Preuves d'innocence

This is brilliant - it has all the elements of a cause celebre that could indeed be true, as this is how it plays out. A real whodunnit, and thriller from start to finish. My only moan is the comment about born again Christians. It is sure that some criminals will claim to find Jesus, and then try and see what they can get out of it, but it is also true that some of these men and women do genuinely change, and given the recidivist rate amongst convicts, if we can hope for nothing else, let it be true. It is a fact that in any criminal mystery, true or fictitious, there seem to be a number of possibilities as to who the guilty party really is. Many credible suspects turn into red herrings in the end, and one would like to think that if the proper investigative work is carried out, then justice will be done, though the heavens fall. One also cares about the characters, the police, prosecution and the defence, and none of them are really villains, whether or not they may do questionable things. Even when a famous case is resolved, one does not forget that life goes on, and the characters do not necessarily live perfectly happily ever after. Well done this one.

Wm. H. Macy and Felicity Huffman make it worth watching.

Turow's complex novel has been dumbed down to fit the mini-series format, but that's a trifle. Watch it for the magic that Macy and Huffman bring to small screen.

These are two stars who would not get big screen attention as romantic leads, but their performances sing here, given a chance to play center stage.

Watch how Huffman, as a disbarred and disgraced judge, plays her scene at the dept. store cosmetic counter. In a matter of seconds, she expresses purposeful employment, unguarded hope, crumbling shame, and icy self-contempt.

Macy's opening scene on Labor Day weekend, packing up his office, brings his character to life with uncommon line readings. This script is hardly Mamet, but Macy's skill raises the level of the writing. He clips off one line, talking about his sister's death: "Better this way, instead of her living like a ..." He never says the word vegetable, as if he recognizes the inadequacy of the cliché. No he's not commenting on the script, but letting the character halt himself before dishonoring his dead sibling with dead metaphors.

Let's hope this husband and wife team both get Emmy Awards for such remarkable work. And let's hope we see more of them on the big screen too.

"Reversible Errors" is a three hour film noir TV B-movie which tells a convoluted tale of a homicide cop (Selleck), his prosecutor lover (Potter), a defense attorney (Macy), and a judge (Huffman) who all become involved in a triple homicide investigation, a possible wrongful conviction, and another investigation to find the real killer(s). As the film wends its way toward its feel good conclusion - which seems too long in coming - it delves into sex, scandal, drugs, deceit, conspiracy, politics, infidelity, and more all served up in good old fashioned Hollywood movie style; not particularly convincing or believable but not ashamed about it either. A mildly entertaining whodunit which does an acceptable job of covering it's low budgetness with a mediocre score, Canadian locations, and an uneven production which focuses on the characters in a handful of sets (court, prison, lawyer offices, etc.), this PG-13ish film will make a so-so no brainer lets-stay-in-tonight TV watch for the not too jaded or discriminating. (B-)

"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.

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.