Nadine Salakov
There needs to be more thrillers like this, the plot is decent and the twist is surprising. The dialogue is perfect and the actors all do a great job. The director and editor also did a good job due to the movie being at a perfect pace and there are no scenes that are too long, unnecessary or too short, however there is one particular scene that did not make sense, but is necessary to have the viewers confused about one of the characters - the scene where "Charlie Grimes" (Morgan Freeman) is trying to discreetly spy on some of the other soldiers at the strip club - a few of them take him outside, beat him up and look like they're about to kill him by breaking his neck until a couple of people interrupt them, - that scene is over the top and didn't have enough reason for them to beat him and attempt to kill him.The guy that was stalking "Claire" (Ashley Judd) may have seemed like an unnecessary character, but clearly he was put there to throw off the audience about the entire situation with the husband "Tom" aka "Ron" (Jim Caviezel)."Claire's" sister "Jackie" (Amanda Peet) brings a little comic relief to the movie, that is what a good thriller needs, and High Crimes pulls it off due to a few of "Jackie"'s lines and scenes being delivered at the right times, it's on the same level as "Enemy Of The State" where the wife of the main character brings a little humour at times.The film score is nice and suits the movie, the lyrical soundtrack also suits the scenery and vibe of the film, this motion picture gives the impression that San Francisco is hip, cool, funky and laid back, the lyrical music featured backs that up even from the radio stations playing in the background in a couple of short scenes.The only thing that is corny in this cine is "Claire's" wig at times, it seems to change a lot and looks the worst in the scene where she is telling her sister and the army lawyer that she needs some time alone. Hair and makeup must have had the night off or something because they didn't do their job properly for that scene.Overall High Crimes is a must-watch for thriller fans.
FilmBuff1994
High Crimes is a decent movie with a very well developed storyline and a great cast.I was expecting it to be more of a thriller,which it certainly wasn't,but it was still an enjoyable movie,mainly because of solid performances and very great character development,the movie does drag out a bit however and isn't completely interesting the whole time.Morgan Freeman was certainly the movies highlight,he delivered a brilliant performance like he always does and his character is certainly the most likable,Ashley Judd also did a terrific job,I've complained about her acting before in Kiss the Girls,but she had certainly improved between the gap of these movies and the character was more suited for her.The thing that bothered me the most about this movie is that the "big twist " at the end was really predictable,the writers were clearly expecting it to shock the audience but it was obvious this would happen about a half hour in to the film.Predictable but still enjoyable,High Crimes is a good movie that I would recommend to anyone looking for a good crime film. A woman must uncover national security secrets to clear her husband,accused of war crimes in El Salvador.Best Performance: Morgan Freeman Worst Performance: Jim Caviezel
Bene Cumb
The background - "open" civilians rambling into "closed" military circles - has been used in dozens of known movies, and High Crimes did not provide any fresh angle to the approach. The benchmark was clear, events followed had some nice twists and turns, but types of attorneys were trivial in a politically correct manner (although nicely performed, particularly Morgan Freeman), and the middle of the movie or so gave rather plain hints about the solution and the role of the accused. Some thrilling scenes provided no additional value to the movie, or were rather questionable, e.g. why the military had tried to hinder the attorneys in such a way? Or: why the Salvadorian witness did not act earlier vis-a-vis the killer? Thus, the course of action and performances are catchy to follow, but during last 10-15 minutes you just shrug your shoulders and start to "bind the bastings"...
leplatypus
I have learned two things watching this movie: 1) If you are fan, focus on the prime and not the beginnings unless you only see the star you support as supportive cast at best if it isn't just in background: As an Amanda's fan, this movie belongs to her beginnings so we don't see her a lot. But she is perfect as the liberal, inhibited young sister.2) America has an extrovert relationship with violence, thus with military that is its legalized form. So she can do movies about wars (Vietnam, Gulf, Cold-war) or the military world (this one for example). In France, all those things are kept hidden under the rug and french citizen are forbidden to watch movies about decolonization, Indochine, Algeria, ... This is the real trademark of my country: no movies on politics, institutions. The facts aren't distributed by movies in France thus it's hard to have an opinion in my country and I don't really think we can call us a true democracy.That's why a movie like this is like a breath of fresh air, above it depicts the "the big mute" (the nickname of the army in France) as well indeed a big mute... However, if the cast is talented and we feel a good chemistry between Jude and Freeman, the movie doesn't really kick-ass. Maybe it's because the classified crimes is a bit too faraway. By the way, for a movie about soldiers,there are paradoxically a lot of cries!