What's the movie about?
Lawyer Wendell Rohr (Dustin Hoffman) expects to shake the foundations of jurisprudence by holding gun manufacturers responsible for the massacre. But a consultant representing the gunmen, Rankin Fitch (Jean Hackman), is ready to unleash a dirty game. Between these guys there is a battle for the verdict of the jury, among which there is a suspicious “dark horse”. Nicholas Easter (John Cusack).
Why watch?
Fitch, played with ecstasy by Hackman (this is his third entry into the film adaptation of the novels of John Grisham after The Firm and The Camera), appears in the image of absolute evil and opens the veil of the American justice system. The fact is that if the verdict is made by jurors, then you can apply the latest technologies of video surveillance, private investigation and psychological pressure to influence their decision. Such aggressiveness is in stark contrast to the liberal, quiet and intelligent lawyer Dustin Hoffman, who has only one university graduate (Jeremy Piven) as assistants, but, as we know, it is in such unequal battles that good constantly has to confront evil. And then Mr. Easter, performed by Cusack, enters the game, a scammer and master of manipulation, skillfully pulling the strings of legal proceedings.
From Grisham, the film got dashing plot twists, and from director Fleder ("Don't say a word") impeccable production in the spirit of the 90s, from the beginning to the very end. Perhaps in the moralizing view of the film on the problem of guns lies the reason for the failure at the box office - after all, for a country built by cowboys, the issue of carrying weapons is not as simple and unambiguous as can be seen from overseas. However, the morality of this mainstream thriller contains a banal sermon, but its pace is fast, and the actors are great. Pure popcorn blockbuster.
Legal thrillers, in my opinion, are always good because they give an opportunity to look inside the judicial systems, and in particular, foreign ones.
Just think: how can a jury administer justice without being literate in the field of jurisprudence? These are ordinary people - shop sellers, teachers and people of other very different professions. This always amazed and caused special interest - I wanted to know: how does this mechanism really work from the inside?
This film reflects the essence of this system. In fact, when you think about what it's like to be one of the jurors, to participate in the trial and to influence the further decision in the case, immediately involuntarily creeping in the thoughts: will the decision ultimately be fair? Can the opinion of the jury be influenced not only by the course of the trial and its essence, but also by any extraneous factors? Is there a possibility of corruption?
All this is clearly reflected in this film. The viewer is invited to immerse himself in the next American trial, rather even in the study of one of its components - from the study of the jury files by both sides of the case, their subsequent selection, and ending with the further possibility or impossibility of influencing their opinion and their final decision.
Of the drawbacks of this film, I can only note that the very conduct of the trial slightly faded into the background, and without giving a clear idea of how the claims of the parties occurred, what tools were used for this. But in principle, this did not affect the overall positive impression.
Of course, the play of favorite actors (D. Hoffman, D. Hackman, D. Cusack) deserves special praise. A wonderful cast that coped with its task for a hundred - from appearance to emotions.
A beautiful movie that keeps in suspense from the first minutes and will not let you get bored.
Well, it seems to look good, although these obvious blunders of the main characters in a cleverly prepared story are stressful. But, solid four - you can watch, although not necessarily.
At the beginning of the film, they named the right reason for the tragedy. The reason is firing a person. A businessman fired a man - deprived a man of his livelihood. The man found no other way than to buy a gun and shoot colleagues.
The film immediately shifted the arrows and shifted the focus of the viewer's attention to a less significant fact - the sale of weapons. It is as if a person who decides to do something will not find a way. It's full of ordinary things that can be used as weapons.
Why couldn’t someone find another way out? Because a person is pressured by capitalist propaganda, in the form of films like this. False propaganda that distorts meaning.
In fact, the right exit is also voiced in this film - one of the jurors says the phrase ' what now, judge everyone who makes money?' Yes, that's right, you have to judge everyone who does business. Any business is robbery, it is robbery of the majority of the population by a minority. Business in a normal society should be outlawed. This is the only way to get rid of terrorist attacks, bars on school doors, the need to escort children to school, and other ugly consequences of the capitalist system.
The reason for all terrorist attacks is the difference between people in material wealth and the resulting uncertainty of people in the future.
