Solemplex To me, this movie is perfection.

Jeanskynebu the audience applauded

InformationRap This is one of the few movies I've ever seen where the whole audience broke into spontaneous, loud applause a third of the way in.

Tayyab Torres Strong acting helps the film overcome an uncertain premise and create characters that hold our attention absolutely.

pyenme I liked this movie. Yes, the plot has holes. Yes, the actions of the characters are a bit on the implausible side. But it still has me interested in seeing what is going to happen next, which is one measure of a movie I think is worth watching. The ending ties things up too neatly and quickly, but by that time, I am okay with it. I like the chemistry between Cher and Quaid. Seeing a young Liam Neeson is nice, too. I hadn't seen this in a long time, and it was on TV this afternoon - and I was reminded of how it is a nice couple hours of not having to think too hard. Nothing wrong with that!

jb0579 You know, I watched this film for the first time since I saw it in the theater years ago, and I must say that in today's cinematic atmosphere, this is a very underrated and enthralling film. I find today's movies to be so "dumbed down" to accommodate the full spectrum of moviegoers (the debt, and Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy as SOME exceptions), and this thriller manages to combine a few genres (mystery, courtroom, thriller, drama, suspense) into one package.Cher stars as a lawyer, badly in need of a vacation, who gets appointed a murder case in which a deaf and mute suspect (Played by the ever-ready Liam Neeson) seems to have perpetrated the crime. As she delves into the case, and into to case precedent, she begins to unravel a mystery that goes much higher than a homeless deaf mute.A fresh faced Dennis Quaid is a juror who is intrigued by puzzle pieces that don't seem to fit and begins his own look at the case, culminating in a heart pounding climax that'll leave you panting and wishing there was another hour to go! Definitely worth a look - even with Cher, whom I had dismissed as a one hit movie wonder. She actually pulls this movie off.And watch for Frasiers dad, John Mahoney, as a judge here - don't worry, you won't miss him.Give it a look!!

pocomarc This story had so many holes in it you could drive an oil tanker through each of them.Cher wore black leather in court as a defense attorney? The suspect is deaf and dumb, but Cher talks to him constantly? The suspect overpowers several policeman before he is subdued. But then Cher goes into his cell alone to talk to him? The suspect hits her, but then she continues being around him? What a wreck of a movie.At various points the dialogue was so bad it must have been written by a graduate of a junior high school creative writing class.In the middle of jury selection Cher has a lengthy tete a tete with prospective juror Quaid? In cross examinations the lawyers don't ask questions but speak in declarative sentences constantly? How can you take a movie seriously with so many preposterous moments in it?

fimimix ...and being an icon of outrageously glittering entertainment, people resent their idea of a scatterbrain can actually being able to act and speak like normal people. If you stop to think seriously about it, you'll have to admit she's convinced us she's having a wonderful time in her costumes-that-weigh-a-ton numbers, or maybe 2 ounces.....not for a couple of years, but for decades. THAT'S ACTING ! Most pop-artists don't last more than a couple of years. Madonna is successful because she "re-invents" herself, we tell ourselves, but is a DREADFUL actress......well, maybe "Evita". Cher makes no pretense: "this is it, folks." This movie is a good example of just getting lost in one without having to be overly intellectual. The twists in the plot are not earth-moving, but keeps me interested all through it. I, too, wondered why "Michael" was even in the plot, except to make for some scary scenes - worked for me. Also doubted the victim's auto would be left in the parking-lot, intact, for so long.....but, I got over that without having a coronary.The first scene with The Justice giving a "clerk-typist" an envelope with "hope it's sufficient - use it well" should tell you right now there's some hanky-panky going-on. Perhaps we tend to believe that justices in The Supreme Court are angels, and have no human frailties? Hey - they're APPOINTED by presidents, not elected. You think president's don't have agendas ? Wow! how naive you are ! Because the locale is D C, the incentive for ambition should always be suspect - politicians don't REALLY get there by kissing babies.Since "Suspect" has been released, we've had several good movies that depict just how our justice-system often works. With professional "juror-pickers" knowing every time you break wind, it's a toss-up whether the jury-system or a panel of judges should try EVERY case - BUT, both groups are homo-sapiens....lots of room for vulnerability and plain-ole stupidness and discrimination in there. The best way to remain "unjudged" is to be good and not get caught in situations you have to be......Dennis Quaid was great - I'm not familiar with Paul Mahoney, but his role was well-played. Also didn't know who Liam Neeson was at that time, but sure thought he did his role VERY well. The ending scene was surprising to me, because I suspected that OTHER justice-dept guy......I get my VHSs and DVDs from eBay - why pay $10.00 for a one-time shot in the theater, when the same amount lets you watch whenever you want - even if it isn't so often, and only for a change of pace? I'm one of those guys who can enjoy a movie if you give me a running description of the movie while watching it - but, I also like watching alone at home.....the restroom is a LOT closer !!! Lighten-up, Guys - this is a movie to be enjoyed without having to wrack your brains to figure-out. Gets a 9 from me -