​IMG] [​IMG]
  4. Terrell

    Terrell Producer

    Dec 11, 2001
    Likes Received:
    I enjoyed this film. But there was a lack of logic in a few instances.
    1. If you know you're being spied on and bugged, why do you keep talking out loud in public.
    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.
    3. Once her husband was set free, and the movie didn't end, you immediately knew he was guilty and his wife would find out and be assaulted by him. Because no movie about an innocent man on trial would have the trial end before the film does. So once the charges were dropped, and the movie continued, I knew what was gonna happen.
    Other than that, I really enjoyed the film. The performances were very good, and Ashley Judd is just so damn fine. But think through some of these issues people. You should have been able to pick up on the flawed logic while reading the script.
    I give it [​IMG] [​IMG] [​IMG] out of [​IMG] [​IMG] [​IMG] [​IMG] [​IMG]
    I spoilerized it because upon further thought, it might have spoiled the film for some.

Share This Page