WOW. Everything I hate about the law is here, but the real criminal is this is bad film-making. This movie started off interesting and then 25% of the way through it suddenly started to look amateurish. Bad shots, bad mis-en-scene, bad storyboarding, bad sight-lines, bad editing. As soon as our States' Attorney goes to the restaurant everything falls apart. And that's just on a cinematic level. That's purely without considering the morality on display.

Plotwise it's a mess too. Guy goes to prison for 8 years because the contract killer tells all. Fine. Someone finds the body completely elsewhere from where the contract killer said it would be (washed away to sea) so now he's been proven innocent. This is the starting premise of the movie. I've seen a lot of these and as frustrating as this premise is from a moralistic point I'd watch 50 of these a year if they're good. But here we have a Attorney who is fighting bail because he's a convicted murderer. But she was clearly wrong on that so why is she fighting bail? The Judge who doesn't dismiss the charges but orders a new trial. Attorney wasn't to deny bail but the judge gives a number. It's rough it's unfair but it's not hopeless and doesn't feel uncommon. New evidence, new trial. But the weird part is in the upcoming events I come to realize that the Attorney actually believes he's guilty... but why? Because the killer who lied said he was hired? In a film like this there is usually a sinister side of the defendant which introduces ambiguity. Or a righteousness to the attorney that introduces ambiguity. But NOTHING is saying that here. He's innocent and should be released but this movie wants to press the issue. If later on we find out he did it then I'm complaining even MORE about how bad this film is. Our protagonist attorney goes snooping at a boarded up restaurant alone without permission that the defendant owned and wow i said this scene was bad but it bears repeating how confusingly shot and edited it is. She finds money which she handles and then puts back? So the police can find? along with her finger prints? This doesn't make sense. If she thinks he's guilty she should be able to get police to let her in and collect evidence. There's literally zero reason for her to break in herself and muck everything up with her prints. Her boss finally gives up and wants to drop all charges and she refuses "I won't let a killer free" this is when I realize that unlike every other depiction so far this isn't about "losing a case" because lawyers are all about not losing cases and never about right and wrong. But somehow for her this is right and wrong and she's not willing to consider that she got it wrong? She's not willing to even sit down with herself and say "did we get the wrong guy?". This character lacks in self awareness and no matter how it turns out she's evil for that.

Okay so this complete 180 where the movie tries to make her out to be the good guy who won't give up because she refuses to drop the case again makes no sense. Because he's clearly innocent. Frustratingly confusing.

I need something to say beyond "Okaaaay" and "Wow" because this movie is just throwing curve balls left and right. Right after serial righteousness is a potential new relationship with the eager young photographer but the sexual tension is coming out of nowhere. He's far too eager to be her friend for someone who was just introduced to her. Part of what makes this scene too intimate is that shot selection. Those closeups for the conversation are too close. Not that the bar is a good choice of location anyway. And the shear balls of her complaining that the innocent defendant is ruining HER life is again a lack of self-awareness that border on psychopathic. The former cop who doesn't like serving the public is the PERFECT synergy for the DA who complains about how innocent men ruin her life. WHAT THE HECK IS HE SAYING?!???!? "Who am I as a police officer to disrupt the narrative you had concocted with the truth". What kind of police officer says that. Honestly his characterization of "I didn't mind the 'protect' but I wasn't a fan of the 'serve'" is the only perfect thing in this movie because it perfectly justifies why he would withhold the RUSSIAN MOB from a criminal investigation. It's completely unethical, illogical and counter productive but it's completely in character for this stupid character. I mean telling people might do damage to the mob so why NOT tell people. I don't understand what the movie is doing here. I think they're trying to make the DA into a hero but rather than realize that she had it wrong somehow she's doubling down?

The audio is solid but now that the illusion has been shattered everything is looking poor now the lighting, the pacing, the dialog. Oh the glorious repeaty awkward dialog, the cuts to things that aren't important. Oh the camera zooms the purse she dropped but for no reason. The camera pans to lollipop wrappers.. but for no reason.

Good Christ almighty the judge is the only character here in this entire movie with a lick of sense. He's reasoning and he understands his duty. I don't blame the judge for sending an innocent man to jail. Here's an example of a scene was fine but could have had more punch.

>The judge tells our Attorney that there's information she was never made privy to that he allowed to be thrown out because of mysterious people above his station. That's a heavy load in a normal movie. Here it's the only SHRED of sanity. But afterwards he goes to his car. Attorney sees his pen drop to the floor and then bends down to pick it up. Simultaneously the judge has walked out side and into his car. As he starts the engine she's bending down to grab the pen and the car explodes.

