Highly Overrated But Still Good

Admirable film.

Although I seem to have had higher expectations than I thought, the movie is super entertaining.

Just intense enough to provide a much-needed diversion, just lightweight enough to make you forget about it soon after it’s over. It’s not exactly “good,” per se, but it does what it sets out to do in terms of putting us on edge, which makes it … successful?

"Reversible Errors" seems to have been a TV movie, based on the Scott Turow novel, and starring William H. Macy, Felicity Huffman, Tom Selleck, Monica Potter, and Shemar Moore.The story concerns a triple murder for which one man, played by Glenn Plummer, confesses to a police detective, Larry Starczek (Selleck) and is condemned to death by a judge (Huffman) after a bench trial. It's a career maker for the young prosecutor, Muriel Wynn (Potter) having an affair with Starczek.Fast forward to seven years later - the judge now works at a perfume counter, having been removed from the bench for taking bribes; Muriel Wynn is married and running for office; Starczek is still a detective; and Gandolf, one sandwich short of a picnic, is still on Death Row and now proclaims his innocence. He is assigned attorney Arthur Raven (Macy) who reluctantly looks into the case. The more he looks into it, the more confusing and messy it gets.Complicated, strong story made even better by the team of Macy and Huffman, who are wonderful and on a much higher level than Selleck-Potter. Potter, with her flat delivery, has always reminded me somehow of Julia Roberts, and every time I hear her name I think of the old I Love Lucy episode when Ethel returned to her home town: 'Ethel Mae Potter, we never forgot her.' Selleck is handsome and comes across as a detective, but in actuality, this is a character role, and he's not a character actor. There's no spark between them. There is some very good acting by Plummer, Moore, and James Rebhorn.I recognized several Canadian actors, so I guess this was filmed there.I found this an involving story and one really becomes interested in the Macy-Huffman relationship. Recommended.

Scott Turow's books are always thrilling and surprising, but filming them are not easy tasks. Despite the great performances of William Macy and Glenn Plummer, Reversible Errors turns out disappointing. The abrupt cuts, may be to fit in the TV format, makes the movie loose the suspense and the pace. The come and go of the plot seems much unreal and absurd. Tom Selleck overact and Monica Potter does not convince as a prosecutor. Gilliam Sullivan does not compromise. The only reason that prevents you from giving up watching it before the end, is the hope that something really unexpected would happen. At the end you get a feeling that another good story was spoiled at the screen.

"Reversible Errors" is a three hour film noir TV B-movie which tells a convoluted tale of a homicide cop (Selleck), his prosecutor lover (Potter), a defense attorney (Macy), and a judge (Huffman) who all become involved in a triple homicide investigation, a possible wrongful conviction, and another investigation to find the real killer(s). As the film wends its way toward its feel good conclusion - which seems too long in coming - it delves into sex, scandal, drugs, deceit, conspiracy, politics, infidelity, and more all served up in good old fashioned Hollywood movie style; not particularly convincing or believable but not ashamed about it either. A mildly entertaining whodunit which does an acceptable job of covering it's low budgetness with a mediocre score, Canadian locations, and an uneven production which focuses on the characters in a handful of sets (court, prison, lawyer offices, etc.), this PG-13ish film will make a so-so no brainer lets-stay-in-tonight TV watch for the not too jaded or discriminating. (B-)

This movie deals not only with a heinous crime, but with the relationships of two different couples (Huffman/Macy and Potter/Selleck) and how those relationships intersect and impact the criminal investigation. I prefer Scott Turow's writing to John Grisham's--mainly because I feel Turow's writing has better character development and dialogue--and he seems better able to write believable female characters--but, he keeps you guessing as to whether the "good guys" are going to survive--much less win-- and that can be exhausting.Other people have done a fine job of delineating the plot. I can only add that I felt the movie suffered every time the Selleck/Potter storyline was the main focus. I felt that it just didn't have the emotional resonance of the other subplots. Since I have not read the novel--yet--I don't know if this is the script's fault or the actors'. I DO know that I didn't want the story re: the defense lawyer and the judge to end. The movie brightened every time that couple was on the screen. Was it because of better writing or better acting or because I enjoyed seeing a married couple play a couple--who can say? I also must say that I felt since a character's life was literally at stake that it would have been nice if his plight was explored more fully. Movies or books can be interesting without a romantic subplot.This film might have been more effective as a three hour movie shown on one night rather than a miniseries spread over two nonconsecutive nights. There were so many plot twists that I lost track of some characters' actions and names from one night to another. It also didn't help that CBS showed upcoming scenes and trailers that spoiled one of the key twists. I have never understood why networks or studios will spend a fortune making a movie than spoil it by giving too much away in the advertising! Perhaps it will play better--and tighter--on video.