erikpsmith Warning: Spoilers aheadPresumed Innocent was one of several taut thrillers of the late '80s and early '90s containing a mystery that keeps you guessing until the end, combined with a healthy dollop of sex. Really one of the best of its genre. But the reason I'm commenting here is that I caught something a bit troubling on a repeat viewing last night. For a thriller to work, everything has to make sense, the clues, the explanations, the red herrings - everything. And there's a weak link in this plot that borders on the preposterous.I sat down to watch it last night, 28 years after release, because I'd just gotten done watching "Scott Turow's Innocence" - a new film featuring the same characters (but different actors) that really functions as a sequel. And as I watched it again, something struck me that I missed all those years ago in the theater. I ask you please to stop reading if you haven't seen this movie yet - I'm about to spoil the whole thing for you.The key point of evidence is a water glass found at Carolyn Polhemus' apartment with Rusty Sabich's fingerprints all over it. If he didn't commit the murder, how did it get there?We learn in the final scene that Sabich's wife committed the murder and planted the water glass. She explains that she knew the kind of water glasses Polhemus used, because she happened to buy a set for her husband to give to Polhemus as a housewarming present. She says she bought an identical set, and that one night she served Sabich a beer in one of those glasses, got his prints and tucked it away for later use in framing him.I'll grant the movie this assumption. It's a little far-fetched - what's the chance that Ford's wife would know what kind of water glasses Polhemus used, because she happened to buy them for her? It borders on coincidence. Yet I'm always willing to grant a movie one far-fetched plot point, as an element of the premise. It's just that everything else ought to proceed in a logical manner, lest the plot become a matter of coincidence and contrivance.Unfortunately, it just doesn't hang together. As Sabich investigates the crime, he learns that a water glass was found at the scene of the crime, likely with someone's fingerprints on it. For some reason, he delays running a test, perhaps an oversight (though of course it is one of those red herrings designed to make us think he might be guilty).The trouble is, if Sabich were to actually see this drinking glass, he might well recognize it and start putting two and two together. So events unfold in such a way to prevent Sabich from seeing the glass. This vital piece of evidence disappears right after the test is done and Sabich's prints are found. The trial is overshadowed by this piece of missing evidence. Eventually its disappearance leads the judge to dismiss the case. I can buy this, and later a logical explanation for its disappearance is provided.So we have a lucky contrivance that serves the plot. It certainly is a stretch, but I can see how maaaaaaaybe things might happen that way.But's let's imagine this in real life. Your wife hands you a glass of beer in an unfamiliar drinking glass. It might seem unremarkable at the time, and you might say nothing. But you know what your drinking glasses look like. You'd notice the difference. I ask you to put yourself in the place of a deputy prosecutor. He's got a hundred crime scene photographs. He has to have access to them because he's going to be using them in presenting his case - later we see that the jury looks at a few of them during the trial. Of course the crime scene photographer would snap a few shots of the drinking glass on the table, before it is taken into evidence, to establish its provenance at the crime scene. It's standard police procedure.So Sabich would have seen the glass in the photo. And if that doesn't start him thinking about the fact that his wife handed him a beer sometime shortly before the murder in exactly the same type of glass, it certainly should have. During the trial, we learn something else that can be explained only two ways. The sperm discovered during examination of Polhemus' body is consistent with Sabich's, but all the sperm is dead, killed by some sort of spermicide. Yet Polhemus didn't use birth control - she didn't need to, because she had her tubes tied. (Another lucky coincidence for the plot's sake.) Either the coroner bungled the investigation (which is what the court assumes) or the sperm was somehow provided by someone who had treated it with spermicide. Like someone who had sex with Sabich. His wife, for instance.My thought is that Sabich, sitting in the courtroom, learning for the first time about this business involving sperm and spermicide, should have started thinking - wait a second! That water glass - I handled one just like it before the murder, handed to me by my wife. And she'd have access to my bodily fluids - OMG. Sabich is no dummy. I submit he should have figured it out right there in the courtroom. Which makes the whole surprise ending a bit silly and overwrought. Sabich would have to be a complete dolt not to see it coming.Even though the movie doesn't play fair with us, it doesn't really spoil things. On first viewing, 28 years ago, I certainly didn't see the problem. I'm sure everyone who watches the movie for the first time will miss this point. Only because I knew how it ended was I watching for clues last night. But come on, you have to admit this really doesn't make much sense at all.

