Alleged Crimes and Coverups Movie Reviews

The movie makes the case for some of the wrong choices that are made. At least enough of a case that we, the audience, must decide for ourselves. All this is assisted by excellent acting. It's not a movie for everyone. I started watching it with my 10 year old in the room. I'm not sure if he appreciated what he was able to see before it was his bed time. However, he did ask me the next day if the doctor's wife ever found out about his affair.

There is definitely humor in the movie, especially the glimpse of the documentary Woody Allen was making about his brother-in-law. That documentary was another example of a poor choice that was made. You would make a wise choice if you decided to watch this movie.

"Crimes and Misdemeanors" (an obvious nod to Fyodor Dostoyevsky) is Allen's most engrossing quest for moral order in the universe, which quest leaves him -- and the viewer -- utterly bereft.

However, unlike the bleak "Interiors" or Allen's hilarious send-up on impending death being the impetus for finding God in "Hannah and Her Sisters," Allen's treatment of God, morality and free will is multi-faceted, and doesn't come to any pat answers.

In fact, it is Allen's ambivalent contemplation of religion and ethics that conservative critics find lacking at best, or disingenuous at worst. I see it differently: Agree or disagree with him, Allen is an atheist who is nonetheless tormented by the conclusion he has reached that there is no God. His is no knee-jerk atheism, as he has clearly thought through the philosophical issues involved, wavering between Nietzschean will to power and outright denial, to existentialist reluctance in the face of the ultimate meaningless of life beyond the here-and-now.

"Crimes and Misdemeanors" is peopled by a sterling cast, whose lives and choices are in direct conflict and contrast with one another; Yet, all speak with one voice, in Allen's exquisitely economical and pointed dialogue.

Judah Rosenthal (Martin Landau, in the role of a lifetime, so perfectly is the dialogue tailored to his cadence of voice and gestures), like Job, is a man who has everything he could ever want. Unlike Job, when he sees his wealth and seemingly ideal family life (with wife Claire Bloom) jeopardized, he turns his back on God.

The catalyst for Judah's life crisis is Dolores (Angelica Huston), a lonely airline stewardress with whom he's having more than a fling. When Dolores realises that she means nothing more to Judah than a mistress, and that his marital overtures to her were hollow, she turns on him with neurotic vengeance, threatening to expose not only their affair, but Judah's shady financial dealings.

Frozen by fear of exposure, Judah turns to his rabbi (played by Sam Waterston) for advice. As wise as the advice is, it leaves too much to chance, that Judah can still indeed face exposure, shame and ruin. So, then he calls on his hit-man brother (Jerry Orbach) to quietly make Dolores -- and all Judah's problems -- disappear.

And they *do* disappear, but with one hitch: Judah is suddenly consumed with guilt, and the one distant God now appears to haunt him and watch his every move. It is interesting watching Judah as he tries to reconcile his amoral crime with his ambivalent beliefs towards the Almighty. The scene in which he visits his childhood home in New Jersey brings back ghosts from his past, and we see his relatives sitting around the Seder table, in heated debate over the existence of God and the search for a moral order in the universe. Being a Woody Allen movie, of course the nasal aunt who dismisses God as a childish fantasy -- given the evidence that He did nothing to stop the Holocaust -- wins the day, thus influencing the adolescent Judah, who is being watched by the older Judah, an invisible prescence within the dining room.

Two other plot threads run alternately hilarious/serious: Allen co-stars as Clifford Stern, an independent filmmaker, who lives on the financial and emotional handouts from his sexually barren wife. When she arranges for him to film the life of her brother, Lester, a successful commercial TV producer played by Alan Alda (whose sleazy character is a cross between Norman Lear and Ted Turner), Clifford bristles at Lester's shallowness. Things get wilder as Cliff tries to woo Halley (played by Mia Farrow), a public TV producer. Meanwhile, Halley -- who at first brushes off Lester's slick advances -- starts being attracted to Lester.

Meanwhile, Clifford is filming the life story of a philosopher of positive thinking, Holocaust survivor Dr. Levy. When the professor turns negative and commits suicide (and Halley simultaneously throws Cliff over for the boorish Lester), Clifford concludes that there is nothing but random moral choas, and that indeed -- echoing Nietzsche -- God is dead.

The movie ends with Clifford and Judah meeting at the wedding of Rabbi Ben's daughter. The Rabbi has now gone fully blind, despite Judah's attempts to restore his eyesight. Yet, Judah observes, the guilt over Dolores' murder have dissipated, and confides hypothetically to Clifford that life can indeed be good for a murderer, provided he feel no moral guilt for his crimes, and that morality is but an impediment to fruitful living. After all, he notes, his family life and fortune have been restored to him, and that the idea of retributive justice being doled out by God is a fairy tale, a figment of imagination.

