High Crimes (2002) User Reviews

Formulaic story saved by strong performances

[FlickJunkie-2 · 7/10 · 31 August 2002]

Morgan Freeman and Ashley Judd (`Kiss the Girls') team up again in this courtroom thriller, which is entertaining despite its worn plot and obvious ending. The reason it doesn't descend to a level consistent with the screenplay's unoriginality is the superior acting by the three principal performers.

Claire (Ashley Judd) and Tom (James Caviezel) are living an idyllic and romantic married life, trying hard to have a baby. Everything is going swimmingly until one day Tom is arrested and charged with murder and war crimes dating back to his military service and raid in El Salvatore years earlier. It seems Tom's entire identity is a lie and his name is really Ron Chapman, a former Special Forces commando.

Claire, who is conveniently a prominent defense lawyer, takes up his case determined to prove he is innocent, choosing to believe his denials despite the fact that everything she knows about him is a fabrication. She hires Charlie Grimes (Morgan Freeman) to assist her because until he became a broken down alcoholic, he was once one of the top lawyers in the military.

The film is paced well and balanced between courtroom drama and other related storylines like constant death threats, a dirty general and a mystery man. It is fairly standard fare, but the presentation is engaging.

Morgan Freeman is such a terrific actor, that even a trite script can't keep him down. He is wily and insolent as the washed up lawyer with a few tricks left up his sleeve. Freeman projects an unassuming power in his work, full of dynamism yet highly amiable. His interaction with Judd is wonderful, treating her with avuncular kindness and intellectual respect.

Ashley Judd is a fine dramatic actor, who returns to serious drama after an ill advised detour into romantic comedy (`Someone Like You'). Judd is razor sharp in this film, coming across as bright, energetic and passionate. She is tough as nails and doesn't back down to pompous military officers or thugs trying to intimidate her.

Jim Caviezel rounds out the cast with a strong performance as the accused. This is a tough character because he is so mysterious and duplicitous. Caviezel delivered a strong portrayal of an enigmatic character in `Angel Eyes', so he had some experience with this type of role. He handles the part well, appearing utterly sincere whether his character is telling the truth or not.

Amanda Peet gives her standard performance as Claire's hair brained and sex obsessed sister. Peet is no serious dramatic talent, but she has this character down and comes across as believably ditzy and concerned about her sister despite their obvious sibling rivalry.

This film doesn't fool anyone with its surprise ending, but it does deliver good suspense, a tried and true formula and some excellent performances. I rated it a 7/10. It's worth a look for viewers who like mysteries.

Of course. I wouldn't lie about it.

[lastliberal · 7/10 · 22 June 2007]

I show absolutely no hesitation in recommending any movie with Morgan Freeman (Million Dollar baby, The Shawshank Redemption, Se7en), and this is no exception. The fact that I am an Ashley Judd (Double Jeopardy, Kiss the Girls) fan makes this a double pleasure.

Let's just ignore the fact that this film is a cliché, and sit back and enjoy it. It has enough actors that we love that there is something you will enjoy.

Besides Judd and Freeman, it has Jesus (James Caviezel) as the husband who is hiding his past, Amanda Peet (The Whole Nine Yards) as the slutty sister, and it is directed by Carl Franklin (Out of Time, Devil with the Blue Dress).

Anyone who has watched more than a dozen movies can easily predict what comes next as the film unfolds, maybe even the ending, although that is the most illogical part for me, so it's not going to tax your brain. It's just another good opportunity to see Judd and Freeman. That's enough for me.

High tensions and mystery.

[OllieSuave-007 · 7/10 · 30 March 2014]

Morgan Freeman and Ashley Judd, after starring in 1997's Kiss the Girls, reunite in this story about powerful attorney Claire Kubik (Judd), who finds her husband Tom Kubik (Jim Caviezel) arrested for the murder of Latin American villagers while he was in the Marines, with the name of Sgt. Ron Chapman. Claire teams up with Charlie Grimes (Freeman) to navigate through the military justice system in attempts to clear Tom, all while dealing with the deaths of key eyewitnesses.

