A corporate lawyer's interest in a decade-old murder case is piqued by a new confession that could clear the convicted killer, who sits on death row.
Related lists from IMDb users
Title: Reversible Errors (TV Movie 2004)
Want to share IMDb's rating on your own site? Use the HTML below.
Do you have any images for this title?
| Cast overview, first billed only: | |||
| William H. Macy | ... | Arthur Raven | |
| Tom Selleck | ... | Larry Starczek | |
| Monica Potter | ... | Muriel Wynn | |
| Felicity Huffman | ... | Gillian Sullivan | |
| James Rebhorn | ... | Erno Erdai | |
| Shemar Moore | ... | Collins Farwell | |
| Glenn Plummer | ... | Romeo 'Squirrel' Gandolf | |
 |
Yanna McIntosh | ... | Genevieve Carriere |
| Nigel Bennett | ... | Talmadge Loman | |
| David Fox | ... | Judge Harlow | |
|
|
Christina Collins | ... | Louisa Remardi |
|
|
Gerry Mendicino | ... | Gus Leonidas |
|
|
Brian Heighton | ... | Paul Judson |
| Allan Royal | ... | O'Grady | |
| Robert Verlaque | ... | Dickerman | |
A black man is sentenced to death for the brutal death of three people. However, weeks before his execution, new evidence indicating his possible innocence arises. William H. Macy stars as the defense attorney who must quickly determine his innocence and find the information to free his client. Meanwhile the original prosecuting attorney is concerned about her future if she bungled the case. The investigating officer, who is her lover, is totally convinced that they got the right man and is more than willing to destroy any evidence that indicates otherwise. Not so easily cast off is the confession of a dying man, who claims he actually did the crime and framed the other man. Written by John Sacksteder {jsackste@bellsouth.net}
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.