A Murder of Crows (1998)

I love legal thriller/mystery movies, and Murder of Crows was one of the best ones I've seen. Cuba Gooding plays a lawyer down on his luck who decides to write a book. His character in the movie mentioned John Grisham, which I thought was funny because I had just been comparing the movie plot to the way John Grisham writes. I was surprised and intrigued by Tom Berenger - he made quiet a convincing investigator. I think he would have been better cast as the main character.

Fmovies: I rented this movie having never heard of it or Rowdy Herrington. I became an instant fan. The film is very good and so is the script. I admit to having figured it out but that was part of the fun. It's not a huge film starring Michael Douglas and budgeted by Warners but so often one rents a film that looks promising and it's simply awful. This was quite good and probably should have gotten more attention at the time it was released (if it indeed was released to theaters, which it should have been).

A Murder of Crows was recommended to me by my enthusiastic aunt and so I forced myself to sit through it despite my complete disinterest in it. It was about what I expected.

Cuba Gooding Jr. played a lawyer who was disbarred when he decided he really didn't want to defend someone he knew was guilty. This fine upstanding man of high moral standards decides to move to Key West to write a book. But book writing is hard. At this point the movie's been going on for some time and I'm completely bored. Then this old guy comes into his life, and the old guy's kind of interesting, but I immediately detected something was fishy when he said his name was Christopher Marlowe. You would think a educated lawyer like Cuba Gooding Jr.'s character would have picked up on that too. He didn't, though.

The old man ends up giving him a 'novel' he wrote, wanting an opinion on the book, and the lawyer is stunned by it. However, the old man mysteriously dies before he can return the book to him, and that's when he does something completely unexpected and decides to publish it as his own. I had to wonder at this point why he had a problem with defending an obviously guilty man just to make money, but doesn't have any problem with plagiarism.

Cuba's character then rises to fame and fortune, although I can't imagine what he could have been thinking he would do at this point. You know his publisher would be expecting another book from him. This really wasn't a well though-out plan.

Next thing you know he's being arrested, because it turns out all the murders in the book actually happened, ha ha ha.

I've never been a big fan of Cuba Gooding Jr. and I wasn't in this movie. I do have to say it did have an interesting story, but I really have nothing else positive to say about it. Eric Stoltz's acting was almost as cheesy as his southern accent, the gratuitous sex scene was just kind of gross, and I never really cared about what was going to happen. The director really failed to draw me in or make me give a hoot about the characters. I would have to say that I would never watch this movie again, or recommend it to anyone, because that would just be mean.

A Murder of Crows fmovies. This was an entertaining, slight film, to watch on TV on a Friday night. The film is interesting, with good performances from Cuba Gooding Jr as a lawyer-turned-novelist and Mark Pellegrino as the man who has framed / is framing him. Don't expect to have all loose ends tied up - a potentially good and interesting angle, a link between Mark Pellegrino and Eric Scholtz (Thurman Parks III, the guilty scumbag, whom the Cuba Gooding character fails to defend) is hinted at but never explored. This film is a bit like an extended Misomer Murders episode or an early-ish Agatha Christie film- don't expect any realistic crafting of crime. Expect only to be entertained, and you might be surprised!

How did this guy make it through law school? The main character in this movie makes so many stupid moves he deserves to be locked up. And the detective? He's so sure he has everything figured out when in fact he doesn't know jack.

The plot had potential, the acting wasn't bad, but normal people just aren't this clueless.

The premise was really interesting, and overall I enjoyed it, with some major reservations. The good: Cuba Gooding, who's always good; the use of New Orleans, which was quite well done; and the art direction, which was terrific. I wanted almost every painting I saw on every wall. The bad: I had a hard time believing our hero didn't notice the AWFUL AND OBVIOUS stage makeup on his fishing customer and the keywest detective, who sported the fakest mustache ever put on film! I also couldn't believe that an escaped murder suspect--whose face would not only have been on the news every night, but also prominently displayed on the back cover of a book we are told is a runaway bestseller nationwide-- would just blithely roam the streets of the two places he's known to reside in without fear of recognition by anyone but the police. Please. Finally the HORRID southern drawls affected by Eric Stoltz and Mark Pelligrino were among the most egregious I've heard yet... and that's saying something.

But for all that, I liked it. Big 'ol plot holes and all. So if you're up to suspending a hell of a lot of disbelief, it's a fun movie. If you insist your movies make sense, don't bother.