Like Kiss the Girls, this movie is full of mystery and tension that will captivate an audience and keep the movie's pace going strong despite its simple and predictable plot. Freeman is a calm yet dynamic actor, which is perfect in his role as he teams up once again with Judd, who herself gave an energetic and dramatic performance in her attorney role. Jim Caviezel gave a strong and mysterious performance as the accused Tom, whose unknown background will leave the audience guessing.

With some good suspense and tension, it's a worthy courtroom drama for a popcorn movie night.

Grade B-

Far better than what I was expecting.

[Jack the Ripper1888 · 1 January 2003]

KISS THE GIRLS stars Ashley Judd and Morgan Freeman reunite in HIGH CRIMES, a movie that turned out to be a lot better than I was expecting. The previews made this movie look like a high powered suspense thriller, but I was weary about the plot and I was suspecting a thousand different plot holes. But, I was wrong. This movie is executed wonderfully. Yes, there are the usual thriller cliches, but once you get past all that, this movie is really entertaining. The acting is not all that bad either. Judd is great and Freeman is perfect as always (the only thing about him is that I am still a little hazy as to the gold earring that he totes on his right ear). The supporting cast includes Jim Caviezel, Adam Scott, the very hott Amanda Peet, Bruce Davison and Tom Bower. All of whom do an exceptional job.

This may look like just another one of those 'trial' movies, but this isn't. It is actually quite good if you just look past the typical plot and watch it. Other recommendations include A FEW GOOD MEN and RULES OF ENGAGEMENT. They are both a little different, but still go along the same lines.

This film is for people who appreciate good, old-fashioned suspense thrillers. These kind of movies are the kind people need to show us that looks can be deceiving and that people are not always what they appear to be.

HIGH CRIMES: 5/5.

Like Ashley? You'd better.

[=G= · 6/10 · 27 August 2002]

Because "High Crimes" sticks Judd in front of the camera in almost every scene as its contrived formula story full of cliche characters wells around her. Fortunately, Judd manages to hold this less than sterling film together as it worms and squirms its way through the story of a happy wife and trial lawyer who finds her husband might not be who she thought he was and has to try to wrest him from the clutches of a military courtmartial, a possible death sentence, and a coverup conspiracy. "High Crimes" is busy enough to hold interest through endless plotholes and implausibilities making for an okay no-brainer couch potato watch. A must see for Judd fans and a so-so watch for all others. (B-)

Ultimately unfulfilling

[mjw2305 · 6/10 · 12 January 2007]

Claire Kubrik (Ashley Judd) is an attorney whose relationship with her husband Tom (Jim Caviezel) is turned on its head. Tom is arrested for the murder of innocent civilians during a covert army operation 15 years earlier. Claire has been kept in the dark about her husbands past, but despite her doubts she still believes his innocence and takes it upon herself to act as his defence attorney with the help of a disgraced military lawyer (Morgan Freeman)

The film is both suspenseful and intriguing, with very fine performance from all the cast. Most of the film is quite interesting and even compelling at times, as the mystery builds and then as it begins to unravel. The surprise ending however, lets the movie down; when with more attention to detail it could have been quite impressive and really could have made the movie.

By the end you are left feeling a bit unfulfilled, mainly due to all the smoke and mirrors used to make the ending a shock.

6/10 should have been better, but it's watchable

High Crimes: 7/10

[movieguy1021 · 7/10 · 10 October 2002]

In High Crimes, director Carl Franklin shows us an ideal life gone wrong. Claire Kubik is one of them. She's happily married to husband Tom (Jim Caviezel). In fact, he's such a great husband that we don't find out his occupation. Claire, who is played actually well by Ashley Judd, couldn't love Tom more. Until he gets arrested for something that he supposedly didn't do. Did he or did he not? An hour and a half is spent contenplating the fact.

