Reversible Errors (2004)

Wonderful character development!

Too many fans seem to be blown away

One of the best films i have seen

Amazing worth wacthing. So good. Biased but well made with many good points.

"Reversible Errors" seems to have been a TV movie, based on the Scott Turow novel, and starring William H. Macy, Felicity Huffman, Tom Selleck, Monica Potter, and Shemar Moore.The story concerns a triple murder for which one man, played by Glenn Plummer, confesses to a police detective, Larry Starczek (Selleck) and is condemned to death by a judge (Huffman) after a bench trial. It's a career maker for the young prosecutor, Muriel Wynn (Potter) having an affair with Starczek.Fast forward to seven years later - the judge now works at a perfume counter, having been removed from the bench for taking bribes; Muriel Wynn is married and running for office; Starczek is still a detective; and Gandolf, one sandwich short of a picnic, is still on Death Row and now proclaims his innocence. He is assigned attorney Arthur Raven (Macy) who reluctantly looks into the case. The more he looks into it, the more confusing and messy it gets.Complicated, strong story made even better by the team of Macy and Huffman, who are wonderful and on a much higher level than Selleck-Potter. Potter, with her flat delivery, has always reminded me somehow of Julia Roberts, and every time I hear her name I think of the old I Love Lucy episode when Ethel returned to her home town: 'Ethel Mae Potter, we never forgot her.' Selleck is handsome and comes across as a detective, but in actuality, this is a character role, and he's not a character actor. There's no spark between them. There is some very good acting by Plummer, Moore, and James Rebhorn.I recognized several Canadian actors, so I guess this was filmed there.I found this an involving story and one really becomes interested in the Macy-Huffman relationship. Recommended.

I found this movie to be extremely well written but uneven. Writing is superb, criminal side to it is involving as the secrets are revealed, but the movie mainly concentrate on two couples: the one where Macy is concerned had me emotionally linked, while the other, lead by stoic Selleck remains cold and uninvolved. You end up hating one couple whose actions brings to light the past of the other. So if you're interested in criminal thrillers, you'll enjoy it. If you are a William H Macy fan, you'll love it, but if you're a Tom Selleck fan, well, aside from him showing his naked butt, you won't get any thrills. Mustache should have been told to lose the typical western face in this one or to lose his underwear earlier in his career when he wasn't 30 pounds too fat for us to care.

This movie deals not only with a heinous crime, but with the relationships of two different couples (Huffman/Macy and Potter/Selleck) and how those relationships intersect and impact the criminal investigation. I prefer Scott Turow's writing to John Grisham's--mainly because I feel Turow's writing has better character development and dialogue--and he seems better able to write believable female characters--but, he keeps you guessing as to whether the "good guys" are going to survive--much less win-- and that can be exhausting.Other people have done a fine job of delineating the plot. I can only add that I felt the movie suffered every time the Selleck/Potter storyline was the main focus. I felt that it just didn't have the emotional resonance of the other subplots. Since I have not read the novel--yet--I don't know if this is the script's fault or the actors'. I DO know that I didn't want the story re: the defense lawyer and the judge to end. The movie brightened every time that couple was on the screen. Was it because of better writing or better acting or because I enjoyed seeing a married couple play a couple--who can say? I also must say that I felt since a character's life was literally at stake that it would have been nice if his plight was explored more fully. Movies or books can be interesting without a romantic subplot.This film might have been more effective as a three hour movie shown on one night rather than a miniseries spread over two nonconsecutive nights. There were so many plot twists that I lost track of some characters' actions and names from one night to another. It also didn't help that CBS showed upcoming scenes and trailers that spoiled one of the key twists. I have never understood why networks or studios will spend a fortune making a movie than spoil it by giving too much away in the advertising! Perhaps it will play better--and tighter--on video.

The movie starts with the introduction of several main characters, some of which are naked before we ever really get to know them. But these two characters have to put their clothes on quickly, because there is a triple murder to investigate.The first half of the movie had lots of exciting twists and turns and many great acting performances. I would say everyone with more than five lines the first night--and a waitress who was great with only three lines--did a good job. To me, the standout performances came from three actors:Glenn Plummer as Squirrel, a nervous African American prisoner suspected of the murders, who had a speech impediment and frightened quite easily, even though he had apparently spent a lot of time on the wrong side of the law.James Rebhorn as Erno, the head of security for the airport where murder victim Louisa Remardi worked, especially after he ... you can read about it after the spoiler warning.Shemar Moore as Collins, a demanding prisoner with critical information about Louisa's murder, and the black nephew of Erno, who was white. Again, I can't say just why he was so good without a spoiler warning.The first half could have been an exciting movie in and of itself, because enough loose ends were wrapped up, and enough information had been presented, to decide the case ... if it had all been true. But certain things weren't quite right. I knew they wouldn't be because I knew the movie was continued on Tuesday.Unfortunately, I found the second half less enjoyable. Most of the information had been presented, though new revelations were still to come. Too much time was spent on relationships, and the excitement level was uneven. Good performances still made even the second half worth seeing. But the ending proved to be less than dramatic. Many movies like this, and most 'Perry Mason' and 'Matlock' episodes, have the suspense and the amazing plot twist that leads to, say, an exciting confession. This movie just ended. And the ending couldn't just be an ending. The future of some of the relationships had to be established.I have to wonder if this was intentional: the detective on the triple murder case was named Larry, and the man who studied the murder weapon and bullets was Moe. So where was Curly?This movie certainly wasn't for kids. Bad language and dialogue almost pushed the limits of what network TV allows, and one particularly nasty crime kept tripping up the investigation of the murders. You don't hear much about this particular act on network TV, which is fine with me.Still, I would say this was worth seeing. ************************SPOILERS FOLLOW*****************************Erno became terminally ill by the end of the first half, which gave Rebhorn more of a challenge as the movie progressed.Collins became 'born again', and certain events he wished he could put behind him finally had to come out. He asked Jesus for forgiveness all the time, but only when he was chased and confronted did he come clean. Moore effectively portrayed the dramatic change in the character. Yes, his race was a factor in the case. Gillian, the judge who tried Squirrel's case, was an alcoholic and a drug addict who eventually did prison time--not a guarantee Squirrel would be released, but information helpful to the case. By the time Gillian was released, that case was being handled by Arthur, who found himself attracted to Gillian.The 'nasty crime' wasn't the crime it was believed to be, but it was disgusting nonetheless.