First and foremost, let me put my pants on...Just kidding there... Seriously though, the thing here above ALL else, to me anyway, is that this is an EXPERTLY crafted Thriller in just about every way. Yes, WITHOUT the very gifted hand of this director, then perhaps some of the complaints others have mentioned here might have some merit. But, to me, the fact that the dang film was made SO frigg'n well, kind of excuses some of the more familiar aspects of the movie.Some here have stated that the movie has many 'Cliches'; this couldn't be farther from the truth. True, the story is not hugely original, but the quality of the execution and the acting are absolutely top notch. Jim Caviezel and Morgan Freeman are outstanding. Specifically, the way that the pacing and the scenes are crafted and put together, and the performances the director evoked from the actors are extremely well done. The story is gripping and fully engrossing. The Thriller and legal aspects of it are also most involving.Now, with that said... There is just ONE rather weighty detraction... BUT... and it is a very BIG BUT like Mariah Carey's... In my lowly and wretched opinion, I do not think that it ultimate takes away from the fact that WHILE you are watching the film, your belief is fully suspended and you are completely involved. Also, it doesn't take away from the expert way the film is put together and crafted and the way it is handled; that is pure art. However... and I am NOT gonna be specific here because I do NOT want to take away anything at all from your enjoyment of the film. I will just simply say that it has something to do with when the film is over... That is all I will say...One of the better crafted Thrillers that I have seen in quite a while; I remember when I very first saw it, that I didn't particularly like it. BUT... the main reason for this was that I didn't initially care for the ending (which I allude to above). However, I must say that now, several years later, I MUCH more appreciate the outstanding quality of the film and it's execution in and of itself. And, I now feel that that fact alone greatly outweighs my original reasons for not liking it. Sometimes a movie is made SO dang well, that even after it is over and you may question some of the specific developments in the story, you still come away feeling that it was a good and entertaining film...

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"...

A woman has to defend her husband after she learns that he may have killed someone while still serving in the military. she has to learn the ways of the military court, as civilian laws to not apply in military court., Morgan Freeman is pretty good in this,, Ashley Judd does a decent job,, the story however, is full of holes and hard to follow as far as the whole military cover up scandal going on.. Bruce Davison and Amanda Peet have supporting roles in the movie as well. our military officer accused of the crime comes off as a decent enough guy, but soon we learn that maybe he isn't who we think he is,, is there a military cover-up going on,, will the wife keep defending her husband,, watch and find out,, not a bad movie,, just a little hard to follow in the middle of the movie, made it a little confusing to piece together for me .

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!