The conclusion is that we are each responsible for our own actions and our own lives. Yet, Allen makes one huge error in logic: If there is no God, he seems to imply, and if there is no moral order to the universe, then there is no moral or ethical impediment to murdering one's fellows. Is this Allen's tacit acknowledgement of the supernatural, or is he backing up Nietzsche's notion that morality was only invented to keep lesser men from running amok, that the common mass needs laws because they are incapable of rational judgment? It seems here that Allen is making the case for utter nihilism. So, why is he a liberal on the political spectrum, liberalism being a philosophy that holds democratic action and altruism as its moral center? Is Allen making a sotto voce case for fascism?

Truthfully, I don't think he's doing the latter. Nonetheless, it is refreshing to see an atheist give so much thought and obvious private anguish to the question of God. If only the faithful did, there'd be less wanton violence commited in His name.

The movie makes the case for some of the wrong choices that are made. At least enough of a case that we, the audience, must decide for ourselves. All this is assisted by excellent acting. It's not a movie for everyone. I started watching it with my 10 year old in the room. I'm not sure if he appreciated what he was able to see before it was his bed time. However, he did ask me the next day if the doctor's wife ever found out about his affair.

There is definitely humor in the movie, especially the glimpse of the documentary Woody Allen was making about his brother-in-law. That documentary was another example of a poor choice that was made. You would make a wise choice if you decided to watch this movie.

"Crimes and Misdemeanors" (an obvious nod to Fyodor Dostoyevsky) is Allen's most engrossing quest for moral order in the universe, which quest leaves him -- and the viewer -- utterly bereft.

However, unlike the bleak "Interiors" or Allen's hilarious send-up on impending death being the impetus for finding God in "Hannah and Her Sisters," Allen's treatment of God, morality and free will is multi-faceted, and doesn't come to any pat answers.

In fact, it is Allen's ambivalent contemplation of religion and ethics that conservative critics find lacking at best, or disingenuous at worst. I see it differently: Agree or disagree with him, Allen is an atheist who is nonetheless tormented by the conclusion he has reached that there is no God. His is no knee-jerk atheism, as he has clearly thought through the philosophical issues involved, wavering between Nietzschean will to power and outright denial, to existentialist reluctance in the face of the ultimate meaningless of life beyond the here-and-now.

"Crimes and Misdemeanors" is peopled by a sterling cast, whose lives and choices are in direct conflict and contrast with one another; Yet, all speak with one voice, in Allen's exquisitely economical and pointed dialogue.

Judah Rosenthal (Martin Landau, in the role of a lifetime, so perfectly is the dialogue tailored to his cadence of voice and gestures), like Job, is a man who has everything he could ever want. Unlike Job, when he sees his wealth and seemingly ideal family life (with wife Claire Bloom) jeopardized, he turns his back on God.

The catalyst for Judah's life crisis is Dolores (Angelica Huston), a lonely airline stewardress with whom he's having more than a fling. When Dolores realises that she means nothing more to Judah than a mistress, and that his marital overtures to her were hollow, she turns on him with neurotic vengeance, threatening to expose not only their affair, but Judah's shady financial dealings.

Frozen by fear of exposure, Judah turns to his rabbi (played by Sam Waterston) for advice. As wise as the advice is, it leaves too much to chance, that Judah can still indeed face exposure, shame and ruin. So, then he calls on his hit-man brother (Jerry Orbach) to quietly make Dolores -- and all Judah's problems -- disappear.

And they *do* disappear, but with one hitch: Judah is suddenly consumed with guilt, and the one distant God now appears to haunt him and watch his every move. It is interesting watching Judah as he tries to reconcile his amoral crime with his ambivalent beliefs towards the Almighty. The scene in which he visits his childhood home in New Jersey brings back ghosts from his past, and we see his relatives sitting around the Seder table, in heated debate over the existence of God and the search for a moral order in the universe. Being a Woody Allen movie, of course the nasal aunt who dismisses God as a childish fantasy -- given the evidence that He did nothing to stop the Holocaust -- wins the day, thus influencing the adolescent Judah, who is being watched by the older Judah, an invisible prescence within the dining room.

