IMDb-BEWERTUNG
5,6/10
871
IHRE BEWERTUNG
Füge eine Handlung in deiner Sprache hinzuA man accused of killing his mistress twenty years previously is arrested again on suspicion of murdering his wife.A man accused of killing his mistress twenty years previously is arrested again on suspicion of murdering his wife.A man accused of killing his mistress twenty years previously is arrested again on suspicion of murdering his wife.
- Auszeichnungen
- 2 Nominierungen insgesamt
Empfohlene Bewertungen
Judging by its all-star cast, this movie should be enough to be put on the pedestal. Yet, its quality more liked those on Lifetime channel. From the beginning, it did not have such suspensions like Hitchcock's movies. Although the plots were complicated, they did not resonate with audiences. The intensity of dark dramas also did not have enough momentum to carry through the whole movie. Its surroundings and paces were also lack of plausibility among other things.
It probably should be remade by different directors. I was not thrilled by those presumptuous plots which the writer tried to reinvent. In my opinion, it should have revealed the wife's mental illness from the beginning. The disclosure in the end was not enough. The wife's struggling needed to be drawn to connect the whole storyline. This missing part is crucial to the whole movie. It indeed required better cinematographers, too. I hope to see a different version of it in the future.
It probably should be remade by different directors. I was not thrilled by those presumptuous plots which the writer tried to reinvent. In my opinion, it should have revealed the wife's mental illness from the beginning. The disclosure in the end was not enough. The wife's struggling needed to be drawn to connect the whole storyline. This missing part is crucial to the whole movie. It indeed required better cinematographers, too. I hope to see a different version of it in the future.
Bill Pullman is Judge Sabich. he has a past, and when one of his own law clerks takes another job, things get complicated. they think they got away with it, but there were witnesses.... lots of them. and lots of people lying to other people. trials. some cheesy acting as the prosecutor's team tries to prove that the judge knocked off the wife. these are all bad people. It's pretty good, for what it is, apparently a TV movie. Written and directed by Mike Robe. not a lot about him out there. this shows on the Epix channel. not a lot of votes or reviews for this one on imdb.
Scott Turow is an amazing writer because of his ability to give full, rich, textured lives to most of the characters in a book. In his fictional world of Kindle county, even the peripheral figures have great,textured back-stories. He has great insight into human nature. It's too bad that you can see almost none of this in the TV movie version of Innocent.
I watched this movie shortly after reading the book. The book was fascinating and absorbing. While the movie was competently made, it lacked most of the detail that makes Turow's books so rich and interesting. The recorded version of the book is 14 hours long, and none of that time was wasted or boring. The movie was probably less than 90 minutes, if you take out the commercial breaks. There was no way for them to compress so much character development and plot into such a small space. And in my opinion, it was wrong to try.
Unfortunately, though the movie isn't awful, I can't think of any reason to recommend it. There are some good performances, but the script is just too skeletal to do justice to this story.
I hope that the next time Scott Turow gets an movie offer on one of his great books, that he holds out for a miniseries instead.
I watched this movie shortly after reading the book. The book was fascinating and absorbing. While the movie was competently made, it lacked most of the detail that makes Turow's books so rich and interesting. The recorded version of the book is 14 hours long, and none of that time was wasted or boring. The movie was probably less than 90 minutes, if you take out the commercial breaks. There was no way for them to compress so much character development and plot into such a small space. And in my opinion, it was wrong to try.
Unfortunately, though the movie isn't awful, I can't think of any reason to recommend it. There are some good performances, but the script is just too skeletal to do justice to this story.
I hope that the next time Scott Turow gets an movie offer on one of his great books, that he holds out for a miniseries instead.
A glaring omission that should have been present in all movies involving Barbara is the fact that Barbara is a few fries short of a Happy Meal. There's no research showing mentally ill people who can act normal for years and work as a teacher without doing something to attract attention if not legal problems.
This is an efficient movie with some neat twists and turns in the solving of a crime. It is largely inoffensive because it is constructed to the well worn formula of finger pointing to a murderer and then seeing just how many things can change your mind before the credits roll.
The acting is reasonable but not sensational with the victim, Barbara (Marcia Gay Harden), being the best at everything in the back story played out throughout the film. Nothing sticks out as faulty, but it is not especially memorable either.
If you like courtrooms and enjoy trying to work crimes out then it is worth a rental.
The acting is reasonable but not sensational with the victim, Barbara (Marcia Gay Harden), being the best at everything in the back story played out throughout the film. Nothing sticks out as faulty, but it is not especially memorable either.
If you like courtrooms and enjoy trying to work crimes out then it is worth a rental.
Wusstest du schon
- WissenswertesMike Robe also directed "Unter der Last der Beweise (1992)"--also a sequel to "Aus Mangel an Beweisen (1990)"--that focused on the character Sandy Stern, played by Hector Elizondo. (In "Innocent," Stern is played by Alfred Molina.) The characters of Rusty Sabich and Tommy Molto did not appear in that film, but Brian Dennehy, who had played Raymond Horgan in "Aus Mangel an Beweisen (1990)," appeared in a different role.
- PatzerRusty Sabich is a head appellate judge, ruling on an appeal by a convicted murderer that he prosecuted. In real life, he should have recused (removed) himself from the case or the convicts appellate lawyers should have filed to have him removed from hearing the appeal. Either way he should not have been presiding over this case as he was personally involved.
- Zitate
[having just received some circumstancial evidence against Rusty Sabich]
Tommy Molto: You're giving me buckshot here. I need one bullet. If you want to shoot at the king, you've got to *kill the king*!
- VerbindungenFollows Aus Mangel an Beweisen (1990)
Top-Auswahl
Melde dich zum Bewerten an und greife auf die Watchlist für personalisierte Empfehlungen zu.
Details
- Erscheinungsdatum
- Herkunftsland
- Offizieller Standort
- Sprache
- Auch bekannt als
- Innocent
- Drehorte
- Produktionsfirmen
- Weitere beteiligte Unternehmen bei IMDbPro anzeigen
- Laufzeit
- 1 Std. 29 Min.(89 min)
- Farbe
Zu dieser Seite beitragen
Bearbeitung vorschlagen oder fehlenden Inhalt hinzufügen