The acting is surprisedly well, especially by Caviezel. I didn't understand why he had that "outburst" at the end, but that's a minor detail. Judd is equally good as Claire, except she seemed to be too slow at some parts. So did the pacing. It seemed to drag on a little, and the genre seemed to be more like a courtroom drama instead of a crime thriller.

Morgan Freeman is OK as the lawyer Claire hires. His acting seemed a little forced at times, though. The plot, though nothing new, was one of those that were predictable, but I was enjoying it too much to care. It's very entertaining if you just sit back and watch it instead of scrutinizing every little detail of it.

But, at the end, after the final court scene, it seems to continue on for a little long after spending an hour and a half leading up to that part. The running time was a little long. And the ever-lovable Amanda Peet plays a role where she could have gotten more time and shown off her acting ability. If you sit back for two hours and leave your mind on hold, it's a very entertaining yarn.

My rating: 7/10

Rated PG-13 violence and some language.

Good Character Development, Average Story,

[lesleyharris30 · 6/10 · 15 August 2014]

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

Average Thriller With Some Questions

[Luigi Di Pilla · 6/10 · 18 April 2003]

Well that was not what I expected but it is okay for an entertaining evening. The story turns unbelievably at the end and I think it is well directed. The movie succeeds to reach an intriguing military court drama with unsolved questions. I am disappointed that at the end some points are very confusing but perhaps I am wrong...??? 6/10.

If you liked this one don`t miss "HART´S WAR", "KISS THE GIRLS" or "RULES OF ENGAGEMENT".

The cliched climax

[jetkot · 7/10 · 8 October 2021]

It is engaging throughout but the climax ruined it for me. If her husband was really the killer who went on a rampage and his psychotic. Why was she being followed? Why did they come to her house to beat her up if they were not guilty? Why did they beat Grimes (Morgan Freeman) at the pub? Why did they attack them by splashing oil on their car and making them meet with an accident ? Why did the witness. Troy Abbott (Micheal Shannon) lie that he was forced to be a witness ? Too many unrealistic ideas

Finally why would he still try to kill Ashley Judd and have fresh charges of murder placed on him. He has just come out of jail.

not worth the money to see it

[wisconsinwoman · 4/10 · 2 May 2002]

I went to go see the movie thinking it would be as good as kiss the girls. Boy was I wrong. Instead of having the movie take 2 hours to see all you had to do is watch maybe the first 30 minutes and then leave. This movies tries to make you think he didn't kill those people and think he's this loving man who just wants to be happy and be a family man. In my opinion save your money and just go rent Kiss the Girls instead. That's much better.

Did He Do It, Or Didn't He?

[ccthemovieman-1 · 8/10 · 2 October 2006]

This was an involving story of a military man accused of murdering civilians 15 years earlier and then going A.W.O.L. The whole story revolves around one question: did he do it or is he innocent?

That question keeps the viewer guessing for much of the film and provides some very good suspense. It's another film, however, in which there is a strong anti-U.S. military flavor, so typical in films since the 1960s.

Also, once you know the ending, I doubt if this would be a movie you would watch more than once. However, it's definitely worth a look and will entertain you for about two hours. Ashley Judd, Jim Caviezel and Morgan Freeman are three attractive lead actors, all interesting to watch, as usual.

Delightful Ashley and charismatic Morgan

[raymond-massart · 6/10 · 22 October 2005]

The only remarkable thing about this movie is Ashley Judd's new hairstyle which suits her very well and makes her look at least ten years younger.I found myself to be concentrating more on her delightful appearance than on the story itself. Morgan Freeman is Morgan Freeman, as usual, but it must be said that he always succeeds in convincing an audience by his mere charisma alone.The twists and turns of the plot and sub-plot are not really original and from the opening scenes on, the viewer has the impression that there is something very suspicious regarding the so-called victim of military justice.Not a bad movie, just one to watch on TV when there are no other options.