Two other plot threads run alternately hilarious/serious: Allen co-stars as Clifford Stern, an independent filmmaker, who lives on the financial and emotional handouts from his sexually barren wife. When she arranges for him to film the life of her brother, Lester, a successful commercial TV producer played by Alan Alda (whose sleazy character is a cross between Norman Lear and Ted Turner), Clifford bristles at Lester's shallowness. Things get wilder as Cliff tries to woo Halley (played by Mia Farrow), a public TV producer. Meanwhile, Halley -- who at first brushes off Lester's slick advances -- starts being attracted to Lester.

Meanwhile, Clifford is filming the life story of a philosopher of positive thinking, Holocaust survivor Dr. Levy. When the professor turns negative and commits suicide (and Halley simultaneously throws Cliff over for the boorish Lester), Clifford concludes that there is nothing but random moral choas, and that indeed -- echoing Nietzsche -- God is dead.

The movie ends with Clifford and Judah meeting at the wedding of Rabbi Ben's daughter. The Rabbi has now gone fully blind, despite Judah's attempts to restore his eyesight. Yet, Judah observes, the guilt over Dolores' murder have dissipated, and confides hypothetically to Clifford that life can indeed be good for a murderer, provided he feel no moral guilt for his crimes, and that morality is but an impediment to fruitful living. After all, he notes, his family life and fortune have been restored to him, and that the idea of retributive justice being doled out by God is a fairy tale, a figment of imagination.

The conclusion is that we are each responsible for our own actions and our own lives. Yet, Allen makes one huge error in logic: If there is no God, he seems to imply, and if there is no moral order to the universe, then there is no moral or ethical impediment to murdering one's fellows. Is this Allen's tacit acknowledgement of the supernatural, or is he backing up Nietzsche's notion that morality was only invented to keep lesser men from running amok, that the common mass needs laws because they are incapable of rational judgment? It seems here that Allen is making the case for utter nihilism. So, why is he a liberal on the political spectrum, liberalism being a philosophy that holds democratic action and altruism as its moral center? Is Allen making a sotto voce case for fascism?

Truthfully, I don't think he's doing the latter. Nonetheless, it is refreshing to see an atheist give so much thought and obvious private anguish to the question of God. If only the faithful did, there'd be less wanton violence commited in His name.

The movie has a great cast with some very fine serio-comic acting. The direction is superb and the writing full of wit.

Overall a charming film. However, this is a chick flick and if you're a guy, you may only want to watch this on a date.

Told through the reminiscences of Sonya (with Balk providing effective voice-over narration), the story unfolds with the help of flashbacks which reflect the turmoil of young Sonya and Greta's lives with Ray. The sequences involving Valery are especially poignant, and presented with such care and subtly that it enables you to feel and share her every disappointment-- and there were many. You also share her joy at winning a simple raffle at the neighborhood movie theater, where she would escape with Sonya every Wednesday night. And when Sonya points out the fact that her mother cried at every film, no matter what it was, it says volumes about Valery's state of mind and the despair and unhappiness with which she lived, yet masked so convincingly in front of Sonya. It's also easy to understand the bond between the sisters, formed as a means of steeling themselves against the unconscionable neglect of their father. Though not physically abusive, the pain he inflicted on his daughters psychologically was immeasurable. Yet they stood by him; perhaps because they had nowhere else to go and no one to whom they could turn.

Filmed on location in Oregon, the film has a wistful, almost dreamlike quality that successfully reflects the era it depicts, as well as the overall mood of the story, aided in no small part by the atmosphere director Drazan creates. He renders a touching sense of injustice that keeps the viewer acutely aware of the helpless and seemingly inescapable situation in which the girls are forced to remain, and he makes the girls so readily accessible that it is easy to emphasize with them. And it makes you realize that even as big as the world is, everybody lives within their own little part, and it's different for every individual. The world of your next door neighbor may not resemble the world in which you live in any way, shape or form; and because of that, need often goes undetected and want thrives.

As Ray, Harvey Keitel is outstanding, giving a restrained and understated performance that allows you to like him and hate him at the same time. This is a complex character that Keitel develops extremely well, showing you the schemer and the con-man, but also giving you something of an indication of what lies beneath. This is a man capable of disciplined introspection, yet too selfish to do what he must know is the right thing by his family. He's a man who is past believing in himself, but has actually fallen victim to his own con and is unable to let loose of his irresponsible dreams. It's a strong performance, through which he paints the picture of a desperate man, who has no idea of just how desperate he is until it's too late. And the saddest thing about it is the effect it has on Sonya and Greta.

