High Crimes (2002)

It's fun, it's light, [but] it has a hard time when its tries to get heavy.

Worth seeing just to witness how winsome it is.

This movie tries so hard to be funny, yet it falls flat every time. Just another example of recycled ideas repackaged with women in an attempt to appeal to a certain audience.

One of the film's great tricks is that, for a time, you think it will go down a rabbit hole of unrealistic glorification.

Generally speaking, lawyer-based movies tend to be a bit formulaic. Military lawyer movies might be less problematic, but they will all be ultimately judged against "A Few Good Man" (no easy flick to live up to). "High Crimes" runs into both issues and does nothing to distinguish itself as original or exciting.For a basic plot summary, "High Crimes" sees Tom Kubik (Jim Caviezel) and his wife Claire (Ashley Judd), a lawyer, living a happy, married existence while trying to start a family. After a burglary at their home one night, however, Tom is arrested and forced to stand trial in front of a military tribunal. Completely perplexed by this sudden turn of events, Claire decides to be the counsel for her husband, enlisting the help of old military-enflamer Charles W. Grimes (Morgan Freeman). As they pursue the details of the case, Claire & Charles discover a stream of lies and cover-ups, including some information that may make Claire question the man she is married to.The problem with this movie is very, very easy to articulate: It needed to focus more on Caviezel's Kubik character. His Tom Kubik should have been the focal point of the entire film, but instead he is ignored for large portions as the "lawyer stuff" drags on and on. There needed to be more "did he or didn't he" devoted to Tom Kubik, as that is the real crux of the mystery that keeps viewers from watching (not the legal machinations).Beyond that, however, the film is also just very bland. None of the cast seem to have great chemistry with each other, while some of the auxiliary cast are on-screen for a great deal of time, yet contribute almost nothing to the plot/story. As such, the movie turns into a run-of-the mill legal picture, with even less excitement than the average flick in that category."High Crimes" does try (star name cast, lofty mystery goal), hence not a 1-star debacle, but the end result is close to two hours of bland-ness. There is nothing in the movie that makes it stand out in any way, shape, or form.

I served in a different branch of the military, USN, for 6 years, (1957-1963) & came to know something about the Corp & military procedures in general. I was Honorably Discharged, never having been reprimanded during that time. I saw service men at their best & not so admirably, having served on Shore Patrol & Armed Service Police details. It was not like Frank Sinatra & Gene Kelley in "On the Town," far from it. It is important to know for those who did not serve, that military life is much different than civilian life; guided by different rules & standards, according to traditions & the Uniform Code Of Military Justice.(UCMJ) Military justice has two different ways that a court marshal is structured, something I disagree with to this day. For Officers, they are judged by a jury of their peers, other officers. For enlisted personnel, they too are judged by officers, there are no enlisted men on the jury, not a jury of their peers! Why not? Methinks they don't trust enlisted men & women to be impartial & reach the "right" verdict... SHAMEFUL. The premise borders on the absurd, & the procedures followed are not what would take place in trying to ascertain guilt or innocence. I first noticed A. Judd in "Ruby in Paradise," & to this day is stunningly beautiful, adequate to the roll she is playing. The character portrayed by A. Peet is like no one I have ever encountered, thankfully, for this I blame the director, Ms. Peet would do well not to include it on her resume, she has done better work; please choose more carefully. Morgan Freeman, also, has much to answer for, a totally unbelievable character, for the circumstance he is involved in. Same advice to you, Mr. Morgan, the co-STAR of "Shawshank ..." Rather than wasting your time with this dud, see 'A Few Good Men," a much better representation of military life & justice.

High Crimes is a decent movie with a very well developed storyline and a great cast.I was expecting it to be more of a thriller,which it certainly wasn't,but it was still an enjoyable movie,mainly because of solid performances and very great character development,the movie does drag out a bit however and isn't completely interesting the whole time.Morgan Freeman was certainly the movies highlight,he delivered a brilliant performance like he always does and his character is certainly the most likable,Ashley Judd also did a terrific job,I've complained about her acting before in Kiss the Girls,but she had certainly improved between the gap of these movies and the character was more suited for her.The thing that bothered me the most about this movie is that the "big twist " at the end was really predictable,the writers were clearly expecting it to shock the audience but it was obvious this would happen about a half hour in to the film.Predictable but still enjoyable,High Crimes is a good movie that I would recommend to anyone looking for a good crime film. A woman must uncover national security secrets to clear her husband,accused of war crimes in El Salvador.Best Performance: Morgan Freeman Worst Performance: Jim Caviezel

Claire Kubik (Ashley Judd) is a brilliant defense lawyer with a loving husband Tom (Jim Caviezel). They have the perfect life but then Tom is arrested accused of being Sgt. Ron Chapman who massacred villagers in 1988 El Salvadore. He is defended by inexperienced military lawyer Lieutenant Embry (Adam Scott). She is over her head in military court and gets help from Charlie Grimes (Morgan Freeman). Brig. Gen. Bill Marks (Bruce Davison) was the commanding officer at the time, and Tom/Ron accuses him of a frame job. And there is Claire's flaky sister Jackie (Amanda Peet) and the crazed Maj. James Hernandez (Juan Carlos Hernández). Michael Shannon has a minor role as witness Troy Abbott.It has the bones of a functional courtroom action thriller. It's nothing special. Director Carl Franklin tries but it's not his best work. Judd and Freeman are both great actors trying to do good work. It may work a lot better if there is more doubt thrown into the movie earlier about Tom/Ron's guilt. That takes away much of the drama. This makes the twist way too jarring. Then there are the attempts at their lives. For skilled killers, they don't really follow through. It piles on a little too much. It's a close call. I have to say it fails by a hair.