Stupid at the end

[pipszg · 4/10 · 16 May 2021]

So.....interesting script, pretty good dialogue, timeline disaster,but the movie finale was a grand disaster.

But what have we learned: Judd's crime movies Are all the same.

Peet is not an actor Caviezel had to ate a lot of s...t before making a name for himself Morgan....made this movie probably because the contract.

Rotten to the Corps.

[rmax304823 · 4 August 2004]

Let me see. Ashley Judd is married to this guy who is arrested and charged with massacring innocent civilians in Central America as a special ops agent in the Marine Corps. She's a lawyer and decides to defend him herself but, knowing nothing of Courts Martial, she hired ex-drunk Morgan Freeman to help her. Some shady stuff follows, the charges are withdrawn, and hubby turns out to be guilty after all and tries to off her. That's about all I understood.

I used to teach classes to Marines at New River Air Station and every other class or so, one of them would show up with a black eye. I finally mentioned this one night and a student asked, "What does that tell you about the Marine Corps?" The students told me a lot more about the Marine Corps than this movie does. According to the movie the Corps is made up of beefy ugly bruits with haircuts you wouldn't believe, blustering and pompous, but they melt away like Wusses before Ashley Judd's fierce determination.

I really like Ashley Judd, by the way. She has a trim figure and a plump, pretty, asymmetrical and highly expressive face. Her left eyebrow is always cocked in disbelief. She has dark greenish irises that have a tendency to roll heavenward when she's exasperated. And she's a competent actress too when given the chance to act. I like Morgan Freeman too. His face is made of lumps, in profile his nose seems lopped off at the end, and in this film his hair is long and wooly and combed crazily backward, as befits a recovering alcoholic. And he's the soul of reliability. If I wanted a doctor or a lawyer I'd look him up in one big jiffy. He can even be a credible drunk. Amanda Peet is properly sluttish but not really necessary. Paul Caveziel as the husband looks the part of the tough Marine but doesn't carry his weight, or maybe it's partly that the role doesn't give him a chance.

But -- well, then there's the plot. Forget about any sociopolitical comments on Special Ops in Central America. It's a murder mystery. All along we're led to believe along with Judd that the military is made up of a bunch of conniving morons and heavies. Dark cars and pickups follow Judd around. A gang of unidentified thugs jump out of nowhere and try to beat Freeman's brains out. (Between the two of them, Judd and Freeman spend half the movie with braces, black eyes, and bandages.) In the end, or so it seems, the bad guys aren't the bad guys after all, but the good guy is a bad guy, or else maybe the bad guys and the good guy were both bad guys, or -- well, you get the picture, even if I didn't. The climax is just another woman-who-discovers-her-trusted-partner-is-a-murdere-and-is-now-going-to-murder-her scene. He trusses her up and is about to kill her, although his expectations are unclear.

What I mean is, hubby has just had charges of mass murder withdrawn. He hasn't been acquitted so he's still chargeable and under suspicion. And Morgan Freeman has just uncovered evidence that hubby is guilty. Freeman calls Judd and gives her the dope. Now hubby is about to shoot his wife in their own home because she knows he's a murderer, right? But meanwhile Freeman knows too. And there will be blood all over the place if he shoots his wife. What does he have to gain by killing her? Absolutely nothing. It's as if, at this point, the writers had thrown away the rest of the script and said, "Let's stick in a woman-in-jeopardy climax. The audience is too stupid to notice that it doesn't belong."

Judd and Freeman aside, this movie really doesn't have much to recommend it.

It's doubly disappointing because the director was also responsible for the far superior, "One False Move."

Well, maybe some other time.

Good but not great

[dhaufrect · 6/10 · 20 October 2002]

Recently rewatched this thriller. It was good the first time and again on DVD with friends who had never seen it before. It is not the spine tingler that I had expected, however, Morgan Freeman, gives a convincing performance of an alcoholic and portrays the empathy that this role required. No two thumbs up, but a good performance by all.

