Micitype Pretty Good

Smartorhypo Highly Overrated But Still Good

Executscan Expected more

Plustown A lot of perfectly good film show their cards early, establish a unique premise and let the audience explore a topic at a leisurely pace, without much in terms of surprise. this film is not one of those films.

meldada Read the book by one of the finest director's in the business, Sidney Lumet. It's called Making Movies and reading it made me want to see everything this man did. You want to learn about making a picture, read this and it will fill you in. This film I never knew about until I read the book and am thankful I did before I died. It has it all. First and foremost the performances. Everyone is committed to the best that they can do. Although Van Diesel is not the greatest actor, I don't care, because I believed him. The story is entertaining and perfectly paced and wonderful. The all important themes, Loyalty and love are defined. An exquisitely crafted movie and the story is true. Amazing to say the least. Everything is pitch perfect. The camera angles, the lighting the performances, the script. The whole thing hangs together like a good Swiss pocket watch.

moviesleuth2 Early on in his career, Vin Diesel has been cast as the Arnold Schwartznegger for the iPod generation. The range required for these types of roles is strictly limited; all these guys need to do is act tough in the face of a lot of violence and spit off a few good one-liners. However, actors who have made their mark on Hollywood in one type of role get the urge to stretch their talents in new directions. Sometimes this fails, but sometimes it succeeds. This is one of the latter.This is the story of the longest criminal trial in US history. Dozens of members from all ranks of the Lucchese crime family are on trial for a number of crimes. The prosecution, led by Sean Kierney (Linus Roache) thinks its totally prepared. But then one of the charged, Jackie DiNorscio (Vin Diesel) throws them all a fast one: he decides to defend himself (at this point it should be known that those who defend themselves rarely win). And let's just say that his style is completely at odds with normal courtroom behavior.Vin Diesel is a revelation. Even in his action roles there was always a hint of something more than an Arnold Schwartzenegger type. This is the first chance Diesel has gotten a chance to show it, and I'm surprised that he didn't earn at least a Golden Globe nomination. He's funny, yet there is a lot of depth to the character as well, and Diesel nails it. There are of course co-stars, but this is Diesel's show. Linus Roache is solid as the prosecutor, but he just doesn't have the screen presence that the other actors, especially Diesel, have in order to take his share of the spotlight. Peter Dinklage is terrific as the short Ben Klandis, who's on hand to give advice to Jackie. Dinklage has become one of the most reliable character actors in Hollywood, and this is another great performance. The late great Ron Silver has some funny moments as the judge, but he also has a heart.Director Sidney Lumet has a spotty career. He's directed a number of classics, such as "12 Angry Men," but he's had his share of duds (like his most recent film, "Befor the Devil Knows You're Dead"). Lumet's approach is standard and character based. The problem with that is the only times the film (and Diesel) really come alive is in the courtroom. Diesel holds his own in the non-courtroom scenes, but there's just no energy in them and they become a little dull.The film flopped, and while unfair, it's understandable (this is not exactly typical fare for Diesel's usual fans, and it's not good enough for the "film lovers" who only venture outside the norm when films are endorsed by the almighty Oscar). It's a good film, but not a classic.My rating: Rated R for Pervasive Strong Language and Some Violence.

merylmatt I was not surprised that Vin Diseal was so good in this movie. His role really is not a stretch from who he is in real life - a tough guy who grew up in New York City.That this is based on a real court room trial makes it all the funnier. The script writers used much of the transcripts from the trial of Mobster Jack DiNorscio. Crime may not pay, but it can be hilarious.Critics of this movie get wrapped around the axle that it is sympathetic to criminals. Forget the moral outrage, this particular criminal was funny, he was human, he did terrible things which the movie does portray.Maybe I'm more forgiving than some because I've known people like this in real life - not criminals, but real life everyday people who walk, talk and think like "Fat Jack" DiNorscio. You don't need a formal education to be smart, and you can rise to being a Prosecutor or Judge without smarts.I say watch, relax and enjoy.

