User Reviews

This film is great until around 60% through.

The main character played by Beckinsale is on "probation" with the Bar-a disciplinary distinction that only exists in Hollywood. But be that as it may, she inherits a habeas case for a client convicted of 1st degree murder who has exhausted all her state appeals.

Beckinsale argues magnificently and obtains a freedom verdict/with no more retrial judgment from the District Court.

Up to here, around 60% thru the film, the movie is great.

But then, in a silly Hollywood twist, Beckinsale becomes convinced that her innocent client is actually guilty, and starts working to retry her and convict her.

This part of the film makes little sense.

First, it's unethical.

Second, she should have withdrawn.

Third, the Judges' order barred additional proceedings.

So the last 33-40% of the film makes no sense.

But it's a great performance by KB.

She's been in a lot of movies. She's gorgeous. She's even acted well in most of her movies, but this is the best acting I've seen from her. Courtroom drama. Pretty canned, but interesting watching Kate do her thing. The story wasn't that important to me, but Nick Nolte did a great job being himself. Lots of clichés in this, but it held my interest enough to stick with a plot that involved crooked cops, a tricky defendant, even a judge that was a creep. Everything else was okay as far as movie making goes. Decent cinematography, editing, music. Nothing spectacular. The directing held up, but the story itself lacked the punch I think it could have had if they showed more detail of what happened from testimony. I guess that falls on the director. She was a flawed attorney with child visitation issues. That was really the story. Redeeming herself. I think this is an average movie that Kate Beckinsale raises a notch or two. Definitely worth a DVD or download/stream look see.

Very solid courtroom drama with some nice twists, and great moments of tension. From the start you are introduced to everything in the same order, and at the same speed as our poor Cate, but as things progress you are pulled along right with her into the tapestry as it is woven around. Great cast Kate Beckinsale plays her roll on a thin knife's edge, and Nick Nolte has changed a lot over the years, but this roll really suits the man that he seems to be now. Cate is really put through many trials to learn who she really wants to be. I Enjoyed this one quite a bit, and would recommend it to any fans of the tense moments, and not knowing exactly what is going on until the characters you are following do. The real question left for you to answer for yourself is should you trust your heart, not the evidence?

Contains midpoint plot spoiler.

Cate (Kate Beckinsale) is on probation from the DAs office. She has a drinking issue which has compounded her problems as it has placed her on the ugly end of a custody case. The bad news is that Nick Nolte is the one helping to keep her sober (search Nolte 2002 DUI arrest photo). In spite of her personal issues, Cate is good in the courtroom and likes to win. She is given a pro bono case of a woman convicted of murder (Anna Anissimova) who claims she is innocent.

As Cate investigates the case she discovers layers of lies and misconduct by the police. She becomes convinced of her innocence and works to get her released in a courtroom case that goes like a hot knife through butter. In fact it was too easy as my John Katzenbach flashbacks materialized before my eyes. Ho-hum. I felt like I had been there and done that before.

The film was done fairly well for a 90 minute production. There were things that weren't explained. Was the car crash an attempt on her life or a co-incidence? In many ways the film felt incomplete. Her personal demons seemed glossed over and exactly how did her relationship fall so fast with her daughter, or did she ever have one?

In many ways it reminded me of a Lifetime film.

Parental Guide: F-bomb. No sex or nudity.

First off, a confession. My wife watches a lot of LifeTime TV, and I, naturally, am forced to sit through a lot of it. Tonight I found myself more or less watching this movie, admittedly with one eye. The movie was almost half over before it really got my attention. The parts of the movie outside the courtroom are mostly dross, but what goes on inside the courtroom was interesting. Almost every member of the bar in this movie was committing judicial malpractice. I half expected the state bar association to come on screen at any moment and disbar the whole bunch. Exculpatory evidence was withheld by the prosecutor in the case. As a result, the judge dismissed the case against the defendant, even though the defendant was proved, later, to be guilty. So they put the defendant on trial again. Hello? Anyone ever hear of double jeopardy? Anyone ever hear of Brady v Maryland, where the Supreme Court ruled that prosecution withholding exculpatory evidence is grounds for acquittal? Pretty good movie that holds your attention if you are willing to suspend disbelief.

This is a good, intense drama. Cate is a trial lawyer, a very good one, but the title reference is more to the trials that she faces as a person. She once won a case that sent a man to prison, but he was later released when new evidence was discovered. Now she may be getting a murderer out of prison on faulty testimony.

We see that she is on probation, ostensibly for activity related to alcohol abuse. She has also lost custody of her young daughter and sees a shrink to work on her issues and get her daughter back. And she goes to AA meetings.