Jon Monsarrat review: moving, but plot holes

[johnnymonsarrat · 6/10 · 12 April 2002]

I'm an action movie guy, so "High Crimes" is right up my alley. And I enjoyed "Kiss the Girls" (although not Nurse Betty).

In fact, I did enjoy High Crimes, which is a standard Hollywood suspense / crime flick. It was only afterwards that I realized that it was all smoke and mirrors. The scary music and choreography succeeded in setting up a suspenseful, moderately engaging film that I would call solid, nothing special.

But after leaving the theater, I was surprised to get caught out. Usually I am quick-witted enough to notice. "High Crimes" contains some throw-away characters, is a little too clever for its own good with the plot twists, and some loose ends dangle at the end, which I did not find satisfying.

The acting is OK and it's hard to make Ashley Judd look bad, even when her on-screen character has some bruises.

Who should see this film:

-- Action / suspense movie buffs who have nothing better to

do on a rainy day, and who aren't expecting the well-plotted

and original Kiss the Girls.

-- I can't think of anyone else.

I'll give High Crimes a 6 out of 10.

Decent, but not great - apart from performances

[BeneCumb · 7/10 · 19 November 2013]

The background - "open" civilians rambling into "closed" military circles - has been used in dozens of known movies, and High Crimes did not provide any fresh angle to the approach. The benchmark was clear, events followed had some nice twists and turns, but types of attorneys were trivial in a politically correct manner (although nicely performed, particularly Morgan Freeman), and the middle of the movie or so gave rather plain hints about the solution and the role of the accused. Some thrilling scenes provided no additional value to the movie, or were rather questionable, e.g. why the military had tried to hinder the attorneys in such a way? Or: why the Salvadorian witness did not act earlier vis-a-vis the killer? Thus, the course of action and performances are catchy to follow, but during last 10-15 minutes you just shrug your shoulders and start to "bind the bastings"...

Government Conspiracy?

[bigverybadtom · 6/10 · 21 August 2016]

A woman lawyer is Christmas shopping with her carpenter husband when all of a sudden, he is arrested by the federal government, and deprived of his clothes. Then he gets a new outfit-the uniform of a United States Marine sergeant, and he is charged with going AWOL after a covert mission in El Salvador where he is supposed to have committed the crime of massacring a group of civilians in a village in the 1980's.

The woman suspects her husband is being railroaded when she finds a bug placed in her home and her defending counsel an inexperienced first lieutenant, as well as witnesses to the incident disappearing. She finds a black disgruntled ex-soldier as a defense counsel, who knows the ways of the military bureaucracy. She also hears from a man claiming to have been in the village where the massacre took place.

Events in the movie lead us to suspect the husband is being railroaded-but what is really going on? This is based on a novel of the same title, but reportedly different from it. But holes crop up as the story continues, and we wonder if this sort of situation would have occurred in real life.

Haven't we seen this before?

[jotix100 · 6/10 · 5 August 2004]

Director Carl Franklin should have stayed away from Joseph Finder's novel that is the basis for the film, or at least, he should have asked for a better adaptation.

There is no originality in what we are watching. The characters come out as one dimensional. Morgan Freeman and Ashley Judd have collaborated before, to better results. In this film the logic of the screen play needed a strong hand, or at least a reality check. We know from the beginning what's going to happen. There is no real suspense in the story and the way it turns out. James Caviezel, as Tom is the only one that has any opportunity to shine.

Better luck next time.

Morgan Freeman Gave this Film and Uplift !

