Ajouter une intrigue dans votre langueA 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.
- Réalisation
- Scénario
- Casting principal
- Récompenses
- 2 nominations au total
Avis à la une
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.
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.
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.
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.
Judge Rusty Sabich (Bill Pullman) is found with his dead wife Barbara (Marcia Gay Harden) in their bed. He didn't report it for 24 hours and suspicion mounts against him. D.A. Tommy Molto (Richard Schiff) reluctantly allows Jimmy Brand to investigated despite the possibility of another humiliation from a Rusty case. A year earlier is his 60th birthday. There is tension below the surface of his perfect job, their perfect marriage, and perfect family. His clerk Anna Vostick provokes accusation of infidelity. There is a good reason for the accusation and a previous affair led to a big media trial.
This movie needs to be Molto's movie. The audience needs to know only what Molto knows. The audience needs to learn what Molto learns. The computer thing needs to be more clearly explained. I get the explanation but it needs to be physically shown. I'm not a Scott Turow reader. I'm not sure how he attacks the story but I'd definitely make Molto the protagonist. This is messy and the Sabich family is not appealing. The most compelling section is the D.A. group come up with Barbara's revenge premise.
This movie needs to be Molto's movie. The audience needs to know only what Molto knows. The audience needs to learn what Molto learns. The computer thing needs to be more clearly explained. I get the explanation but it needs to be physically shown. I'm not a Scott Turow reader. I'm not sure how he attacks the story but I'd definitely make Molto the protagonist. This is messy and the Sabich family is not appealing. The most compelling section is the D.A. group come up with Barbara's revenge premise.
Le saviez-vous
- AnecdotesMike Robe also directed "The Burden of Proof (1992)"--also a sequel to "Présumé innocent (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 "Présumé innocent (1990)," appeared in a different role.
- GaffesRusty 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.
- Citations
[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*!
- ConnexionsFollows Présumé innocent (1990)
Meilleurs choix
Connectez-vous pour évaluer et suivre la liste de favoris afin de recevoir des recommandations personnalisées
Détails
- Date de sortie
- Pays d’origine
- Site officiel
- Langue
- Aussi connu sous le nom de
- Scott Turow's Innocent
- Lieux de tournage
- Sociétés de production
- Voir plus de crédits d'entreprise sur IMDbPro
- Durée
- 1h 29min(89 min)
- Couleur
Contribuer à cette page
Suggérer une modification ou ajouter du contenu manquant