High Crimes

The screenwriter duo of Yuri Zeltser and Cary Bickley took the "best" of what the series JAG had to offer and put together this product. It may not be all that terrible, but unfortunately, the "bad ending" syndrome had to show up here as well. It’s as if the filmmakers didn't realize that it is not necessary to "crush" the viewer with the final five minutes. And they could easily have cut out the combined ten minutes at the end that created one very illogical fact. Director Carl Franklin seems to be struggling with the film. He narrates the plot slowly with completely unnecessary verbosity, although it is true that not too drawn-out but he forgets about the main thing, which is the audience. There's nothing about this film that impresses. The time-honored theme of the U.S. military's foreign screw-ups, the legal wrangling, the weird secrets, the grizzled veteran who manages to pull himself together... No, thank you. Oops, I forgot about the actors. The main trio, Ashley Judd, Morgan Freeman, and Jim Caviezel, try their best, but what good is it to them when they are acting in such a poorly made film? Indeed, High Crimes is the type of bad movie that always makes me realize how good a movie Rules of Engagement, by William Friedkin, is. (04/07/2005)

Another generic courtroom drama for a Saturday afternoon, a lesser known director, a solid cast, with mixed results again. It wouldn't be such a tragedy if it wasn't for the nonsensical ending that literally swept the whole movie away. The atmosphere is often solid, the pace is quite balanced, and Ashley Judd fits perfectly into the role of a sophisticated lawyer. Even the tears are quite believable. Jim Caviezel is awkward as usual, but it's hard to expect anything different. Unfortunately, a lot of things drag the film down to average. Besides the mentioned finale, there is also a great amount of clichés, predictability, and a relative mishandling of the material. It could have been a much more dynamic and memorable ride, but it ended up being average. (25/05/2007)

I had seen the film a long time ago without writing a review. I didn't remember the plot at all and had no idea why I’d given such a low rating to a film starring Ashley Judd and Morgan Freeman. This is why I decided to watch it again, which then answered all of my questions. The two stars I originally gave this were perfectly appropriate. The film isn’t good. It didn’t make me want to claw my eyes out, it was just boring and awfully unoriginal. Example 1 and a potential spoiler: Shortly after the exposition of the premise, it was clear to me how the trial would turn out. Why? Because I'd already seen several films based on the same formula. Example 2 and another possible spoiler: The final twist wasn’t really a twist for me. Why? The same reasoning applies as in Example 1. I really didn't get why so much money was wasted on this. The filmmakers hired a stellar cast but failed to give the actors a script to show off their abilities. The very end of the film felt more like a collaboration with Disney. If I hadn’t already been disgusted at that point, it would have been the last straw for me. One big cinematic cliché. / Lesson learned: What do you need a lie detector for? In wine, there is truth. Ten out of ten winemakers agree. (28/09/2022)