[whpratt1 · 7/10 · 20 October 2005]

Ashley Judd,(Claire Kubik),"De-Lovely",'04, played a very successful lawyer who had plenty of balls to stand up to any tough situation she faced in court and gave the men in her office a really hard time. Her law firm was ready to make her a partner and she was at the top of her career. However, her husband, James Caviezel,(Tom Kubik),"Rebels",'04 was having a rough time in his profession and all of a sudden, the Military were after Tom Kubik. Whenever you have a court being controlled by Majors, and even a General of the Marine Corps or Dept. of the Navy, you had better have a very good lawyer, and say your prayers, because the Military run their entire rules differently than civilian courts. James was facing problems from his past and could be convicted by a Military Kangaroo Court and also a Civil Court. Very interesting story and great acting by Morgan Freeman, who was a drunken lawyer, Charlie Grimes),"Edison",'05 who really held this picture together and gave an outstanding performance.

A NEAR MISS

[rograngle · 5/10 · 9 February 2022]

Lots of good acting. Very believable Marine Corps stuff (although I have never been in the Corps.). Ashley Judd is great, as always. So is Morgan Freeman. There are just three or four scenes that don't work for me, and the through-line doesn't quite hold up for me. (spoiler alert) In the climactic sequence, Claire seems confused. She almost shoots the guy who just saved her life. Overall, I feel a little bit sandbagged by the plot. Fairly entertaining. I'd give it a C+.

An Enjoyable night at the movies!

[Robert_duder · 8/10 · 5 May 2002]

I had little expectations for this film but I was pleasantly surprised when I was sitting in the middle of it. The film is yes perhaps predictable and we've seen it all before but something about it is full of high energy and scares and thrills and it's the perfect night at the movies. Ashley Judd plays a high profile attorney who's life is turned upside down when her carpenter husband is arrested for murder years earlier while in the army. The twist is she didn't know he was ever in the army and everything from her husbands name to where he was during the murder is all new to her. Still she manages to trust him as best she can and offers to help the young, naive army attorney who has been assigned to her husbands case. To help them both with this heavy case that could bring the death penalty to her beloved husband they hire former Army Lawyer Charlie Grimes (played by Morgan Freeman.)

Freeman is...well he's Morgan Freeman he doesn't really have to BE anything...but as usual he churns out a wonderful performance as the alcoholic lawyer who was discharged for dishonourable conduct. The case unfolds like a perfect mystery as the team of three along with Judd's sister played by Amanda Peet (who turns out can actually act...who knew) tries to find the truth behind the military cover up that ended up with the deaths of nine innocent civilians. All the pieces fit together and you're following the film on the edge of your seat and rooting for Judd's character. Everyone in this film plays a part and they play it just wonderfully. This movie is a real nail biter, with plenty of cheap scares and drama. Morgan Freeman, who during the course of the movie goes from recovered Alcoholic to re-newed Alcoholic is interesting enough to hold the whole movie but he doesn't have to.

Unfortunately as with some good things...there is always a downside. The ending is a cheap, ridiculous thrill that is more of a let down than anything. After collecting all these facts that add up perfectly in everyone's mind including the audience, every single one of those facts are forgotten and tossed aside in order for a ridiculous supposed "surprise ending" which is not a shock or surprise or even a "oh my" ending. Such an enormous let down for such a fantastic film. Why they thought they had to end it like this is ridiculous. However...in saying that don't let that stop you from checking out this movie because it's well worth your ten bucks at the theatre, you won't be disappointed. I give this film a strong 8.5/10 but easily...without the ending could be taken as a 10/10 movie.

