Reviews

I liked this neglected movie quite a bit, for a number of reasons.

The characters. I found them believable, real, with some depth, in conflict. Not cardboard, cartoon-like. I found that I could really identify with and care about them.

The story. I thought it was really interesting and realistic. The behind-the-scenes look at political machinations was exciting. I tend to like movies without special effects, that are not unrealistic fantasies. ("Ordinary People" generally comes to my mind.) I thought that this movie simply took real-life type people, put them in interesting situations, filled with conflict, and had us watch them deal with the problems they were in.

I also think the movie had a message for us, in terms of right and wrong. In fact, it's downright Shakespearian. (Contrast this with another Al Pacino movie, "Heat", where the criminals are portrayed just as sympathetically as the law enforcement officers, and there is no inkling at all that there is anything morally wrong with armed robbery. I'm uncomfortable with that.)

It's refreshing to see a movie in this day and age without gratuitous sex, violence, bombs and bullets, profanity.

On a cinematic level, I found the directing, acting (the entire cast) and production to be first rate.

I realize that many, many people (possibly the large majority) don't see things as I've described here. But if what I've written resonates, then you'll probably like this movie a lot.

I saw this movie on a Saturday night with a bunch of friends when it came out (20 years ago, oh how time flies! I remember that one of my friends had a very hot girlfriend and she was giving me the eye big-time).

Although I'm a bit hazy on some of the details, I do remember the plot, and most of the key events, and many, many scenes. (This forum helped me recall much.) What I do remember was that this movie really moved. None of that tush-shifting that boring movies evoke. In fact, this movie was the cinematic equivalent of a good page-turner. Taut, tense, tight.

I also remember that the acting, direction, production all seemed very slick, professional and self-assured. Personally, I found the two leads great, and Jeff Bridges especially mesmerizing.

Finally, without spoiling, there was one scene which had, it seemed, literally everybody in the packed movie theater we were in literally jump up six inches and scream. I do not ever remember a scene impacting a collective theater audience so intensely.

So all in all, I thought of this as a very solid, entertaining movie. The first time I was aware of negative reaction to it was in Leonard Maltin's movie guide. He says, paraphrasing, "How can such a 'smart' movie have so many dumb plot holes?" I remember being very surprised. But I see on this website that many people are saying pretty much the same thing. All I can say is that I don't remember having that reaction myself at all.

So it looks like this is one of those movies where you'll probably fall into one of two camps: a. Great, solid movie. b. Boilerplate courtroom drama with dumb plot holes. I wish I could help you out in advance by telling you which group you'll fall into! Maybe I could give you a Rorschach.

Postscript. After we all left the cinema, my friend's hot girlfriend was saying: "Okay, so who did it?" and we were all trying to explain it to her, but she wasn't convinced! I think my friend ended up marrying her. After I shtupped her a few times (nah, just kidding).

Other people here have commented on the unevenness of this movie. What an understatement. I found the first half of the movie funny, poignant, delightful. Then, all of a sudden, the movie becomes an unfunny, painful bore. It's amazing. The contrast between the two halves is so stark, it's hard to believe it's the same movie. I don't ever recall such a split between two halves of a movie. Ever.

And in the second half, there is a scene in bed involving the 'o' word, that is very painfully unfunny and completely inane.

But what do I know.

Two scenes that really stick out in my mind:

1. When the girl says to Steve: "Nice guys don't stay lonely for long" -- so sweet!

2. When Steve realizes he missed out on a golden opportunity to "get lucky" with a pretty woman. That was wickedly funny!

I have mixed feelings about this movie. On the one hand, I did find it entertaining, there were lots of different subplots, good dialog, and the movie definitely moved for me.

But it's weird, I can't put my finger on why, nor can I exactly express it in words, but something about this movie just seems "small". In my mind, when I compare it to a movie like "The Godfather", which seems like a very "large", weighty movie, this one just seems smalltime. I don't know why. I have the same feeling about "Hoodlum", which also came out around this time -- interesting characters, good plot, lots of interesting subplots and dialog, and yet, it just seems "small". One other movie that strikes me very similarly is "A Bronx Tale". (Interestingly, De Niro was in that one too.) Contrast that with, say, "Heat", which seems like a "large" movie to me. I wonder if anyone out there can help me articulate what I'm talking about. Is it the script? The direction? The acting? As I say, I can't put my finger on it. So can someone out there please pull my finger?

Also, I see that many people here praise Stallone's performance. I found it simply competent, certainly not mesmerizing. I didn't think it was a very demanding role -- he simply had to portray someone who didn't really get that emotional about anything -- doesn't seem so hard to me. But what do I know! Liotta, on the other hand, is an emotional roller-coaster. (Although I found his crying when he learns of someone's death not believable -- you could see the acting.)