Leofwine_draca PRESUMED INNOCENT is a gripping courtroom drama that feels like a Perry Mason episode given big bucks treatment. It stars Harrison Ford in one of his sympathetic 'everyman hero' type roles as an attorney who is asked to investigate the brutal rape and murder of a female colleague with whom he had a rather complicated history. What follows is a thriller packed with twists and turns and great acting from the supporting cast, none of whom put a foot wrong. I really enjoy these court thrillers that get to the heart of the justice system as they're just as exciting as more routine action-based thrillers. PRESUMED INNOCENT boasts exemplary direction, fast pacing, and intelligent dialogue thanks to the literate script; it's obvious the writer has done their job properly. However, as a character-focused drama, this works best thanks a whole slew of fine acting performances.Ford is great when he's playing it worried and on the edge. He's subdued here, but his flawed hero is one you can really root for. Greta Scacchi is an electrifying presence although only used in flashback, and Bonnie Bedelia plays another strong wife role. Paul Winfield is excellent as the judge and I wish he'd been used better throughout his career. Brian Dennehy has a small but intense and important role. I also liked John Spencer's likable turn as Ford's buddy. Even the kid from JURASSIC PARK is in this one and giving a strong performance. Best of all is the delightful Raul Julia in the best role I've seen from him as the dedicated defence lawyer. PRESUMED INNOCENT is a film that keeps you guessing throughout and ends on a satisfying and surprising way.

fahimay With the murder committed within the first few minutes into the movie itself, we have an idea about where we are heading towards. But as each scene plays out, and the tension builds up, we keep our fingers crossed, waiting for the inevitable. From the title itself, we can make out that it is about a guy framed for murder. The plot is designed with intelligence and moderately tense moments. When the victim tends to be developed into a bad girl-image, you tend to sympathise with the perpetrator, though he seems 'presumably innocent.' Minus a couple of R-rated scenes, the movie is not centred on sensuality. I have loved Harrison ford since Air Force One. He brings his expressions alive as the one in a fix, searching for a way out.The movie does have few interesting twists. When the whole truth is out, you feel you can justify it. It is an ugly but sad truth that many female employees work on men's weaknesses to climb the career ladder. The movie ends on a serious note, with Harrison's mental turmoil lingering in your mind.

tomsview This is a powerful movie with a terrific performance by Harrison Ford. It might even be his most thoughtful one.Rusty Sabich (Harrison Ford) is a prosecuting attorney whose life and career are unravelling. He has damaged his marriage to Barbara Sabich (Bonnie Bedelia) by having a torrid affair with an ambitious assistant, Carolyn Polhemus (Greta Scacchi), and despite the fact that she ended the affair, he can't get over it. "You're still obsessing", his wife accuses him, and she's right, he has withdrawn into himself and just seems to be going through the motions. When Carolyn is murdered, he is ordered to handle the case, but murky layers are exposed throughout the legal profession, and eventually he becomes the number one suspect.This is an absorbing, complex mystery from Scott Turow's novel with enough courtroom drama to put it in a class with "Anatomy of a Murder", "The Paradine Case" and "Witness for the Prosecution".It was directed by Alan J. Pakula; a master of the mystery/thriller genre. His best ones had plenty of atmosphere and not a little darkness. "Klute", "The Parallax View", "All the Presidents Men", "Dream Lover" and "Consenting Adults" are all his. He was never a real name-above-the-title director like Hitchcock or Polanski, but his work was often as distinctive.The cast really delivers: Bonnie Bedelia, Raúl Juliá, Brian Dennehy, and especially John Spencer as Dan Lipranzer, but no actress at the time was hotter than Greta Scacchi. She sizzles in a couple of scenes making believable poor old Rusty's befuddlement when she dumps him. These days, it's interesting to see Greta 25 years later in more sedate roles in "Miss Marple" and "Agatha Christie's Poirot".But this is Harrison Ford's film and he dug deep here - you can feel his pain as he wrestles with his guilt over the betrayal of his wife, and his humiliation in front of his friend, the tough Lapranzer, as he tries to distance himself from Carolyn's murder.Along with the great look of the film, the music helps with the feel. The brilliant Michael Small was usually Pakula's go-to composer, but for some reason John Williams got the job. You have to admire William's range - he can do anything. He came up with a low-key, dark-hued score for this film with simple piano chords to the fore. There were some very good scores around the 1990's, and this one can stand comparison to Jerry Goldsmith's 1992 score for "Basic Instinct"."Presumed Innocent" was a big hit when it was released - it's still a not-to-be-missed movie.