The difference in material wealth allows some people to accumulate unimaginable wealth, and others, robbed by those who picked up someone else’s share under themselves, to plump with hunger.
The review is negative not because the film has a bad plot or the actors play poorly - no, in this sense everything is fine - a great script and a great acting.
The review is negative because the film is talentedly filmed false capitalist propaganda.
A court thriller based on a novel by John Grisham. In the 90s, this fiction writer was often filmed in Hollywood ('Time to Kill', 'Firm', 'Client', 'The Case of Pelicans'). The heroes of his books, as a rule, were representatives of the judicial system: lawyers, prosecutors, jurors. This is actually the last, at the moment, a large-budget adaptation of Grisham.
Celeste Wood is being sued by a gun company. She is supported by a well-known lawyer who opposes the free sale of weapons. And gunsmiths hire a well-known expert on jury pressure. But one of the twelve, Nicholas Easter, pursues his goals by trying to manipulate the jury's opinion from within.
All this is well filmed and played. The film is quite interesting to watch, although the main intrigue and plot moves are guessed quite quickly. It is clear that Easter and his partner are pursuing more than mercantile goals. Well, the book was about a tobacco company, and the lawsuit against the gun in America somehow looks little real.
What a good movie is the cast. John Cusack, Gene Hackman, Dustin Hoffman, Rachel Weiss and others - the cast is very decent and in many ways the picture is drawn just by the actors.
It is also a kind of attack on the jury system itself. Their opinions, it turns out, are easily manipulated. And they're very easy to press.
“I would rather drink with a clear conscience than win it.”
In a year, 30,000 people die from firearms in our country. Except for the wounded and maimed. It is not difficult to understand how many claims and how much you will have to fork out as a result.” Writers get a little hot here. If I am not mistaken, the maximum figures for the statistics were 12,000 deaths per year. But that doesn't change the point.
It is not difficult to sit in a comfortable chair with glasses of an expensive viscar in your hands with professional specialists in solving minor problems to lead a multi-billion-dollar empire. In case of problems, they can be replaced. It’s a wonderful scene when an oligarch brags about an expensive shotgun – he’s 70 years old and still shoots well. Sorry there was a misfire. Sometimes. It didn't work. We couldn't buy it. Sometimes conscience is worth more than money. And more than all the weapons, money and malice combined. Sometimes, sorry for the jargon, on the cunning g... is x... with a screw.
The film is a fairy tale for junior scientists. But a fairy tale with a positive ending. And the fairy tale is very good. By the number of "winged phrases" the film easily covers "Pulp Fiction" like a bull sheep. It looks on one breath from small to large. It’s a good idea to revisit the family.
"The jury system was introduced because earlier a judge could hang a young man like you for being annoyed!"
For the sale of the rights to the film and work on the adaptation of his novel, American writer John Grisham received neither more nor less, eight million dollars. Such a large, even huge payout is due to the fact that all other adaptations of the writer’s books invariably became hits, and therefore commercially successful. Before the “Verdict for Money”, which the world saw in 2003, the tapes “The Firm” and “The Pelican Case” (both in 1993), “The Client” (in 1994), “Time to Kill” and “The Camera” (in 1996) and “The Benefactor” (in 1997) were already released. Agree that some of them are still heard. Many of them are connected by the fact that the plot is built around court and court cases, and the “Verdict for Money” was no exception. With the help of it, the viewer has the opportunity to learn the background and behind the scenes of what people work on decision-making and by what methods the necessary decision is achieved and what is behind them.
In addition to John Grisham, four other writers worked on the script of the film and all of them have in their track record very successful work. Such a number of writers can explain the fact that “Verdict for Money” turned out to be a versatile film with many storylines, in which it is easy to get confused if you do not carefully follow all the vicissitudes of the film. To add a full picture of what is happening will be possible only in the final, so the "Verdict for money" will not be boring throughout its length. But the beginning of the film does not foreshadow this: the young man Nicholas Easter is among the twelve jurors who will decide on a very high-profile case. The advocacy team and the prosecution team are trying to find weak and strong members of the jury. But none of them know that Nicholas Easter is playing his own game and his goals are unknown. Meanwhile, the girlfriend of Nicholas Marley offers representatives of the prosecution and defense to buy the jury’s decision.
