अपनी भाषा में प्लॉट जोड़ेंA 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.
- पुरस्कार
- 3 कुल नामांकन
फ़ोटो
फ़ीचर्ड समीक्षाएं
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
In 1996, there is a triple homicide in a dinning place, and Sergeant Larry Starczek (Tom Selleck) is in charge of the investigation. His lover, the ambitious prosecuting attorney Muriel Wynn (Monica Potter) follows him and they get the name of a suspect. The smalltime crook Romeo 'Squirrel' Gandolph (Glenn Plummer) is arrested, confesses the crime and is sentenced to the death row. Seven years later, Muriel is married and has had a meteoric professional ascension in her career; Starczek is retired; and the judge of the case Gillian Sullivan (Felicity Huffman) has just been released from prison after the accusation of bribery. A couple of weeks before the execution of Squirrel, the corporate lawyer Arthur Raven (William H. Macy) is assigned by his associates to defend Squirrel for free as a part of a political marketing. However, the confession of a cancerous prisoner assuming that he had committed the murder reopens the case exposing secrets and wounds.
I have never read Scott Turow's novel and I really liked "Reversible Errors" a lot, actually a great surprise as a drama, thriller and even film-noir. I can understand the disappointment of the viewers that had read the book first and saw the movie later since the same usually happens with me. But the performances of William H. Macy and Felicity Huffman, in the first plane, followed by Monica Potter and Glenn Plummer are awesome and must be acknowledged and recognized even for those that did not like the film. I liked very much the despicable, ambitious and ambiguous character of Monica Potter. The story has an excellent beginning, then it slows down, but the plot points, the dirty and amoral behavior of Starczek inclusive destroying evidences and the romance between Gillian and Arthur hold the interest on the plot until the last scene in spite of the running time of 172 minutes. Last but not the least, in my opinion, this movie is underrated in IMDb. My vote is eight.
Title (Brazil): "Erros Irreversíveis" ("Irreversible Errors")
I have never read Scott Turow's novel and I really liked "Reversible Errors" a lot, actually a great surprise as a drama, thriller and even film-noir. I can understand the disappointment of the viewers that had read the book first and saw the movie later since the same usually happens with me. But the performances of William H. Macy and Felicity Huffman, in the first plane, followed by Monica Potter and Glenn Plummer are awesome and must be acknowledged and recognized even for those that did not like the film. I liked very much the despicable, ambitious and ambiguous character of Monica Potter. The story has an excellent beginning, then it slows down, but the plot points, the dirty and amoral behavior of Starczek inclusive destroying evidences and the romance between Gillian and Arthur hold the interest on the plot until the last scene in spite of the running time of 172 minutes. Last but not the least, in my opinion, this movie is underrated in IMDb. My vote is eight.
Title (Brazil): "Erros Irreversíveis" ("Irreversible Errors")
क्या आपको पता है
- गूफ़The skyline of the Tri Cities is not of any city in the United States, but of Halifax, Nova Scotia.
टॉप पसंद
रेटिंग देने के लिए साइन-इन करें और वैयक्तिकृत सुझावों के लिए वॉचलिस्ट करें
विवरण
- रिलीज़ की तारीख़
- कंट्री ऑफ़ ओरिजिन
- भाषा
- इस रूप में भी जाना जाता है
- Scott Turow's Reversible Errors
- फ़िल्माने की जगहें
- Dorchester, New Brunswick, कनाडा(interiors)
- उत्पादन कंपनियां
- IMDbPro पर और कंपनी क्रेडिट देखें
- चलने की अवधि
- 2 घं 53 मि(173 min)
- रंग
- ध्वनि मिश्रण
- पक्ष अनुपात
- 1.78 : 1
इस पेज में योगदान दें
किसी बदलाव का सुझाव दें या अनुपलब्ध कॉन्टेंट जोड़ें