Giving an affecting performance, as well, is the young Fairuza Balk, whose dark beauty and intensity make her perfect for the role of Sonya. She has such expressive eyes that they veritably serve as a window into the soul of her character, which nevertheless seems to emerge from a very private place, and one that gives it definition. Like Keitel, Balk's performance is rather restrained, which gives even more power to her already mesmerizing screen presence. She makes you understand how her circumstances have affected her, which she subtly conveys in the way she relates to those around her, including Greta. There's a sense of the exceptional about Balk, who in an industry filled with young actors seemingly just off the production line, remains unique and has served herself and her career well by exploring some diverse characters in such films as "American History X," "Things To do In Denver When You're Dead," "The Waterboy" and possibly her most definitive role, as that of the young witch in "The Craft." Sonya is one of her more down-to-earth characters, and she delivers her quite well.

The supporting cast includes Vincent D'Onofrio (Mr. Webster), Diane Baker (Abigail Tate), Chris Penn (Jarvis), Amber Benson (Margaret), Annette O'Toole (Ginny) and Seymour Cassel (Eddie). Thought provoking and emotionally involving, "Imaginary Crimes" will take you to a dark place, and it's one that may be all too familiar to some who see this film. This is no happily-ever-after fairy tale, but a very real look at some hard facts about the world in which we live and the people who surround us, and the necessity of reaching out to those who just may be in need.

Second kudos go to Tony Drazan who directed and interpreted. It can be seen that he loved the story and he wanted it to be beautiful, and he made it so. He picked the dearest, sweetest girls to play the parts of Sonya and Greta at various ages. And he had to have the right man for their father, a flawed man, like all of us, a man doing the best he can, a man with values that don't really work, a man who lost his young wife to cancer and was left to raise his two daughters alone, a man like Arthur Miller's Willie Loman who had big dreams never realized, a man neither hero nor villain; in short a man who had to be played with delicacy and without maudlin sentiment. Harvey Keitel fit the part, that of a schemer and a dreamer and a self-deluded hustling con man, and did a fantastic, flawless job.

Fairuza Balk, who played Sonya was wonderful, and Elizabeth Moss as Greta was adorable beyond expression, and so beautifully directed. The girl who played the young Sonya was not only excellent, but looked enough like Fairuza Balk to be her younger sister: perfect casting. And Kelly Lynch who had a limited role as the mother was exquisite.

The interaction between the father and the daughters was painfully veracious, filled with real-life tension and heart-breaking disappointments, but done without abuse and without any of the dysfunctional family sicknesses so often expressed these days. We see his failure as a father on one level, and yet in the end we see through the eyes and the voice of Sonya a greater truth: in spite of his weaknesses he actually succeeded as a father. In fact we see that whether he knew it or not, the one thing that he did right in his life, although he wavered plenty, was bringing up his girls against the great odds of his defective character. And the love shown him by his daughters, so beautifully projected by both Balk and Moss, was wonderful to experience since it is so seldom seen these days when the usual style is to trash men and their part in the family. And the nonexploitive, nurturing and loving role of Sonya's English teacher, played with a fine delicacy by Vincent D'Onfrio, was a much-needed change from the usual cinematic use of teachers as sexual lechers. In this movie we can see that men are people too.

I should mention that the screenplay by Kristine Johnson and Davia Nelson was carefully crafted to showcase the story dramatically, and to warn you that this is a tear jerker. It starts a little slow, and seems a touch old fashioned, but stay with it: it's a beautiful movie, one the best I've ever seen.

Since I had never seen the remake, I decided to give it a chance, and I'm glad I did. Smart, stylish, sardonic, THE TESTAMENT OF DR. MABUSE obviously owes a debt to Lang's original. In feel, though, it is closer to Michael Curtiz's early Warners horror films, like MYSTERY OF THE WAX MUSEUM or DOCTOR X, crossed with a glib episode of THE AVENGERS and the inventive energy of Hammer Studios at their best. I actually prefer it to Lang's version.

From the first shot, there are obvious bows to the Central European Expressionist tradition from which both Lang and Curtiz emerged: heavy, crazy shadows, canted camera angles, huge close-ups on the actors, an acrid, ironic score, more than a touch of sadism at the edges. If it stopped there, the film wouldn't be much more than an entertaining pastiche. What gives it distinction is its jaunty, fast-moving wit, embodied particularly in Charles Régnier's movie-stealing performance as Mortimer, head of Mabuse's gang. (After stopping and robbing a gold-laden security van, for example, Mortimer gives the guards bus fare back to town. "After all," he says walking away, "we aren't inhuman." Then when the police are calculating the extent of the haul, they remember to subtract the amount of the bus fare.)

