Reviews

7 Reviews
Sort by:
Filter by Rating:
Identity (2003)
1/10
This movie's ending makes the viewer think they just wasted a coupla hours
28 December 2007
Warning: Spoilers
I hated the ending of this movie. I like surprise endings, but they have to be somewhat realistic.

This ending just made me wonder why in the world I watched two hours of it. I mean, you get to like the characters and then, whamo, you learn that they are not even real characters, just figments of nuts imagination.

What a let down.

I do not know what others liked this movie. Maybe the reason I hated it was because I could watch half hour Twilight Zone episodes that contain the same plot and ending and not waste so much time.

Some of these modern movies with their two minute surprise endings really could be done in 45 minutes or less.
49 out of 98 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Serving Sara (2002)
1/10
Unrealistic legal portrayal, bad acting, only Elizabeth brings anything to this movie.
27 December 2007
I have not seen a Matthew Perry movie or show I have liked, mainly because I do not like Matthew Perry's acting. He is annoying and not funny to me.

Comedies are funny when they are based on some reality or are making fun of reality. This movie, however, was just plain ridiculous and a waste of time.

Elizabeth Hurley has been in much better and funnier movies, such as "Bedazzled" and "Austin Powers".

This movie used "service of process" as its plot. Whoever wrote the screenplay has no conception of the legalities involved and therefore the story has really no educational merit whatsoever. Serving Sara just was too stupid to be funny. It is the type of movie that some people will watch and think they may have learned something, like what is means to serve divorce paperwork, but will come away knowing absolute rubbish.

Lawyers like these kinds of movies because it keeps people stupid about the law.
6 out of 16 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Fracture (2007)
9/10
Ending a little too predictable
27 December 2007
Warning: Spoilers
The ending of this movie was just a little too predictable to a movie savvy and legally trained viewer.

For someone as smart as the character Hopkins plays, he should have known that taking his wife off life support would result in a murder charge because double jeopardy does not apply to two different crimes.

If he knew this, he should also have known that admitting to it after the fact could have created new evidence for a new trial. It was way too predictable that the attorney secretly recorded the confession. At least Hopkins didn't resort to that silly old unrealistic Hollywood dramatic confession upon being pressed. Instead, he confessed as a form of bragging, which is probably more realistic.

The ending leaves me with some legal quandaries, such as: "can the recording be entered into evidence against the accused when it was gathered by the District Attorney"? I'm sure the author of the book was legally trained and made clear in the novel how the law operated, but the movie left out some of these interesting little legal explanations which could have been explained through dialog between the Assistant DA and another attorney.

In any event, I liked this movie. It was entertaining and the storyline of the Assistant District Attorney getting hired at a law firm after proving his mettle in court was realistic. His turning down the job in favor of satisfying his pride and fighting another court battle is also realistic as some lawyers would do this.

The least realistic part of the movie was the predictable ending. It was an ending that a legally trained audience expected, but it could have been done better.
0 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
Devitos best
25 December 2007
The three main characters are very strong and very different. DeVito plays the ultimate miserly corporate businessman out to consume weak businesses and sell them off in pieces.

He meets a beautiful lawyer, Penelope Ann Miller, who is sharp and does not allow herself to be manipulated by him--although he manipulates her anyway.

Then, we learn that the company DeVito is out to take over next is the attorney's step father's played by Gregory Peck.

The movie is suspenseful in a tongue and cheek sort of way. It pits two very different types of businessmen against one another--but there is a woman between them--a lawyer.

The portrayals of the lead characters are very memorable and the viewer comes away with respect for all three though they are antagonists of one another. The bad guys and the good guys are the same characters and the viewer can pick sides. I, of course, pick the lawyer's.

Great ending.
0 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
Excellent family law movie
25 December 2007
When facing losing your child in the court system, a parent suffers a roller-coaster of emotions.

Here, two wannabe fathers are fighting for their parental rights to a daughter.

One father had been highly regarded in the community and had unbounded political ambitions.

The other father was a town drunk and miser who lived on the land of the other father.

The movie is suspenseful at times, dark at times, light at times, and has a great ending.
4 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
The Rainmaker (1997)
10/10
Good legal drama for new young lawyers out on their own.
25 December 2007
Warning: Spoilers
This movie depicts the struggle and hard work of a young lawyer who is pretty much on his own. While the main plot concerns a civil case against an insurance company defendant, the protagonist, Rudy, must delve into many other areas of life and law, just as most young attorneys must.

Rudy starts as a law clerk in the only firm that will take him in. While studying for the bar exam, his bosses make him breach legal ethics by "ambulance chasing" and committing various other marketing offenses. Rudy's bosses then disappear as the IRS comes hunting them, causing Rudy to have to handle his cases alone with a somewhat inept legal sidekick.

Young lawyers on their own can relate to taking on pretty much every case that comes through the door. While fighting a monumental battle against an insurance company, Rudy delves into Estate Planning, Criminal Law, and working on the side just to pay his rent.

In the end, Rudy has fought hard and helped people, but comes away with no money. This is realistic too as idealistic young lawyers on their own do not start to get paid until they have made a name for themselves and learned the ropes.
1 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
Ending is so true even to modern legal work
25 December 2007
Warning: Spoilers
It has been awhile since I saw this movie, but several pieces of it are ingrained within my memory.

The realism of the last scene make this movie a legal drama that is worth watching for lawyers. The protagonist played by Jimmy Stewart, a shrewd country lawyer up against the big city prosecutors, fights hard for his criminal client. He studies the laws and makes a very hard to win defense based on a new and novel legal defense: "temporary insanity".

Stewart counsels his client and does a good job portraying how real lawyers interact with criminal clients. In the end, after winning a victory that seemed hopeless, the client leaves without paying his bill--depicting a typical real world ending to a hard fought case.

And people hate lawyers for wanting to get paid up front...
2 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Recently Viewed