Believe me, in a few sentences, the plot described is actually very, very dry. It is not for nothing that it was said above that the film has many storylines and you need to closely follow them, otherwise much will be hidden from your attention and a whole impression will not work then. It will not be boring to see what technologies and capabilities those representing the interests of the defense have. This side in his character reveals Jean Hackman. He has a team of psychologists who read every word and every move of the jury, while the hero of Gene Hackman appears in the guise of some evil, prowling in the courtroom. Against this side of the prosecution, which is represented by a character from Dustin Hoffman. Of course, he’s not an “innocent schoolgirl” either, but he’s more appealing in terms of his moral qualities. Hackman and Hoffman went to acting school together and were expelled with a petition saying they had no acting talent. Since then, they are friends, but in the “Verdict for Money” appeared as enemies in the courtroom.
The role of Nicholas Easter was given to John Cusack. It is necessary to take a closer look at his hero from the beginning. This is a multi-layered image, which initially can set up not the most positive way in his direction, but is everything really as it seems? Believe me, this character, successfully played by John Cusack, will be able to surprise and make it so that we can say that Nicholas Easter has something to be proud of. Gradually, as if more and more interfering with the water, the importance of the heroine Rachel Weiss - Marley will increase. It is connected with the same story as with the hero of Cusack, when you do not need to form an opinion only on the first acquaintance. Also in the film a huge number of familiar faces that only their listing would take a whole paragraph. For example, Jennifer Beels, the star of the movie "Flash Dance", here in the background. And all the actors create the characters of their characters, which is why the film becomes so versatile and does not look like a theater of several actors, there is a whole huge almanac from the acting ensemble, a confusing and interesting script, and also opens the behind-the-scenes world of American justice.
Personally, I can say that of all the films on the subject of litigation, thanks to Al Pacino’s outstanding performance, the drama “And Justice for All” is in the first place. But now "Verdict for Money" and "Time to Kill" occupy the second place together on the podium of the improvised chart. And let me add that the "Verdict..." is more interesting than the recently released "Judge." I recommend at your leisure, when nothing will distract you, carefully watch the “Verdict...” and you will have a great time.
9 out of 10
"We are not. That's life. Very often people rely on this phrase in every possible way try to justify both their actions and their consequences. It’s like trying to fool other people as much as yourself. After all, who, if not a person, is possible without knowing it and more often guided by his nature destroys all the good that was created for the benefit of mankind. Whether it is a separate invention created for the benefit of people, but perverted by the sick imagination of individual people, or the very concept of justice, which alas triumphs not always and it is to this topic that this film directed by Gary Fleder addresses.
Films on judicial themes in the entire history of cinema not so much a huge number and perhaps due to this, there is no certain saturation of the audience with films of this kind. Which, perhaps, played to the benefit of this film directed by Gary Fleder, which I personally can safely call one of the best in my genre. Not wanting to repeat other films of this kind, the filmmakers approached the topic of court hearings from a completely different side and in a different way. That gave the picture a certain degree of dynamism, sharpness and tension, which does not leave consciousness before the beginning of the final credits.
The plot may seem quite simple in its specifics, but quickly gaining momentum and armed with an abundance of quite unexpected plot twists certainly made the plot of the picture the main advantage of this film. That, combined with an abundance of really bright, charismatic and interesting characters, made the story even more interesting. When, as if to take in general, all this is only tinsel against the background of a rather relevant (especially for the American society) topic, the relevance of which is often fixed by news reports about the next armed shooter and a considerable number of senseless victims among ordinary civilians. Thus, not only raising the question of the relevance of the Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America, but also whether “justice” is truly blind, even if there is one person who will listen to his heart and act according to conscience. Perhaps life is setting in a rather negative way, but the finale of the picture creates hope and I really want this hope to grow into something more.
