IMDb रेटिंग
6.6/10
12 हज़ार
आपकी रेटिंग
अपनी भाषा में प्लॉट जोड़ेंWhen a homeless man is accused of murdering a Justice Department file clerk, a public defender is tasked with mounting his legal defense.When a homeless man is accused of murdering a Justice Department file clerk, a public defender is tasked with mounting his legal defense.When a homeless man is accused of murdering a Justice Department file clerk, a public defender is tasked with mounting his legal defense.
कहानी
क्या आपको पता है
- ट्रिवियाLiam Neeson lived in a Washington, D.C. homeless shelter for two days, to prepare for his role.
- गूफ़At 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.
- भाव
Kathleen Riley: I spend all of my day with murders and rapists, and what's really crazy, I like them.
फीचर्ड रिव्यू
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)
टॉप पसंद
रेटिंग देने के लिए साइन-इन करें और वैयक्तिकृत सुझावों के लिए वॉचलिस्ट करें
विवरण
- रिलीज़ की तारीख़
- कंट्री ऑफ़ ओरिजिन
- भाषा
- इस रूप में भी जाना जाता है
- Suspect - Unter Verdacht
- फ़िल्माने की जगहें
- Commercial Studios - 793 Pharmacy Avenue, स्कारबोरो, ओंटारियो, कनाडा(originally called Magder Studios)
- उत्पादन कंपनियां
- IMDbPro पर और कंपनी क्रेडिट देखें
बॉक्स ऑफ़िस
- बजट
- $1,45,00,000(अनुमानित)
- US और कनाडा में सकल
- $1,87,82,400
- US और कनाडा में पहले सप्ताह में कुल कमाई
- $41,52,015
- 25 अक्तू॰ 1987
- दुनिया भर में सकल
- $1,87,82,400
- चलने की अवधि2 घंटे 1 मिनट
- रंग
- ध्वनि मिश्रण
- पक्ष अनुपात
- 1.85 : 1
इस पेज में योगदान दें
किसी बदलाव का सुझाव दें या अनुपलब्ध कॉन्टेंट जोड़ें