Featured Audience Ratings

• Anthony L

  
  At its core, High Crimes has an interesting story to tell. Unfortunately it tells it badly and is full of unnecessary characters, plot twists, action, etc. A good thriller should be thrilling and High Crimes is pretty far from Thrilling. Carl Franklin experiments with different styles… More
  At its core, High Crimes has an interesting story to tell. Unfortunately it tells it badly and is full of unnecessary characters, plot twists, action, etc. A good thriller should be thrilling and High Crimes is pretty far from Thrilling. Carl Franklin experiments with different styles of editing (at least in the first 20 minutes or so) that serve no purpose at all, he adds pointless and irritating characters like Jackie (played by the pointless and irritating Amanda Peet), spends next to no time on character development (Give the bad guy a scar over his face, just so people know he's the bad guy) and in the end, you couldn't give a hoot if Jim Caviezel's character is guilty or not. Also, if you're going to advertise a film as a 'Courtroom drama' you might want to have more than 10 minutes worth of courtroom footage. Morgan Freeman is the only reason I kept watching, not because he's particularly good in it but because he's likable. I would say this film is instantly forgettable but I think it may be too bad for it not to be remembered.

• Film C

  
  really good interesting and surprising twist

• Lady D

  
  I like to think that my film ratings are aimed at great performances, storyline etc, rather than how good looking a person is, which is why this film gets a 3. It was an ok film, with ok performances and an ok storyline. The reason I say this is because if I had such a thing as a… More
  I like to think that my film ratings are aimed at great performances, storyline etc, rather than how good looking a person is, which is why this film gets a 3. It was an ok film, with ok performances and an ok storyline. The reason I say this is because if I had such a thing as a list of good looking actors, then my guess would be, Jim Caviezel would be at the top. VERDICT: Watchable, but forgetable

• Candy R

  
  Ashley always plays the victim and does it very well. Great cast. Story about a husband who is accused of murder and his wife defends him in court. It has a twist though.

• Dean !

  
  A good military, court room drama with a strong cast.

• Dean M

  
  An okay legal drama that mates <i>A Few Good Men</i> with <i>Jagged Edge</i>.

• Nate Z

  
  [font=Arial][color=darkred]The last film Ashley Judd starred alongside Morgan Freeman was 1997?s ?Kiss the Girls,? a laughably bad serial killer potboiler that solidified Judd as a rising star. Now five years have passed and while Judd remains a top female actress (at least looks… More
  [font=Arial][color=darkred]The last film Ashley Judd starred alongside Morgan Freeman was 1997?s ?Kiss the Girls,? a laughably bad serial killer potboiler that solidified Judd as a rising star. Now five years have passed and while Judd remains a top female actress (at least looks wise) her choices involving Freeman continue to disappoint. Maybe he?s bad peer pressure.[/color][/font] [font=Arial][color=darkred]Judd is a hot-shot attorney (is there any other kind in the movies?) happily married to retired military man Ronald Chapman (Jim Caviezel). As they walk merrily from holiday shopping arm-in-arm they are besieged by a police sting and Ron is hauled away. An angry Judd learns that the military is charging her husband with massacring civilians in a brief engagement in El Salvador in the 1980s. Judd is determined to prove her hubby?s innocence and contacts the wily and aged defense lawyer Charlie Grimes (Freeman). And, you guessed it, he?s a crafty ole? dog that doesn?t ?play by all the rules.? So they team up and try to trump the military court and endless shadowy figures behind the scenes.[/color][/font] [font=Arial][color=darkred]The killing point for ?High Crimes? is that the movie has a giant black hole of a plot that keeps expanding and sucking more inside. There are more subplots than you can shake a stick at, that is, if you?re one of those people that shake sticks at movies. Also included in the whole convoluted mess is an appointed defense attorney (Adam Scott), Judd?s sister (Amanda Peet) who moves in on base, Bruce Davison as a general looking to hide some things, a distrusting former friend of Ron?s, and even in the most far-fetched way a shady character who just happens to have been a boy who witnessed the El Salvador massacre.[/color][/font] [font=Arial][color=darkred]With ?High Crimes? the film keeps twisting and turning and dropping red herrings, but there?s much too much going on and too little of it mattering. It seems like the film embodies a shark, afraid that if it stops moving it will die.[/color][/font] [font=Arial][color=darkred]Director Carl Franklin has officially failed to deliver on whatever promise he showed with his earlier films ?Devil in a Blue Dress? and ?One False Move?. He mines the material as far as he can but seems uncertain as to where this large revolving tale is going. Inconsistencies and logic loop holes abound. ?High Crimes? seems exactly like one of those movies where the book was so good but then they lost so much of its feel during the translation of mediums.[/color][/font] [font=Arial][color=darkred]Judd and Freeman do credible jobs and have a fairly sparkling chemistry between them; however, this is not a movie either will place at the top of their acting oeuvre. Her scenes in the court room as the strong willed woman give about all the characterization that she gets in the film. Freeman remains solid, despite being aloof for most of his screen time.[/color][/font] [font=Arial][color=darkred]?High Crimes? is like a pulpy formulaic puff piece that keeps squirming and writhing until the lights in the theater go back up. It may be harmless but it?s also joyless. But at least, for now, it stops Freeman from doing another serial killer movie. For now?[/color][/font] [font=Arial][color=darkred]Nate's Grade: C[/color][/font]

