User Reviews

***SPOILERS*** The film "Class Action" pits San Francisco activist lawyer for the down trodden and helpless Jed Tucker Ward, Gene Hackman, against his no nonsense and bull headed daughter Maggie, Mary Elizabeth Mastrantonoi, in a winner take all civil case against a giant car manufacture Argon Motors. It's Argon Motors who's 1985 model station wagons are the cause of some 130 accident one, the one which Jed takes up, had two persons killed and the driver left crippled. This father and daughter conflict in the courtroom results in Jed's wife Estella, Joanna Marlin, collapsing in the courthouse from a fatal heart attack from the stress that it caused her. Estella begged Maggie not to take the case for the car manufacture against her father. It was by Maggie taking it up that caused her mom's weak heart to stop beating.

In the courtroom sparks flew with Maggie and her defense team using every dirty and underhanded tactic to win that case. Even going so far as to to humiliate the victim of the crash, who lost his both wife and infant daughter as well as legs, as well as the engineer of the "death" station wagon the retired from the business but now running a bunny farm Mr. Pavel, Jan Rubes. Parvel who's memory, in not being able to remember his telephone number or birth date,was put in question who felt the station wagon was a death trap. It was Pavel who wrote in his notes that the car was a deathtrap to anyone driving it but as the defense, by destroying them, showed the notes he wrote about it had mysteriously ended up either missing or misplaced!

Just as it looked like curtains for Jed Ward's case an important witness was brought in a professional bean counter Mr. Patricola, Ken Grantham, who broke the case wide open in Jed Ward's favor.The mysterious Mr. Patricola proved what Jed Ward wasn't able to do in showing that the car was too dangerous to be driven. That as well as the reason for the destruction of Mr. Pavel's notes which brought the roof down on Argon Motors! And it was non other Maggie Ward who at first did everything to prevent her father Jed from winning the case that made that all possible! The film was obviously based on the landmark Ralph Nader book "Unsafe at any Speed" published in 1966 about the lack of car safety in the automobile industry and how it resulted in the thousands of deaths and injuries that could have so easily been avoided. In the movie like in real life it was a minor fault in the car that would have caused a few hundred dollars to correct that was not addressed that caused the car company in question, Argon Moters, to almost go bankrupt in the 100 million damage suit that was ruled, by a jury, against it!

Normally I am not a big fan of courtroom drama. Somehow, law & order, crime & punishment make me very uneasy. While visiting my mom, however, Class Action was coming on TV (a Fox station, so I assume it may have been uncut). Since it co-starred Gene Hackman, I decided to watch. I was well-rewarded.

Hackman is one of my favorites and never lets me down. He and co-star Mary Elizabeth Mastratonia both turn in riveting performances as a father-daughter attorneys. The film is emotionally-charged throughout, but never boils over into the sappy range. Without any spoilers, the ending is no huge surprise, but is satisfying – as is the movie as a whole.

Hackman plays Jedediah Tucker Ward, an aging lawyer who has made a national reputation as a David vs. Goliath foe of major corporations. His semi-estranged daughter, Maggie (Mastratonia) has followed his footsteps-at least into the law profession. There the similarity stops, as she is bucking for a partnership in a prestigious firm that handles some of the nation's largest corporations. Both actors turn in tremendous performances.

When the hostile father & daughter find themselves on opposite ends of a huge class action law suit over a car exploding a few years earlier, the already strained relationship is pushed to its limits. Jed's wife (Maggie's mother, of course), Estelle (Joann Merlin) tries to keep them from digging an impenetrable schism between themselves.

Some fine courtroom drama and domestic drama ensues and the winner is clearly the audience. The two leads are tremendous-even bearing some facial resemblance-and the rest of the veteran cast is very strong. I had never even heard of this film before today, but it is a definite winner.

Mary Elizabeth Mastrantonio is a striking beauty, high cheekboned, wide mouthed, and with eyes so far apart that if they were any farther apart she'd lose binocular vision. Her features are so chiseled and her performance here so inanimate that with little trouble a ribbon could be draped across her frame and "Buonarroti" carved into it. Gene Hackman turns in his usual sturdy performance. Colin Friels as Mastrantonio's boss projects a certain oiliness and gives the impression that he's giving it everything he's got.

There is a long-standing conflict between ex-radical Hackman and his 1980s materialistic yuppie daughter. He represents a number of people injured or killed in collisions involving a defective car. She represents the auto makers. One side is humanistic and aggrieved. The other side is evil, underhanded, unethical, mean, exploitative, and generally smarmy. I leave you to guess which side is represented by Hackman and which by the auto industry in this courtroom flick.

Two questions. First, if you're an attorney, right, and your client gives you some damaging information and you squeal on your client and tell the other side, isn't that illegal? I understand that in some states the prosecution must disclose its evidence and witness list, but is it the case the other way around? Is it ethical for the plaintiff to secretly transmit information to the defendant? Question one and a half: Do I have those terms right?

Second question, when did "versus" become abbreviated as simply "v" instead of "vs"? Is this a conspiracy designed to make me feel out of date and foolish? (I'm going to call my lawyer; they've been doing this to me all my life. I hardly had time to get used to "estate tax" and now they're trying to change it to "death tax.")

There's an interesting trick pulled on the defense at the end of this trial, but man the film takes a long time getting there. I'd like to recommend this film if only because of Hackman's presence in it, but I really can't. That would surely be perjury or misfeasance or first-degree mopery or something. Want to see a good flick about a similar subject? It's inaccurate, so everyone says, but "The Verdict" is as good as they come.

The first half of "Class Action" is chiefly concerned with family dynamics -- the conflict between the ambitious corporate daughter and the ex-radical idealist father, with the sensible and loving mother acting as mediator. It's really manipulative.

The second half actually deals with the class action suit against the auto makers who produced something like the Ford Pinto that blows up if you look at it cross-eyed. It's informative. The bean counters at the corporation figure it's cheaper to pay off some chump money to complainants than it is to retool the production line and fix the problem. So there are a couple of hundred deaths? What can you say -- it's a human tragedy. But, wow, is it preachy. And the sermons come in rechauffe homilies -- "How much does a man's dignity cost? You take away his wife, his children, his body. I guess a few dollars more for a couple of eight by ten glossies doesn't cost much." The lines could have been written by a Magic 8 Ball.

Well, any viewer not given to intense introspection or careful attention to manipulativeness will finish the movie feeling mighty good about himself or herself for having been on the side of the angels all along. If that's the kind of mellow glow you're looking for, you'll find it here. Perversely, sometimes that's EXACTLY what I need, so I enjoy watching it once in a while.