Seraherrera The movie is wonderful and true, an act of love in all its contradictions and complexity

Roy Hart If you're interested in the topic at hand, you should just watch it and judge yourself because the reviews have gone very biased by people that didn't even watch it and just hate (or love) the creator. I liked it, it was well written, narrated, and directed and it was about a topic that interests me.

Sabah Hensley This is a dark and sometimes deeply uncomfortable drama

Ortiz Excellent and certainly provocative... If nothing else, the film is a real conversation starter.

farberw-1 I served in a different branch of the military, USN, for 6 years, (1957-1963) & came to know something about the Corp & military procedures in general. I was Honorably Discharged, never having been reprimanded during that time. I saw service men at their best & not so admirably, having served on Shore Patrol & Armed Service Police details. It was not like Frank Sinatra & Gene Kelley in "On the Town," far from it. It is important to know for those who did not serve, that military life is much different than civilian life; guided by different rules & standards, according to traditions & the Uniform Code Of Military Justice.(UCMJ) Military justice has two different ways that a court marshal is structured, something I disagree with to this day. For Officers, they are judged by a jury of their peers, other officers. For enlisted personnel, they too are judged by officers, there are no enlisted men on the jury, not a jury of their peers! Why not? Methinks they don't trust enlisted men & women to be impartial & reach the "right" verdict... SHAMEFUL. The premise borders on the absurd, & the procedures followed are not what would take place in trying to ascertain guilt or innocence. I first noticed A. Judd in "Ruby in Paradise," & to this day is stunningly beautiful, adequate to the roll she is playing. The character portrayed by A. Peet is like no one I have ever encountered, thankfully, for this I blame the director, Ms. Peet would do well not to include it on her resume, she has done better work; please choose more carefully. Morgan Freeman, also, has much to answer for, a totally unbelievable character, for the circumstance he is involved in. Same advice to you, Mr. Morgan, the co-STAR of "Shawshank ..." Rather than wasting your time with this dud, see 'A Few Good Men," a much better representation of military life & justice.

DocJD I started writing this review at the 3 anticlimax but there were...I can't remember how many more. But what will be remembered is the repetitious melodrama and close ups of Freeman swilling booze, and Jude's tears. As always, even when the story line has almost fainted with exhaustion, Freeman's performance manages to carry you to the end of the movie...there was probably other fair performances, but they are lost among the dull wooden recitals of the others. You really need to have absolutely nothing else to do, like me with a broken leg, to watch this dribble...or perhaps to drink as much booze as Freeman does to make sitting through this movie a little more bearable.

jlthornb51 Despite good performances from a strong cast, this mess of film fails largely due to downright amateurish direction. Franklin shows no skill with camera and has no idea how to create atmosphere or suspense. Just point the lens at the action, which he provides little of, is not directing. The entire movie is a hodge podge of generic films of this type with nothing original. There is no spark of creativity or any sign that the director tried to do anything other than go through the motions. The novel on which the picture is based is basically butchered, then tossed aside. What is left is an empty shell of a motion picture that goes nowhere while going in all directions at the same time. Someone should have taken this out of Carl Franklin's hands and given to a talented director before too much damage was done.

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"...