Of course, one of the main features of the picture is a magnificent cast, which literally holds on to talented actors. John Cusack, whom I dislike, has certainly played the best role in his career. The role that fully revealed in him a strong dramatic actor. Very good Rachel Weiss, Cliff Curtis and perhaps the entire cast, who coped with their task hurriedly. So much so that their characters give the impression of living and real people, not the fruit of acting. Naturally distinguishing among them such veterans as Jean Hackman and Dustin Hoffman. Hackman in his repertoire plays the image of another narcissistic cynic, and Hoffman literally personifies justice and hope for the best in people and both actors certainly pulled the entire film to a greater extent on their shoulders.
9 out of 10
The verdict for money is definitely one of the best films on the judicial subject, which first of all bribes quite an unexpected approach to this topic. Along the way, even more greatly pleased with the amazing cast and their magnificent play, fascinating plot and actual morality embedded in it. That together and makes such a strong impression that to break away from what is happening on the screen even do not want.
Today, and not only in the United States, guns are fired wherever possible – on campuses, in parks, in malls and in other places where the offended pour their anger on innocent people. According to the information space in which Eastern Europe now lives, with such headlines, probably many conclude: oh, but we do not have this, and how well we all live here.
According to the plot of the film "Verdict for Money" about this case, an angry former broker sends more than a dozen of his former colleagues to the next world, and two years later, on the suit of the widow of one of the dead, a hearing begins against the manufacturer of the very unfortunate gun, which was shot. The verdict must be handed down by a randomly selected jury.
It seems that this film is a classic thriller, purely formally telling about this trial, but many, of course, subconsciously draw some parallels in their thoughts with the environment in which they live. An institution like the jury trial, even if it ever finds a practical application, will probably have more of a circus than the fact that Hollywood makes films about jury bribery in its judicial system.
This film deserves attention at least only because of the awareness of such processes, if you take all Hollywood out of the film, you still sit and look with the eyes of a kitten at the fact that for justice in the streets or in the courtrooms you only need to show political will. Yes, and the film itself "Verdict for money", twisting a little intrigue, it says - truth and justice will win, and we as - "Bablo conquers evil?" ...
In order to do without obfuscation, I confess that I approached this film skeptically and biased. Judicial drama, as I believed, is not a new genre for me, and a sufficient number of both good cinema and frank catavasia have been revised on this topic. One Sidney Lumet, from 12 Angry Men in 1957 to Find Me Guilty in 2006, created a good number of representatives of this movement. However, it would be a mistake to consider this picture of the young, 37-year-old at the time, director Gary Fleder, a standard example of his fellow tribesmen in the role of court drama, if it can be considered such at all. Something distinguishes him, gives him specialness and originality. In short, my expectations before viewing, debunked approximately, kind of in the tenth minute of viewing. Which was a pleasant surprise, and contributed to an interesting pastime at the blue screen.
First, the film is provided with an interesting plot, a la cat-and-mouse game, something similar has recently become a major trend in the mainstream, just call the name of Christopher Nolan, and his films “Inception” and “Prestige”. Secondly, the authors managed to properly mount the film so that the pace remains consistently interesting throughout the entire timekeeping, which is very important in this family of film genres. However, you need constant concentration if you do not want to miss the progress of the storyline. A little disappointed with the camera work, the film lacked a variety of angles and views, everything looked academic and like a textbook. In addition, the verdict for money, gathered under his wing, quite eminent cast. It is present as an old, time-tested guard in the faces of Gene Hackman and Dustin Hoffman. So did the younger generation of stars John Cusack, Rachel Weiss and others. I liked Hackman the most, I think he was the most complex and thoughtful character. Hoffman, as always, charming, such masters like him, just appear on the screen, it will cause delight in many viewers. Cusack is a relatively unknown actor to me, and not particularly complained about, but here I liked him (even reminding me of Al Pacino, from another court-drama Justice for All (1979), looked solid and confident. Weiss did not have time to consider, very little time is devoted to her heroine. The rest of the team, complementing the main characters, looked harmonious and appropriate. It is impossible to ignore another heroine of the film, or rather a permanent participant in films of this subject, I mean Themis. The statue of which periodically appears before the main character, probably reminds him that justice should remain impartial and balanced. But unlike Themis, the blindfold in front of Nicholas Easter (the hero of Cusack) is clearly lowered, as a result of which one of the scales is slightly below the other. However, all this is only idle speculation, in a greedy search for symbolism.
