Füge eine Handlung in deiner Sprache hinzuA corporate lawyer's interest in a decade-old murder case is piqued by a new confession that could clear the convicted killer, who sits on death row.A corporate lawyer's interest in a decade-old murder case is piqued by a new confession that could clear the convicted killer, who sits on death row.A corporate lawyer's interest in a decade-old murder case is piqued by a new confession that could clear the convicted killer, who sits on death row.
- Auszeichnungen
- 3 Nominierungen insgesamt
Fotos
Empfohlene Bewertungen
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.
I have been curious for years about REVERSIBLE ERRORS because it stars both William Macy and James Rebhorn (a supporting actor that while he has never been a recognizable name he has certainly a recognizable face and voice). Last May I finally saw it and it was up to my expectations.
When the story begins a woman and two men are killed in a bar and Detective Larry Starczek (Tom Selleck) is in charge of the investigations. Soon small-time theif Squirrel (Glenn Plummer) is seen as the main suspect. Larry arrests him and after the trial Squirrel is sent to prison and ready to be executed. Then the movie moves seven years later when there is new evidence and nobody is sure that Squirrel is the culprit and the judge wasn't exactly clean. Arthur Raven (Macy) will investigate and make the truth come out, and Squirrel will be free again.
Despite its very long running time of 2 hours and 53 minutes (and according to the IMDB trivia it was first aired on CBS in two parts) it's still a great made for TV thriller that has lots of surprises and unexpected twists that are bound to make you extremely satisfied by the end. The acting was great by all, and it doesn't even feel the typical TV movie look.
If you stumble upon it during a Youtube search or remember it being aired for the first time back in 2004, don't miss it for all the aforementioned reasons.
When the story begins a woman and two men are killed in a bar and Detective Larry Starczek (Tom Selleck) is in charge of the investigations. Soon small-time theif Squirrel (Glenn Plummer) is seen as the main suspect. Larry arrests him and after the trial Squirrel is sent to prison and ready to be executed. Then the movie moves seven years later when there is new evidence and nobody is sure that Squirrel is the culprit and the judge wasn't exactly clean. Arthur Raven (Macy) will investigate and make the truth come out, and Squirrel will be free again.
Despite its very long running time of 2 hours and 53 minutes (and according to the IMDB trivia it was first aired on CBS in two parts) it's still a great made for TV thriller that has lots of surprises and unexpected twists that are bound to make you extremely satisfied by the end. The acting was great by all, and it doesn't even feel the typical TV movie look.
If you stumble upon it during a Youtube search or remember it being aired for the first time back in 2004, don't miss it for all the aforementioned reasons.
"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.
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.
Scott Turow's books are always thrilling and surprising, but filming them are not easy tasks. Despite the great performances of William Macy and Glenn Plummer, Reversible Errors turns out disappointing. The abrupt cuts, may be to fit in the TV format, makes the movie loose the suspense and the pace. The come and go of the plot seems much unreal and absurd. Tom Selleck overact and Monica Potter does not convince as a prosecutor. Gilliam Sullivan does not compromise. The only reason that prevents you from giving up watching it before the end, is the hope that something really unexpected would happen. At the end you get a feeling that another good story was spoiled at the screen.
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.
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.
Wusstest du schon
- PatzerThe skyline of the Tri Cities is not of any city in the United States, but of Halifax, Nova Scotia.
Top-Auswahl
Melde dich zum Bewerten an und greife auf die Watchlist für personalisierte Empfehlungen zu.
Details
- Erscheinungsdatum
- Herkunftsland
- Sprache
- Auch bekannt als
- Scott Turow's Reversible Errors
- Drehorte
- Dorchester, New Brunswick, Kanada(interiors)
- Produktionsfirmen
- Weitere beteiligte Unternehmen bei IMDbPro anzeigen
- Laufzeit2 Stunden 53 Minuten
- Farbe
- Sound-Mix
- Seitenverhältnis
- 1.78 : 1
Zu dieser Seite beitragen
Bearbeitung vorschlagen oder fehlenden Inhalt hinzufügen
Oberste Lücke
By what name was Reversible Errors (2004) officially released in Canada in English?
Antwort