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.A man accused of killing his mistress twenty years previously is arrested again on suspicion of murdering his wife.
- Awards
- 2 nominations total
- Director
- Writers
- All cast & crew
- Production, box office & more at IMDbPro
Featured reviews
This is an efficient movie with some neat twists and turns in the solving of a crime. It is largely inoffensive because it is constructed to the well worn formula of finger pointing to a murderer and then seeing just how many things can change your mind before the credits roll.
The acting is reasonable but not sensational with the victim, Barbara (Marcia Gay Harden), being the best at everything in the back story played out throughout the film. Nothing sticks out as faulty, but it is not especially memorable either.
If you like courtrooms and enjoy trying to work crimes out then it is worth a rental.
The acting is reasonable but not sensational with the victim, Barbara (Marcia Gay Harden), being the best at everything in the back story played out throughout the film. Nothing sticks out as faulty, but it is not especially memorable either.
If you like courtrooms and enjoy trying to work crimes out then it is worth a rental.
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.
This made-for-TV version of the Scott Turow novel is a competently made but not particularly inspiring translation to the small screen. With Bill Pullman and Alfred Molina in two of the leading roles, the acting is fine, but for some reason there seem to be a lot of English-as-a-second-language characters. Molina and the woman who portrays the judge play them with accents.
One of the issues of courtroom dramas on screen is that they take place in a small space and there isn't much real movement going on. Typically, this is covered by an active camera, and that happens here, with short editing cuts and a camera that moves. Injudiciously applied, it becomes frantic, even hysterical, and that happens occasionally here.
Even so, the central story is a solid one. If you have any taste for this genre, it's a couple of hours well spent.
One of the issues of courtroom dramas on screen is that they take place in a small space and there isn't much real movement going on. Typically, this is covered by an active camera, and that happens here, with short editing cuts and a camera that moves. Injudiciously applied, it becomes frantic, even hysterical, and that happens occasionally here.
Even so, the central story is a solid one. If you have any taste for this genre, it's a couple of hours well spent.
Trurow's novel was long and dealt with all the legal details unfolding with tremendous justice and competence. Think of this movie as a very abridged version of the novel trying to cram in a lot of character and plot development with a lot of very competent actors. There are 'hints' of Barbara Sabich's psychological problems from the onset, and you have to deftly catch them to make sense of the movie as it develops. Of course, Marcia Gay Harden does justice playing the part very carefully and not obviously if you don't look for her frailties from the start. Bill Pullman playing Judge Rusty Sabich, his son played by Callard Harris, the court clerk who ends up being the mysterious mistress for the prosecution and girlfriend played by Mariana Klaveno are all capably performed considering the pressures of an 'abridged' version. The prosection played by Richard Schiff and Tahmoh Penikett - the latter plays an over enthusiastic, careless and doltz of an assistant prosecutor to Schiff's diligence and care, while the defense handled by Alfred Molina and Janet Kidder are just great at letting the prosecution exhaust itself with its poorly constructed case against the judge. "Hey", it's an entertaining movie if you have the time and mindset to watch it carefully. It's not a 'disappointer' at all! (And you don't have to be 60 years or older to appreciate the contradictions presented between impatient youth and crafty and forbearing senior adults in the movie.)
I know this writer's novels and was looking forward to a layered, carefully constructed legal drama. Instead, I got the highlights of a decent plot and characters, yet with all the nuance scooped out.
In addition, the cast is filled with dependable veterans who've never failed me, but here they have little to work with as they're moved around scenes like a collection of cardboard cutouts.
Given the writer and cast all have solid histories of success, I'm not going to lay this at their feet. One or two could have a bad project, but not all.
---
I'm thinking the issue, instead, is editing and directing. Scenes are chopped and smashed together, relationships aren't given time to evolve.
The dialogue just feels flat as though done without the support to get it right. Were they not given time for a second take? Did they do a dozen and wear the material out? Not sure, but what should have been an enjoyable movie just feels middling.
---
I'm not saying to avoid the film, but I am saying lower expectations going in. This feels like what used to be called a "tv movie." It's a pity, really, since it had the potential to be so much more.
Still, on a rainy afternoon, it is "enough."
In addition, the cast is filled with dependable veterans who've never failed me, but here they have little to work with as they're moved around scenes like a collection of cardboard cutouts.
Given the writer and cast all have solid histories of success, I'm not going to lay this at their feet. One or two could have a bad project, but not all.
---
I'm thinking the issue, instead, is editing and directing. Scenes are chopped and smashed together, relationships aren't given time to evolve.
The dialogue just feels flat as though done without the support to get it right. Were they not given time for a second take? Did they do a dozen and wear the material out? Not sure, but what should have been an enjoyable movie just feels middling.
---
I'm not saying to avoid the film, but I am saying lower expectations going in. This feels like what used to be called a "tv movie." It's a pity, really, since it had the potential to be so much more.
Still, on a rainy afternoon, it is "enough."
Did you know
- TriviaMike 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.
- GoofsRusty 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.
- Quotes
[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*!
- ConnectionsFollows Présumé innocent (1990)
Details
- Release date
- Country of origin
- Official site
- Language
- Also known as
- Scott Turow's Innocent
- Filming locations
- Production companies
- See more company credits at IMDbPro
- Runtime
- 1h 29m(89 min)
- Color
Contribute to this page
Suggest an edit or add missing content