VALUTAZIONE IMDb
6,0/10
12.519
LA TUA VALUTAZIONE
Un procuratore distrettuale di New York lavora e flirta con la rivale e con la bizzarra cliente di lei: un'artista che è sotto processo per un omicidio che non ha commesso.Un procuratore distrettuale di New York lavora e flirta con la rivale e con la bizzarra cliente di lei: un'artista che è sotto processo per un omicidio che non ha commesso.Un procuratore distrettuale di New York lavora e flirta con la rivale e con la bizzarra cliente di lei: un'artista che è sotto processo per un omicidio che non ha commesso.
- Premi
- 1 vittoria e 1 candidatura in totale
Jennifer Dundas
- Jennifer Logan
- (as Jennie Dundas)
Gary Howard Klar
- Hit Man
- (as Gary Klar)
Trama
Lo sapevi?
- QuizIn the end credits, one can see that one of the works of art used in the film is from the collection of Cary Grant. As Grant would pass away the same year of the film's release, 1986, this would be one of his last screen credits.
- BlooperThe bomb left by Taft in the warehouse has a digital countdown clock, yet it ticks as if it is a mechanical clock.
- Citazioni
Chelsea Deardon: Do you always cross-examine people?
Tom Logan: Only when they lie to me.
- Versioni alternativeSPOILER: The syndicated broadcast version offers a considerably changed ending, in which the Daryl Hannah character goes from being innocent of murder to being guilty of one of the murders. (There are also differently edited versions of the Chelsea-is-guilty ending.)
- ConnessioniFeatured in Rod Stewart: Love Touch (1986)
- Colonne sonoreLove Touch
Performed by Rod Stewart
Written by Mike Chapman, Holly Knight and Gene Black
Available exclusively on Warner Bros. Records
Recensione in evidenza
Ivan Reitman, fresh off the special effects high of "Ghostbusters" takes on romantic comedy that works in fits and starts in "LEGAL EAGLES".
Robert Redford, with breezy style, is a NYC D.A. who prosecutes at whim. Enter Debra Winger, a scrappy lawyer so desperate, she once chose to put a dog on the stand to make her case. The two fall in love (or about as 80's as it gets - they become partners) in representing an airy client (Daryl Hannah) who may (or may not) have committed a major art fraud/crime.
This is a time-capsule of a film... written by the guys who wrote "Top Gun" and "Dick Tracy", it's a big, over-packaged film that's both romantic comedy, star-vehicle, and glossy, synthetic who-done-it. All the Reitman glitz-and-polish is there (with big setpieces scattered throughout), and the movie is easy on the eyes, especially with Redford's easy, casual performance pulling the viewer along and Reitman's deft comedic touch.
It was also a troubled production to be sure: Bill Murray was once considered for the Winger role, creating a love triangle that would have found Hannah torn between the Sundance Kid and Nick The Lounge Singer - but alas, Murray opted out. In interviews long since the film's release, Winger claims no desire ever to work with Reitman again.
1986's "LEGAL EAGLES" is probably the textbook case of the all-powerful talent agency known as Creative Artists Agency packaging a Real Motion Picture - what industry wags call a "filmed-deal". But is Legal Eagles any good? Sure, I guess. It's competently directed, it makes great use of it's New York City art-world locales, it has a wonderful Elmer Bernstein score, great cinematography by the legendary Laszlo Kovacs and both Winger and Hannah make for delicious eye-candy when pared with Redford. Ultimately, it becomes systematic of what was askew in these "packages": the movie relies solely on the audience goodwill, fine craftsmanship and former successes of its primary players to carry the load. "LEGAL EAGLES" is by no means a failure, but wrapped in such a glossy serving, it's hard to really enjoy anymore than for its quick, empty calories.
I have a soft spot for this film - it's great to see Redford on screen seeming to have such a spirited good time after an absence from movie comedy for a number of years - but after all is said and done, "LEGAL EAGLES" is as enjoyable as a Big Mac, albeit one served on a fine china dinner plate.
PS - the TV version of this film has a curious, bizarre alternate ending which negates the whole court case!
Robert Redford, with breezy style, is a NYC D.A. who prosecutes at whim. Enter Debra Winger, a scrappy lawyer so desperate, she once chose to put a dog on the stand to make her case. The two fall in love (or about as 80's as it gets - they become partners) in representing an airy client (Daryl Hannah) who may (or may not) have committed a major art fraud/crime.
This is a time-capsule of a film... written by the guys who wrote "Top Gun" and "Dick Tracy", it's a big, over-packaged film that's both romantic comedy, star-vehicle, and glossy, synthetic who-done-it. All the Reitman glitz-and-polish is there (with big setpieces scattered throughout), and the movie is easy on the eyes, especially with Redford's easy, casual performance pulling the viewer along and Reitman's deft comedic touch.
It was also a troubled production to be sure: Bill Murray was once considered for the Winger role, creating a love triangle that would have found Hannah torn between the Sundance Kid and Nick The Lounge Singer - but alas, Murray opted out. In interviews long since the film's release, Winger claims no desire ever to work with Reitman again.
1986's "LEGAL EAGLES" is probably the textbook case of the all-powerful talent agency known as Creative Artists Agency packaging a Real Motion Picture - what industry wags call a "filmed-deal". But is Legal Eagles any good? Sure, I guess. It's competently directed, it makes great use of it's New York City art-world locales, it has a wonderful Elmer Bernstein score, great cinematography by the legendary Laszlo Kovacs and both Winger and Hannah make for delicious eye-candy when pared with Redford. Ultimately, it becomes systematic of what was askew in these "packages": the movie relies solely on the audience goodwill, fine craftsmanship and former successes of its primary players to carry the load. "LEGAL EAGLES" is by no means a failure, but wrapped in such a glossy serving, it's hard to really enjoy anymore than for its quick, empty calories.
I have a soft spot for this film - it's great to see Redford on screen seeming to have such a spirited good time after an absence from movie comedy for a number of years - but after all is said and done, "LEGAL EAGLES" is as enjoyable as a Big Mac, albeit one served on a fine china dinner plate.
PS - the TV version of this film has a curious, bizarre alternate ending which negates the whole court case!
- britishdominion
- 23 ago 2003
- Permalink
I più visti
Accedi per valutare e creare un elenco di titoli salvati per ottenere consigli personalizzati
- How long is Legal Eagles?Powered by Alexa
Dettagli
Botteghino
- Budget
- 40.000.000 USD (previsto)
- Lordo Stati Uniti e Canada
- 49.851.591 USD
- Fine settimana di apertura Stati Uniti e Canada
- 8.043.360 USD
- 22 giu 1986
- Lordo in tutto il mondo
- 93.151.591 USD
- Tempo di esecuzione1 ora 56 minuti
- Colore
- Mix di suoni
- Proporzioni
- 2.35 : 1
Contribuisci a questa pagina
Suggerisci una modifica o aggiungi i contenuti mancanti
Divario superiore
By what name was Pericolosamente insieme (1986) officially released in India in English?
Rispondi