In total, it turned out to be quite strong work, not without flaws, deliberately twisted, but paradoxically simple. All the attraction of such films lies in the correct balance of such attributes of cinema as a skillfully composed script that keeps intrigue to the last scenes and does not let you get bored. And of course, skillful acting, which even Stanislavsky should cause a hysterical “Faith”. Whether the “Verdict for Money” managed to combine these two dozen indicators and correctly dispose of them or not, it is not so easy to say. More likely than not. I can say one thing, it was not boring and interesting.
A seller from a computer game store, represented by John Cusack, must fulfill his civic duty and become a juror in a case against a large weapons company. She was sued by a widow whose husband was shot dead by a maniac in the office. In the course of the film, it becomes clear that the hero of John Cusack is using this case in his own interests. I will not write more about the plot, otherwise it will be uninteresting to watch.
If you characterize the film "Verdict for money" in one word, comes to mind - quality. The film is based on a strong literary blockbuster written by John Grisham, whose successful film adaptations are considered classics of the genre. It is clear why the film failed at the box office, because the manner and pace of shooting, set by the director Gary Fleder, does not allow you to be distracted by popcorn and other nonsense. The confusing plot captures from the very beginning and does not let go until the end. The excellent selection of actors led by John Cusack, Gene Hackman and, of course, the unique Dustin Hoffman makes us delve deeper into the essence of the trial. In general, the entire cast pleased with high-quality and good work.
As a result, it turned out, a strong court thriller with an excellent cast and script, stuffed with unexpected plot twists, which makes you wonder what the author has prepared for the last. And for dessert, by the way, prepared a rather unexpected finale. I recommend to fans of "smart" thrillers and adaptations of books John Grisham.
Sometimes the principle is more expensive than money.
It would seem that another film about litigation, where, as always, justice fights against injustice. In the role of the first is the lawyer of the widow of the deceased husband - Wendell Rohr (Dustin Hoffman), and in the role of the second Ranken Fitch (Jean Hackman) - a hired expert on jury selection, working for the interests of the gun company, through the fault of which the husband of the victim died. But that’s not all – there is a third party that makes the plot of this picture really interesting and unusual.
Despite its theme, the film was extremely dynamic and can interest any viewer. The rapid change of events that characterizes the entire film, from the beginning to the final credits, does not let you miss a second. Gary Fleder, the director of this picture, showed the ideal version of how you can make a typical court thriller the real “candy”, which will appeal to the most diverse audience.
Here you do not have to listen to the monotonous dialogues of the main characters, all the “conversational battles” are extremely fleeting and extremely acute, as well as the picture itself. In general, the crazy content of each episode is the main advantage of the film. Moreover, Gary Fleder more than once resorts to interesting directorial moves that further fill the film with dynamics. Such a visual side can only be admired.
As far as the cast is concerned, it’s just superb. John Cusack is becoming more and more open to me as an actor. His role is very often associated with the genre of detective, but every time there is something new in his image. In this film, he appears as a cunning adventurer, and it is a pleasure to follow his character. Rachel Weiss is a beautiful woman. Her character Marley is simply the personification of a woman’s mind and determination. Some action scenes with her participation even puzzled me how it was all filmed, so real everything looked. As for the heavy artillery in the person of Gene Hackman (who by the way played already in the film based on the book by John Grisham - The Firm) and Dustin Hoffman, they showed their high level. And if Dustin did not have much screen time, then Hackman had a very interesting and memorable role, worthy of special attention.
Result
A great film, and not only in the genre of court thriller, but also as a separate picture in general. I recommend to anyone who believes in honest people and some principles.
9 out of 10
The film is staged in such a way that the viewer becomes interested, would say at times exciting, paid attention to everything, here you and the “battles” in the courtroom, pressure on the jury, sometimes even action, intrigue ... The film will not seem boring to you, everything is in moderation, the only one it can differ from the book, but this is an eternally sick topic. The magnificent play of D. Hoffman; D. Hackman; D. Cusack; R. Weiss ... is worthy of attention. Solid 8 out of 10 Original