Crimen en primer grado

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-)

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

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.

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.

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.