The wit and pace only begin to flag in the concluding sequences, with too many people running around an insane asylum trying to bring the story to an end. Those were some of the weaker moments in Lang's film, too, so at most these people have failed to improve on the original. Lang enthusiasts will be able to enjoy the playful filigree these filmmakers have woven around his story. Low-budget film lovers will enjoy TESTAMENT's fast paced action. And anyone simply interested in a good hour and a half of smart fun will not be disappointed.

It is likely that we have here a MPEG1 ( CDRom like) edition of a vey unattractive movie. the scenario is poor, the actors below average, the direction nil.

Technically, no chapterisation, sound below average, the image quality terrible.

In less than two words: MISERABLE.

Stay away from that.

Claire decides to take over the case after she meets the military appointed council, Lt Terence Embry (Adam Scott). Clair also enlists the aid of Charlie Grimes (Morgan Freeman), the man regarded as the best civilian military defense council. The only problem is that he is a recovering alcoholic. Claire also faces the fact that her employer does not want her or its name associated with this case for fear of bad publicity.

Now that that's all out of the way, here's why this is not a good movie: it's predictably unpredictable. A movie like this must, by Hollywood rules, have a twist ending. By about one-third of the way into the movie I correctly predicted what the twist ending would be.

Having already figured the movie out I thought I might sit back and enjoy the journey to the predictable ending. That wasn't going to happen. Even the journey they take to the ending in this film is unoriginal. From Charlie's drunken binge to Claire's sister (played by Amanda Peet) falling for the inexperienced Lt Embry to the ominous presence of Maj James Hernandez (Juan Carlos Hernandez), this movie was as predictable as the number after 1, 2, 3.

There really is nothing to recommend this movie. The plot is unoriginal and the acting is flat. About the only winning performance in the whole film is that of Caviezel with Freeman giving a below average (for him) performance. Skip this one.

Freeman is paired with Ashley Judd in this 2002 film, five years after they worked together in "Kiss the Girls." However, this time Judd does the heavy lifting and the basic premise is quite compelling. Judd plays Claire Kubik, a defense attorney whose is about to make partner at a big law firm. Life is good. But then her husband is arrested by the FBI and changed with having murdered civilians is El Salvador when he was in the Army. That is only half the shock, because Claire also finds out that he married her under an assumed name. Her husband is going to be court-martialed for the massacre and if found guilty he will be sentenced to death. But when she sees the young first lieutenant (Adam Scott) assigned to defend the case, she makes herself co-counsel, and, to help her understand the playing field, she tracks down Charlie Grimes (Freeman), an ex-military lawyer and recovering alcoholic.

The character's alcoholism is one of the aforementioned buttons, because of course the sobriety of Grimes comes into play. I will grant that the situation is contrived well in terms of the plot, but contrivance becomes the key word to describe this plot element. The net benefit is a mild sense of concern because, well, Grimes is played by Morgan Freeman and is clearly a good guy. The other button that gets pushed is that "High Crimes" is another one of these films were the United States military is portrayed as being psychopathic killers. Not only that, they are INCOMPETENCE psychopathic killers. Claire's husband claims somebody else is to blame and that there is a conspiracy going on and eventually she starts getting too close to the truth and shadowy figures try to take care of her in a way that is ultimately guaranteed to shine even more publicity on this case. Fortunately, some of the shadowy figures are on Claire's side.

I want to point out that my disdain for the U.S. military being portrayed as incompetent psychopathic killers existed long before the war to liberate Iraq. Just as I got tired of villains turning out to be Nazis and drug crazed Vietnam vets, I am already tired of villains being ultra-right military men whose ideological beliefs overwhelms their professionalism and sense of morality. Claire's husband says the real killer is a guy named Hernandez (Juan Carlos Hernández), now a Major, who looks brazenly homicidal. But the military is covering things up apparently, so it is not a big deal.

Judd's performance is what hold the movie together on these terms. She might be questioning everything her husband ever told her since the day they met but in the courtroom here legal instincts take over. Every motion she makes might be denied, but she knows how to dissect witnesses with a nice combination of sharp questions and pointed attitude. This is one of those films where it ain't over until its over, so I was ticked off, but I was also entertained, so if you have different buttons than I do you will obviously enjoy this film more than I did. Also, a tip of the hat to Tom Bower as FBI Special Agent Mullins, who gets off some nice shots during a scene with Claire on a park bench; always nice to see a veteran actor milk his little scene for everything it is worth.

amanda peet is asom