DIRECTED BY-:
Sidney Lumet
STARRING-:
Paul Newman
Charlotte Rampling
James Mason
YEAR OF RELEASE-:
1982
PREMISE-:
An outcast, alcoholic Boston lawyer sees the chance to salvage his career and self-respect by taking a medical malpractice case to trial rather than settling.
THIS REVIEW CONTAINS SPOILERS.
THE NEGATIVES: - It's understandable why Deborah’s relatives didn’t sue Frank or have him disbarred for rejecting the offer. But HOW could Frank have known that that wouldn’t be the case? I mean, he did expect them to EVENTUALLY know that there is a trial right? They are his clients after all, so what was his plan going to be then?
- Mickey ACCIDENTALLY spots Laura’s cheque from Ed Concannon.
- After Laura’s betrayal is revealed, WHY doesn't Frank want a mistrial? Even if we assume it's because he doesn't want to hurt her, I don't believe that that is a decision he would make, given the severity of the case at stake.
- LUCKILY, the judge, the defense lawyer, and his entire staff did NOT remember the rules about presenting a photocopy as an evidence.
- Considering that they're both experienced lawyers and must surely be aware of the above rule, it was also a stupid move on Frank and Mickey's part to present the photocopy as evidence in the court.
THE POSITIVES: - The performances by everyone in the cast were good enough to do their characters justice.
- The music and characters were fine, even though at several moments it felt like the film was insisting that the characters are more complex than they actually were.
- The camera work was undoubtedly the best aspect of the film. The camera movements and placements were subtle, but also seemed to serve a purpose that was beyond just capturing the events taking place on the screen, like portraying the emotional state of the characters and making thematic points. This technique in particular at least made the film more visually engaging, if not narratively.
RATING-: 5/10
|
Comments