CALIFICACIÓN DE IMDb
6.6/10
12 k
TU CALIFICACIÓN
Un equipo legal que defiende a un hombre sin hogar, mudo y asesino, descubre una red de corrupción que puede tener implicaciones peligrosas.Un equipo legal que defiende a un hombre sin hogar, mudo y asesino, descubre una red de corrupción que puede tener implicaciones peligrosas.Un equipo legal que defiende a un hombre sin hogar, mudo y asesino, descubre una red de corrupción que puede tener implicaciones peligrosas.
- Dirección
- Guionista
- Elenco
- Dirección
- Guionista
- Todo el elenco y el equipo
- Producción, taquilla y más en IMDbPro
Argumento
¿Sabías que…?
- TriviaLiam Neeson lived in a Washington, D.C. homeless shelter for two days, to prepare for his role.
- ErroresAt 1:23 into the movie, when she is checking keys against file cabinets at the Justice dept., the key won't fit into one of the file cabinets, then the key fits the very next one. This is minor but would not happen. Since the file cabinets are identical, they key would at least FIT the lock (though it wouldn't turn the lock mechanism) unless it were the correct key. For example....all Master Lock keys (of the same sort) will fit the intended item perfectly - it just won't unlock it unless the pins match.
- Citas
Kathleen Riley: I spend all of my day with murders and rapists, and what's really crazy, I like them.
Opinión destacada
The highlight of this movie for me was a wonderful performance from Cher. She was playing the part of Kathleen Riley, a public defender who gets caught up in more than she bargained for when she takes on the case of a homeless man accused of murdering a 24 year old woman. The case is a lot more complicated than that, and the story keeps viewers on their toes. We're quite sure that Carl (the homeless man played by Liam Neeson) did not kill the young woman. The question is - who did? And why? The movie disorients right off the top, beginning with a Supreme Court justice committing suicide. But them that seems to disappear. But surely it's connected? Basically, we settle into a waiting game, as we look for the connection.
The movie settles down for a while into a pretty standard courtroom drama, and Cher (and Joe Mantegna as the prosecutor) are quite credible in their courtroom activity. Another twist is added to the story by Kathleen's growing involvement with juror Eddie (Dennis Quaid) - a congressional lobbyist who gets involved surreptitiously in helping to build the case for the defense. Quaid was also very good in his part, as was John Mahoney as the presiding judge. There really were no weaknesses in among the cast. I have to give real credit to Neeson. As Carl he did a magnificent job, especially given that he was playing a character who was both deaf and mute. His entire performance had to be conducted without voice, and he was very convincing. The whole thing builds up to a surprising courtroom twist that would have done Perry Mason proud, and that I didn't see coming at all.
My basic criticism of the movie is that it tries perhaps too hard to keep the viewer off balance. So many layers are added on that there is a temptation every now and then to drift away, because it's hard to keep everything straight. But in the end, when all the pieces are put together and that dramatic twist comes, you're glad you stuck with this. (7/10)
The movie settles down for a while into a pretty standard courtroom drama, and Cher (and Joe Mantegna as the prosecutor) are quite credible in their courtroom activity. Another twist is added to the story by Kathleen's growing involvement with juror Eddie (Dennis Quaid) - a congressional lobbyist who gets involved surreptitiously in helping to build the case for the defense. Quaid was also very good in his part, as was John Mahoney as the presiding judge. There really were no weaknesses in among the cast. I have to give real credit to Neeson. As Carl he did a magnificent job, especially given that he was playing a character who was both deaf and mute. His entire performance had to be conducted without voice, and he was very convincing. The whole thing builds up to a surprising courtroom twist that would have done Perry Mason proud, and that I didn't see coming at all.
My basic criticism of the movie is that it tries perhaps too hard to keep the viewer off balance. So many layers are added on that there is a temptation every now and then to drift away, because it's hard to keep everything straight. But in the end, when all the pieces are put together and that dramatic twist comes, you're glad you stuck with this. (7/10)
- sddavis63
- 1 sep 2013
- Enlace permanente
Selecciones populares
Inicia sesión para calificar y agrega a la lista de videos para obtener recomendaciones personalizadas
Detalles
- Fecha de lanzamiento
- País de origen
- Idioma
- También se conoce como
- Suspect
- Locaciones de filmación
- Commercial Studios - 793 Pharmacy Avenue, Scarborough, Ontario, Canadá(originally called Magder Studios)
- Productoras
- Ver más créditos de la compañía en IMDbPro
Taquilla
- Presupuesto
- USD 14,500,000 (estimado)
- Total en EE. UU. y Canadá
- USD 18,782,400
- Fin de semana de estreno en EE. UU. y Canadá
- USD 4,152,015
- 25 oct 1987
- Total a nivel mundial
- USD 18,782,400
- Tiempo de ejecución2 horas 1 minuto
- Color
- Mezcla de sonido
- Relación de aspecto
- 1.85 : 1
Contribuir a esta página
Sugiere una edición o agrega el contenido que falta