I'd increase the drama by leaning into the trope. She picks up the pen and turns to go outside and return it to the judge. Maybe she even starts to yell out his name "Judge [Lastname]" and as she's saying that the car explodes and she's thrown back in a shower of glass.

And then the writing goes illogical again. See now it makes sense that the bomb was for the both of them. It doesn't make sense that the bomb would be in the judges car. I was afraid this might be the case. The solution is the move the bomb. Move it to the inside of the dinner. Same scene though. Different vector. She's leaving the restaurant the judge having dismissed her to make her own conclusions and as she's turning back to return his pen a bomb goes off inside the dinner. Harder to implement but it fixes the "I should have died" logic.

Here the movie makes the biggest twist in logic yet and that's saying something. After the bomb our Attorney finally has a light-bulb moment "What if we were wrong?". Again from a logical standpoint she should have been asking herself this since the body appeared. She should have been emotionally torturing herself with this. And now she dam has burst and she has to confess to her boss. Instead she's posing the question to her boss. Still.. it's making sense. What if we were wrong. Only his response is basically "What? Are you crazy of course we weren't wrong". Which throws me for a loop because it's my understanding the reason she was thrown off the case was because they planned to basically admit they were wrong and drop all charges (or I think specifically they were doing to give him time served which is honestly insane but just the sort of insane that DAs do in real life to whittle away at money and time defendants don't have to argue their case. Defendants get to go home and the DA never has to admit fault or technically lose a case. They still won they just let him out early. It's an evil evil practice). HOLY plot twists batman. I know triple agent movies that have less plot whiplash than this. Out of nowhere they're accusing Defendant of killing everyone in the movie with again zero evidence. Where is this coming from? The irony is there's a seed for this actually. But movies have the rule of threes for a reason. You show something, you reinforce something and then you pay it off. But you can't skip the middle part. Or the last part (see: Suicide Squad's unicorn). But it could have been there. His lawyer hinted that he would want retribution for being locked up for 8 years. That's the perfect motivation. Everyone killed has been tied to his original case. It even lines up but NO ONE has been talking about that or suggesting it. So for Attorney's boss to suddenly jump up and announce they're arresting Defendant for the murders it makes no sense.

The romance between the Attorney and the Reporter is not a bad romance it's just written so poorly. I think they actually have decent screen chemistry but they move in such leaping motions towards their romance I can't even enjoy their "PG-13 Sex Scene" where they make out wearing pants and a bra. It's actually a pretty good scene. Most of the edits are good, the audio is a nice level, the lighting is fine, the actors work well. It's just that this feels like their third scene together and they're having "we're boyfriend/girlfriend sex" which is just so fast. The.. the arrest went through? Why? Oh an cinematically a push shot that works excellently. A beautiful push in on Attorney as Defendant finally explains what he knows of the murder and why it happened. He leaves her with The Batman question infamously posed in Identity Crisis, "Who benefits?". The cruelty of DAs that she would still offer him time served only if he drops the lawsuit even though she has strong reasons to suspect he's innocent. But why is she offering deals anyway? She's off the case.

Did... did the script say one thing and the actors acted out another?

ADA (Protag): Ray we need to talk NOW.

*She knocks over a glass*

ADD (Protact): Oops

DA (Her Boss): It's okay

DA(Her Boss) to his table: Gentlemen excuse me

*DA Stands up

DA (Her Boss) to ADA: It's okay

Because on paper it sounds like she accidentally spills water and then apologizes. In the movie she intentionally pushes the glass into his lap to show how serious she is.... so why is he still apologizing for her. "it's okay" doesn't fit here.

The mid shots in this movie are excellent. The closeups are WAY too close.

What? but.. but what? There are so many twists and reveals in the actual story at the end I'm confused why the movie is so bad. There's a legit thriller in that screenplay. Our Defendant is innocent, her boss is the guilty part but the Defendant has been killing everyone who sent him away since he got out. WHY!!! He finally convinces Attorney that he's innocent and they goes after her so now the movie frustratingly makes her the good guy again. When in real life she's insanely stupid and evil. But then in the end she shoots him in functionally cold blood. She could have held him at gun point and walked away she knows everything now, she could have held him at gun point while she called the police. So many choices instead there's a one liner and a gun shot and Defendant takes a swan dive. Happy Ending?