• Deb S

  
  High Crimes follows the struggle of attorney Claire Kubik, played by Ashley Judd, to exonerate her husband, played by James Caviezel, who has been charged with the murder of innocent people that supposedly happened during a covert operation fifteen years earlier. Jim Caviezel was… More
  High Crimes follows the struggle of attorney Claire Kubik, played by Ashley Judd, to exonerate her husband, played by James Caviezel, who has been charged with the murder of innocent people that supposedly happened during a covert operation fifteen years earlier. Jim Caviezel was magnificent and shone in his role here.... could weep tenderly on cue and be the affectionate husband to his wife who desperately wants a child, and be the perfect criminal to the extent of even passing a lie detector test when he was presumed guilty. Claire defends her husband in the court case with the help of another lawyer, Charles Grimes (Morgan Freeman).They played off each other perfectly and Amanda Peet was very watchable in her underwritten role. Despite its flaws, I was entertained and engrossed by the intriguing storyline but the final twist unfortunately became all too evident because the entire movie tried to convince us otherwise.

• Nicolas K

  
  Judd and Freeman have delivered a whole lot better than this...

• Doctor S

  
  Slick but unapologetically manipulative while losing credibility by the minute towards the end. Female lawyers were in high fashion during the <i>Ally McBeal</i> era, and here we get a crafty Ashley Judd sporting a variety of bad Marcia Clark hairdos. Her performance is… More
  Slick but unapologetically manipulative while losing credibility by the minute towards the end. Female lawyers were in high fashion during the <i>Ally McBeal</i> era, and here we get a crafty Ashley Judd sporting a variety of bad Marcia Clark hairdos. Her performance is a good one though, while Amanda Peet seizes the opening provided by Judd's lousy locks as top hottie, and Morgan Freeman steals every scene as a has-been military counsel. I was enjoying myself with a lenient attitude of acceptance, but <i>High Crimes</i> couldn't even behave itself within that loose criteria. Overplayed red herrings, people suddenly appearing to save the day in a different city (and in one case a different country!), and a "surprise" ending that finalizes the exasperation. Too bad because I was ready to give a recommendation at the halfway point, but it lamentably loses a full star from there on.

• Henrik S

  
  I lost track of how many times Morgan Freeman played the same role in different m ovies. The good-hearted renegade policeman or lawyer or whatnot whose streetwise ways of dealing with with problems make the world a better place. In this case, I do not really mind Freeman being… More
  I lost track of how many times Morgan Freeman played the same role in different m ovies. The good-hearted renegade policeman or lawyer or whatnot whose streetwise ways of dealing with with problems make the world a better place. In this case, I do not really mind Freeman being typecast because he fills the stereotype well and adds wamrth and humanity to the movies. Yet, in some cases the films are unbalanced because the rest of the cast cannot hold their ends up. High Crimes suffers from an incredibly weak cast (except Freeman). While Ashley Judd is not the worst actor, her character is very superficial and you can tell that the script is written by a bloke because no woman like here exists in the world, shallow. The axis of the film, the accused, is James Cavaziel and he is a pain in the eye to see acting and he really breaks this movie, because I do not really care what happens to him. The story is simple and resemblent of "A Few Good Men" without the subtleness and tension, without the quality if you want to put it that way. The characters are all onedimensional and the bad guys look bad and the good guys look good, like an old western, but not in a good way. You can smell the twist from miles away so the climax is more or less a anti-climax. All this and many story inconsistencies make this a below average thrilles that is poorly executed as well. Can be missed. HX

• Lea L

  
  Good movie..

• Sunil J

  
  Boring!

Read all 13 featured audience ratings