BEFORE: My legal chain is starting up just as I'm also starting on the current TV season - so I'm watching the first episodes of "Law & Order: SVU" and "CSI" from September 2010, which dovetails pretty nicely. Tonight Harrison Ford (last seen in "Patriot Games") stands accused of murder - say it ain't so, Han Solo!
THE PLOT: When the woman deputy prosecutor R.K. Sabich had an affair with is murdered the prosecutor asks him to lead the investigation. When Sabich digs too deeply he finds himself framed for the murder.
AFTER: This is a legal thriller that for the most part, failed to thrill. Most of the actors seemed to be mumbling or sleepwalking through their lines, as if they didn't care what they were doing. And if they don't care, why should I? Someone's being framed for killing his girlfriend, and he barely shows any emotion at all? He might be a prosecuting attorney, but is he really that jaded?
Lots of judicial misconduct to go around tonight, including tampering with evidence, misplacing evidence (which might be worse...), bribery, blackmail, a frame-job, and hey, let's not forget the murder at the heart of everything - if the D.A. didn't kill his girlfriend, then who did? And if your boss asks you to lead the investigation into your lover's death, that's what's called a conflict of interest. All you have to say is, "I've got a personal connection to the case." You don't even have to say what it is - but it needs to be said, and then you're off the case.
Once again, a film starts at the "most interesting" part - the discovery of the body, in this case - and then there are extended flashback sequences detailing her casework and the affair. Would starting at the beginning really have hurt the story? Or would it just have revealed it as not so interesting?
Another problem here is that Ford's character can't switch off his prosecuting instincts - he talks about the crime as if he HAD committed it, which he's only doing as a theoretical exercise to get inside the heads of his prosecutors. But to the casual viewing audience, that looks the same as if he were really admitting it!
There's a great reminder here just how quickly modern forensic techniques have evolved - this film was released in 1990, and DNA identification seems to be still mostly theoretical. They can only match someone here by blood-type, which is about a 1-in-10 prospect at best. Pretty shaky as evidence goes. Oh, but carpet fiber matching technology is all the rage, even though tons of houses have the same carpeting...
I credit the film for an "aha!" moment that I never saw coming - but there are some leaps in logic near the end that fail to make sense. And the closing narration states that "it's a practical impossibility to charge two people with the same crime." Umm, no it's not, they do it on "Law & Order" all the time - when one man is proven innocent, they just arrest someone else. Someone should have researched how double jeopardy works (and not just that the dollar values on the board are doubled). What you meant to say is, it's impossible to charge one person for the same crime twice. And that doesn't even apply here...
Another Nitpick Point: Ask yourself - if your spouse were accused of murder, not convicted, just accused - would you be able to sleep next to him or her every night? I think some people might have a problem with that.
Also starring Brian Dennehy (last seen in "Cocoon: The Return"), Bonnie Bedelia, Raul Julia (last seen in "The Rookie"), Paul Winfield, Greta Scacchi, John Spencer (last seen in "The Negotiator"), Bradley Whitford (last seen in "A Perfect World"), Jesse Bradford (nice hat trick - THREE future cast members of "The West Wing"), and character actors Joe Grifasi (last seen in "Ironweed") and Tom Mardirosian ("Busmalis The Mole" from "Oz").
RATING: 4 out of 10 objections - sustained!
No comments:
Post a Comment