There's some serious acting throughout this film and some especially great
scenes. Eastwood delivering a relaxed and natural performance whilst also
showing off his skills in direction.Failing family life, the gutsy humour of the newsdesk and the experiences of
a man in the condemned cell and his family intertwined well.
An entertaining and very watchable film, with some great performances, but
very seriously flawed in many ways.
No one, not anyone, suddenly discovers, with just twelve hours to go, that
a man about to die is innocent of his crime. Especially when they've only
been on the case for ten minutes.
P--sed-up reporters, no matter how pretty or young, don't normally redeem
themselves after they die in a car crash, for want of a better phrase, by
having, "He is innocent", printed on their T-shirts and on posters in their
living rooms.
The average person does not lapse into Dirty Harry mode when given
a bottle of bourbon, a car and a desperate mission of life and death.
And whilst sycophantically smiling, white anglo-saxon protestant priests,
screaming, "Confess, repent and be saved", may not be uncommon on Cable TV,
their appearance in prison would undoubtedly lead to further convictions;
and not just of inmates.
That Eastwood let such things get in the way of what would have been a much
more convincing and powerful film without them shows a naivety ( which he
doesn't show elsewhere in the film ), pressure from outside forces or
fear of a backlash. The later could explain the deliberate acts to dilute the
otherwise potent message of this film.
That Beechum was saved from execution, albeit dramatically, passed up an
opportunity which should not have been missed.
Whilst it was presumed obvious from frame one that Beechum was entirely
innocent of the crime committed, and inevitable that Everitt would save the day,
the horror of execution, so well built up, was thrown away in order to produce
a typical, "You can't beat American justice", ending.
The truth is not like this. Innocent people regularly burn amongst the guilty;
their innocence only proven after many years of battling against a background
of, "But he's dead, what good will opening old wounds achieve ? Leave it be".
Leaving the audience to ponder on the death of an innocent man would have been
far more effective and would have made it clear that the death penalty is an
offence against humanity.
That the film didn't have the guts to say this outright is rather sad. It hinted
as much but it probably failed to swing anyone, in favour, away from the use of
such punishment.
Eastwood's reputation gave this film the power to forge real social change in
America and elsewhere; it came close but ultimately failed to seize that
opportunity.
It is a good film but it could have been so much more.