As part of her restitution she is given a pro-bono case, a woman is serving a life sentence for murder but some questions regarding false testimony and suppression of key evidence cast doubt, Cate is asked to investigate and see if a new trial is in order.

The movie only works if the main character, Kate Beckinsale as Cate McCall, is really authentic all the way through, and she is. Also her sponsor, Nick Nolte as old lawyer Bridges, must be equally convincing, and he is.

SPOILERS: Cate uncovers many irregularities and before a judge that had been a professor of hers declares the woman free. But she soon discovers the woman really was guilty, she finds a loophole that would allow the DA to bring it up again. And, in the end, she rejects a high-powered job and partnership to move to Seattle to be near her ex-husband and her young daughter, putting her priorities where she can be happy.

It's a good contemporary drama film about Kate going about trying to solve a strange murder case.

In this film you actually witness Beckinsale showing some emotion (some) which is a rare thing about her. In most of her movies she looks like a cardboard cut out with real legs and arms. It's like her face was stored in a freezer for 12 weeks and can't move a single facial muscle.

Anyways, this is a good film for all ages, photography is good, story is realistic enough and Nick Nolte appears to be wearing a different suit every 5 minutes.

I can't give it a lower grade than 6 because I found nothing wrong with this one. Enjoy.

As a rule I love courtroom dramas. They take intelligence and cleverness to execute. "The Trials of Cate McCall" lacked some of that intelligence and cleverness.

Cate McCall (Kate Beckinsale) was a lawyer who was trying to get her life together. She was assigned a pro bono case as a condition for her to get off of probation for a DUI. If she got off of probation then she may have had a case for getting custody of her daughter. She was assigned a habeas corpus case for Lacey Stubbs (Anna Schafer) who'd been convicted of killing a woman named Jen Cole. Habeas corpus is basically an attempt to prove that a person has been unjustly prosecuted (hiding exculpatory evidence, lying, etc.). After some interviews and listening to Lacey's side of the story, Cate was convinced that Lacey had been wrongly convicted.

I've seen many wrongfully convicted/charged movies, so how was this one going to be different? It was different in that Lacey actually was guilty. But even still, that isn't that novel ("Primal Fear," "Just Cause," and "High Crimes" come to mind). So, is it still a wrongfully convicted case?

In the case of this movie, yes and no. Yes, because the cops pulled some dirty tricks to secure a conviction, and that can't be allowed regardless of the defendant's guilt. No, because Lacey was actually guilty.

Cate was an exceptional lawyer who had to do minimal work to prove police misconduct to get Lacey a new trial. In fact, it was so easy you have to wonder how Lacey got convicted to begin with. Then, to show how much the writers really didn't care, they hand fed Cate the fact that Lacey really was guilty.

After Cate got Lacey out of prison, Lacey didn't even try to put up an appearance of innocence. She practically told her lawyer that she was guilty which was really dumb because she was still going to be retried. Then, to drive home that she was truly guilty, her co-defendant, in what can only be defined as schadenfreude, told Cate that Lacey was guilty because she helped her kill Jen. This made zero sense because Lacey's co-defendant could've gotten out of prison by the same means Lacey got out, but apparently she'd rather stay in prison out of nobility (I guess) just to make sure Lacey was convicted.

"The Trials of Cate McCall" was a poorly written movie. It was just lazy all around. Even Cate's trick to get Lacey back into prison wasn't all that special. The movie had enough intrigue and mystery to keep me watching, but for a lawyer movie it was substandard.

I will never know why some writers and directors ruin what was a good film with scenes that could not happen.

When you have a courtroom drama where the Judge rules that witnesses have committed perjury it would be necessary for that judge to sign arrest warrants for the transgressors and this is totally ignored and has a detrimental effect in that some scenes that follow just could not happen.

It is important in a courtroom drama that the film is accurate in respect of some legal matters so when it is not then in reality it spoils the whole film.

It is well acted so the fact that the writer/director lets the cast down in this way is particularly annoying.

There's no sign that the funding came from the Alcoholics Anonymous cult, but the film is entirely focused on pushing the POV of the cult.

The acting is pretty bad, and the plot trite and obvious from the start - there are plot inconsistencies all over the place, but it's a bit tedious to point them out. Essentially, the plot is not properly thought-through. That's because it's not really necessary, the whole idea is to show somebody going against the AA cult, then being redeemed by it.

Propaganda films like this should really say who has funded them and reveal the fact that they are propaganda - it is dishonest not to.

The real reason it's a bad film is just exactly that, it's polemic, it's propaganda, it's not engaging with the audience because it's too busy preaching.

We only watched this because I didn't see the IMDb score - never ever rely on what iTunes says about something - come to IMDb and check what real people have said.