Yahoo's plot synopsis: "A happily married, successful female lawyer [Ashley Judd] is shocked to learn that her husband [James Caviezel] has a hidden past as a classified military operative, and is accused of committing a heinous war crime. She must wrestle with her own doubts about his guilt as she defends him, with the help of a private investigator [Morgan Freeman, and he's an attorney, not a P.I.], in a top-secret military court where none of the rules she knows so well apply."

The thing about Ashley Judd is she often comes across on screen as someone who is acting. Or maybe it's more like emoting. She may be easy on the eyes, but sometimes it's like she ruins certain scenes because she's playing for the camera. James Caviezel is fine. Likewise Morgan Freeman, though this role was not a stretch for him at all -- take the money and run I guess. The plot seemed to kind of wander around sometimes, not well-focused. They also toy with the audience by setting up scenes where someone seems to be in imminent danger and then it turns out to be nothing. I hate it when they do that, especially repeatedly. And there were a couple scenes that seemed out of place or pointless.

The movie doesn't suck, but I wouldn't give it a very high recommendation.

I'm not a sound mixing expert, but there were a couple of court room scenes where the background noise (court room chatter) was really excessive and irritating.

Yes, 'High Crimes' is a bit disappointing after the energy that went into 'One False Move'.

------------------
'How about a movie? They're showing them in theatres now! I hear it's like watching a video with a bunch of strangers and a sticky floor.' - Xander Harris, from 'Buffy the Vampire Slayer'.