Fun to watch potboiler

[ctomvelu-1 · 7/10 · 28 March 2009]

The co-stars of KISS THE GIRLS are together again In HIGH CRIMES, a military murder mystery that goes on a little too long and unfortunately telegraphs its ending about three-fourths of the way through. However, under the sure direction of Carl Franklin, it is eminently watchable, even if I don't buy Ashley Judd as a forceful criminal lawyer. Judd's husband, an ex-Marine played in his usual stoic manner by Jam C. of "Jesus" fame, is accused by the military of a village massacre many years earlier in Salvador. Nine innocents died that day. But was he the killer, or was it another member of his platoon? Judd gains the right to co-defend her husband, and also enlists the aid of a has-been criminal lawyer played by Morgah Freeman. It turns out Freeman was once a Marine himself. The trial is reasonably intriguing, punctuated by outbursts of PG-13 violence against both Judd and Freeman, the perpetrators of which include a shadowy figure with a connection to that decimated village. Franklin keeps things moving along pretty well, although a shorter length might have helped. The big climax is not unexpected, one we have seen in a number of similar murder mysteries. Still, I watched this film today for the first time since its release, and found that it holds up remarkably well for a big-budget studio potboiler. See it and judge for yourself. It was probably Judd's last decent screen appearance to date. We also get to see a lot of Amanda Peet's body as Judd's sex-crazed sister. And that's always appreciated.

Genericly complex

[sumitagarwal · 4/10 · 5 April 2002]

Carl Franklin's High Crimes, based upon Joseph Finder's novel of the same name, could just possibly be interesting if it didn't try so hard to do so. Instead of building a complex web of a storyline, the story instead reverts to reaching at the most impossible and improbable to further the intrigue, and thus lessens it instead. The film draws many parallels with Robert Zemeckis's What Lies Beneath, but lacks both the subtle art and spirited nature of that movie.

Claire Kubik (Ashley Judd) is a high-profile lawyer who lives as part of an idyllic marriage. One day her husband Tom Kubik (James Cavizel) is arrested by the FBI for a war crime and a secret past-life of his begins to unravel. Suddenly Claire finds herself defending her husband in a military tribunal that she is not familiar with, along with the help of maverick Marine lawyer Charles Grimes (Morgan Freeman). As expected, everything that could ever possibly go wrong does go wrong, which gives the film an strange pacing in which every time one thinks that the movie is over, it isn't. The story goes to extremes to show how lopsided the odds are by bringing in conspiracies that reach up to Generals, by having the prosecutor be the Marines' top lawyer, by having the defense lawyer be an inexperienced loser, and yada yada.

The characters are all flat stereotypes, and ultimately we don't really care about any of them, from the ugly-as-a-dog mad Marine Major Hernandez (Juan Carlos Hernandez), to the seemingly prepubescent young Marine lawyer Lt. Terrence Embry (Adam Scott) assigned to defend Tom, to Claire herself, a caricature of the cool-headed modern female lawyer who, because of her inner-warmth, desperately wants to have a baby. Near the end the crudely typical vengeful South American character stands valiantly at a doorway, reversing his role from throughout the film, and you almost expect him to say ‘que pasa?'

Dialogue in the movie is unoriginal and contrived, but is not poor enough that it stands out, and overall is utterly unremarkable, Ashley Judd exhibits an excellent performance in playing a confused, loving, strong woman, and in her skill highlights the lack of acting ability in James Cavizel, who is ill-matched with her. Morgan Freeman plays the same lovable outcast character we've often seen from him, and he does it well.

Theo van de Sande's photography, while neither innovative nor artistic, is wonderfully polished and alternately expresses claustrophobic terror through close shots or dizzying confusion through a twirling, dancing lens at the appropriate times. As is seen often in today's films, Sande uses the color blue very heavily, and also employs a shallow depth of focus.

The original score by Graeme Revell is professional enough, but is very generic and boring. In the movie, particularly in the beginning and end, the music awkwardly bounces back and forth between dramatic world music and R&B.

When the movie closes, the viewer has gained nothing, but has also lost nothing to this glossy but formulaic movie. Despite its faults, it is an entertaining ride, and the surprise ending (so necessary to complete the movie that it is half-predictable) will act as redemption in the eyes of those who would otherwise leave with a bad taste in their mouths.

`High Crimes' is rated PG-13. It contains blurry footage of corpses, conspirator's intimidating violence, humorous prostitutes, and adorable grandfatherly drunkenness.