elshikh4 This movie bugged me. What was that anyway? And what were its problems? Sure it got many ! The movie looked provocative in dealing with the monsters it had. True, it demands to look into its characters like usual human beings inside their own world. But the main problem is that it happens at the moment of taking revenge on them by us, the moment where they go to their righteous end, as the natural fairness from our very point of view. You sense anger and fear when those mean old criminals go free at the end that easily ! So it's hard to see any human type Mr. Lumet wants us to see in (Jackie DiNorscio/ Vin Diesel) and learn about. And harder to feel sympathy out of this courtroom movie.Moreover, how the logicality of the whole trial/movie has gone with the wind? It's impossible for us as viewers to BELIEVE for a second how the jury decided that the accused killers and dealers are all NOT GUILTY !! Even if it's a very known case from the 1980s, dramatically, the movie pushed me to not buy that, and to assume that those mafia bosses bribed all the jury?…Or maybe, it's Sidney Lumet's special satire... When we see all the mobsters walk joyfully in one street with the members of the jury to mingle with each other you'd conclude what vision is shown for the American society, or its big family - echoes from Lumet's (Family Business – 1989) - like it's that nation's naked truth. Which even breaking it, is a breakage for a LIFE STYLE, like their lawyer's first pleading. So, similar to Lumet's (Q & A – 1990) also, it's the case of perversely established ground (and forever). It's like Roman Polanski's films where evil is finally dominating. Or the world of Coppola's The Godfather however the mafia is axiomatic fact & ordinary part, yet with no purgation.Therefore the federal prosecutor's shouting "They're criminals" wasn't to assure sense of morality at it only. But to manifest how hopeless his character is in a world like this. Though the movie doesn't try to give us the reason HOW he has been beaten at the end ?! Since the answer of WHY is : naturally ! It could be another violent commentary on the American, explicitly incomplete, justice. So the prosecutor looked nasty while his efforts to achieve the lost justice, as the evil man of "this" world who had to lose to "our" world's real evil men !?? I told you earlier, this movie can bug cleverly. It makes you think: Maybe the mob produced it ?!!In fact, the moral dilemma was for the viewer to decide is (Jackie DiNorscio) a hero of his world or not ? The finale just answered a big YES for that and exaggerated it passionately, after living his redemption till his noble statement of willingly self-sacrifice at the end. However you'd feel : How he sacrifices for people will kill you and your kids by bullets or drugs !, How even his attempt to sacrifice was fake since he's going to jail anyhow !, and How he didn't learn about himself as long as he says "Send me to jail. I'm not guilty, but I'm used to it"!!?, Baby, you're so guilty to the backbone. And I feel I must say the same about (Sidney Lumet) here too.It was difficult to catch on the movie's message, or its type of a hero. Simply, Jackie is the only one who discovered through the whole trail that he lost everything and everyone by himself, the only one who owns love, and asks for non-conditional love. But the treatment didn't pinpoint that seriously. I sunk under so many defects. One of them is making it as a courtroom movie, which tried to be so loyally realistic also, since the normal viewer would live continual heavy defense for the mafia's sake, with a happy end for them too ! This distracted the attention to heed anything but the appearance of a heart of gold inside the personality of (DiNorscio). Not to mention the ethical complication of understanding his redemption with another possible satire about the ones whom he sacrifices for. You can't ignore that precise look into world of Italians (whom not the progeny of Italian artists, but Italian bottom) to ask what's the original basis of America exactly?, and how its crime is a victor force, and organic limb. The try of 2 movies in one is the same problem of Lumet's (The Anderson Tapes - 1971), refer to my comment about it on the IMDb : (A Political Crime Movie ? NAAAY !!). However, like that last one, Lumet uses criminals to expose something wrong in the American system but here it seemed disharmonious and annoying. It's not the movie where the evil guy goes to jail at last, it's the movie where the evil guys go to society free while the good guy is beaten and the less evil imprisoned, but none of these stories was done fairly.This is one of Lumet's less powerful movies. Marketing it as a (Comedy) tells you how they were desperate to market it anyway. They did it before with his better one (Family Business). Maybe he's making movies about subjects too hard to face or stand. Here as a director, co-writer he went to the sink to seek heroes (read : less impure) yet he did it in a movie that needed to be more emotional, concentrated, and effective.P.S : despite Diesel's good efforts, the make-up and the gray wig were heavy mask that made him a freak and devitalized his acting.