Preuves d'innocence

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.

Although "Reversible Errors" is basically a courtroom drama, its big strength lies in the fact that it is in fact much more than that. As I will explain later, the plot is weaved on the intersecting relationships of two couples (Selleck/Potter and Macey/Huffman), whose complexities define the course of events.

The story starts with Arthun Raven (Macey), quitting the prosecutor's office due to a personal tragedy. His colleague Muriel Wynn (Potter) asks him a last favor: Could he drop to Judge Gillian Sullivan's (Huffman) home, to get a warrant for a new case she has been assigned with her lover Sgt. Larry Starczek (Selleck)? Raven agrees, and this is how he makes his first encounter with an enigmatic woman he will fall in love with later on.

The case Starzek and Wynn are working on is a triple homicide, and things seem to clear-up very fast: Squirrel (Plummer), a small-time crook, is caught and confesses to the murders, and Judge Sullivan sentences him to death. The arresting duo gets their dues, and especially Potter is set for a shining career path.

However, seven years later, everything gets turned upside down. Sullivan is no longer a judge, as she has been convicted and jailed for graft. On top of that, she has also received a letter by Erdai (Rebhorn), a dying inmate who claims he is the perpetrator of the old triple crime, and this haunts her conscience for perhaps having sentenced an innocent man to death. Enter Raven, who coincidentally has just been assigned to represent Squirrel in his last weeks before his execution. Raven quickly believes in Squirrel's innocence, and begins a harried crusade to save his life, getting Sullivan on board as well. However, things now have gotten complicated, as the former duo of Selleck and Potter is by no means willing let him destroy their precious case due to the dubious testimony of a dying crook. A dirty race begins for the ultimate search of the truth, and a clash becomes inevitable.

Scott Turow's excellent story is lengthy and complex; after all the movie lasts nearly three hours. And yet, at no point does the viewer get bored. There are no visible plot gaps, and the pace is steady and fast. Moreover, there some great twists throughout the film, so it is easily understandable why the three hours pass so quickly and enjoyably.

And yet, although the plot is very good, the strength of the film lies elsewhere: In the development of the characters and their relationships. These are four completely different persons: The inexperienced but overly ambitious Potter, the introvert and ethical Raven, the erratic but well-intentioned Sullivan, and the experienced but perhaps hypocrite Selleck. Director Mike Robe studies each character in depth, and artfully shows us how everyone interacts with everyone else in this complex and evil web.

An undiscovered gem, "RE" is a movie really worth seeing. 8/10.

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.

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")

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.