User Reviews

WARNING: There are SPOILERS in this review. Do not read it if you plan on seeing it.

I had heard about this movie for years. I heard the plot and was immediately curious. I went to all my local video rental places (and some non-local ones) and searched for it, but no one carried it. It never showed up on television of cable, either. I thought I would never see it until I spotted it in a discount bin at a supermarket. So I bought it for $4.75 and took it home to see. When I saw it, I was pleased and disappointed at the same time.

The plot is really interesting. Beau Bridges is a criminal judge that gets a case where a woman was allegedly shoved off a platform and into the path of a subway by three hoodlums. Before the case begins in court, the victim's husband, Ron Leibman, meets with Bridges and asks him to delay the case. Leibman says that he got a call from a man who claims he has proof that the hoodlums committed the crime, and he will give the evidence to Leibman that night. Bridges refuses to hear Leibman's claims on ethical grounds, and goes ahead with the case. He is forced to let the three hoodlums go on a technicality, even though he knows they are guilty. Leibman's wife dies in the hospital, which makes him snap. He kidnaps Bridges's own wife, Julianne Phillips, with the help of a slow giant that works for him at his electronics store. He then kidnaps Bridges and tells him that Bridges must collect the evidence from the source within seven hours or else his wife dies. The big catch is that Bridges has been stripped of his rich luxuries. He must run through the streets that Leibman claims he `helped create' with nothing more than a subway token.

I loved what this movie had to say on the criminal justice system. While it is true the rights of the accused must be protected, the courts of the 1980's took things too far and made it difficult to prosecute many criminals that were most certainly guilty. Then there is the awesome performance by Leibman. It is interesting in that he scares you because his madness is all too real, but you feel sorry for him because of what happened to his wife and Bridges's cold denial of his request. And there is also the interesting character of the giant, played by `Tiny' Ron Taylor. The problem is that they are all subdued by the poor direction. And the director is none other than Beau Bridges. The climax, where Bridges arrives at his final destination and must get past the electronic traps that Leibman has set up, is great, but the final few scenes, when one side defeats the other, is really poor. I kept thinking the final fight was going to continue on. The worst moment in the movie is inexcusable. After Bridges collects the evidence, he leaves the source's building and, right next door, is Leibman's electronics shop. It is impossible to believe that the source lived right next door to Leibman's shop, because Leibman would not have needed to wait to get the evidence originally. But if you can get past this poor direction, you might enjoy what lies under the surface. I may not watch my copy of this movie again, but at least I got my money's worth, which is more than I can say for most of the films I watch.Zantara's score: 6 out of 10.

This is another well meaning but angry spirited and eventually cartoonish courtroom/revenge drama in the realm of classics like "Twelve Angry Men" and "Anatomy of a Murder" and more modern films like "And Justice For All", "The Verdict" and "Jagged Edge" that does nothing to show us how messed up the law is. For anybody who has ever been on a jury and noticed the animosity between defense and prosecution, as well as the fact that defense isn't often on the side of the defendant oh, this is another frustrating example of why many people do not want to be on jury, and when they are, end up in conflict with fellow jurors. But this isn't about the jury. It is about the angry survivor of a victim (Ron Liebman as the widower of an intended robbery victim pushed onto a Seattle subway station track) and the judge (Beau Bridges), and for the viewer, it's a lost cause because justice becomes about an eye for an eye and a wife for a wife.

I'll never forget the shot of the defense attorney (obviously court appointed) arguing on behalf of her client, then basically snubbing one of them after they try to shake her hand. Her disgust reveals how much she hated being a part of that case, and how much she wishes that she had the power to prosecute and put them away. Liebman goes ballistic, kidnaps Bridges' wife then Bridges, and demands that Bridges finds the evidence to convict, otherwise threatening to kill the wife (Julianne Phillips). Not exactly what you want to see to explain to younger people what justice is, and certainly not a good look at the problems of an inner city where tensions of the family of the obviously guilty create a ton of public outcry on both sides. Views of the black and Hispanic communities may be disturbing with the way they are presented.

The TV footage of Liebman repeating "tick, tock" over and over looks like something out of a film noir, and along with Bridges' nightmare of what he presumes the original looked like from a train passenger's viewpoint, is very depressing. This is the type of intense psychological thriller that movie audiences were over bombarded with in the late 1980's and early 90's, and it was the sign of a very angry movie industry that gave up entertaining for a disturbing view of social justice. In other words, it was the agenda driven viewpoint of a different world of movie makers, and it became exhausting and often tough to take. The acting is phenomenal (although Liebman's Porky Pig impression at the end is laughable) and the situation instantly nail biting, but something about the situation isn't appealing when you have to pick out a film to watch. Working at a video store when it was first released, I noticed that films like this were rented by those who pretty much saw everything but then ended up as dust collectors once moved off of the new release shelf. The somewhat credible first hour leads to a hideousness of the last hour that you must see to believe, although I did applaud how the thugs got their just reward. Liebman's hulking man servant is quite unforgettable, but Liebman wins the award for shear audacity.

***SPOILERS*** Off the wall movie about how the justice system fails those that its supposed to protect that has the victim, or her husband, look far worse then his victimizers.

With his wife Ellen, Sandra Lee Gimple, after being pushed off a subway platform on life support TV electronic pitchman David, known professionally as "Crazy Davy", Reardon, Ron Leibman, tries to get the judge handling his wife's attackers case John Eden, Beau Bridges, evidence that would have them indited. Judge Eden telling the distraught husband to take the evidence to the D.A's office has Reardon loses it and then ends up not only kidnapping Eden's wife Lisa, Julianne Phillips, but the judge himself.

Reardon coming up with this insane plan for Eden to get the evidence within seven hours or else he'll murder his wife ends up letting those who attacked his wife, who had since died of her wounds, get away with even more crimes. That's by Reardon knowingly allying himself, in his attempt to kill Eden, with them!

Besides himself Reardon has this seven foot tall hulking assistant Ira, Tiny Ron, in on the plan to do in both Eden and his wife without him, by being a bit retarded, not really realizing it. Treating Ira like a full-grown baby Reardon gives him all the kindness and understanding that he so desperately needed after someone very very close to him departed the scene. You see Ira has never been the same since his beloved pet parakeet passed away. In having the sweet fatherly and understanding Reardon, who gives Ira all kinds of toys and games to play with, as his boss in a way helps Ira forget all that.

***SPOILERS*** We have Eden running an inner city obstacle course in him getting the evidence to indict and convict Reardon's wife's killer gang leader Chino played by the handsome charismatic and and very talented, and who's never been seen or heard from since, Reggie Johnson. This crazy scheme thought out by the now obvious insane Reardon comes crashing down on his head with him, not Mr & Mrs Eden, becoming history by the time the movie ends.

I am surprised that none of the viewers of this 1988 movie have seemingly thought of 2009 LAW ABIDING CITIZEN, starring Gerald Butler and Jamie Fox, and telling nearly the very same story. I say nearly, not exactly. The cruel vengeance of an ordinary man who desperately seeks revenge of the men who killed his wife, and who becomes worse than them. And the judge, in both stories - Jamie Fox in 2009 feature, and Beau Bridges in this one - are shown as the good guys vs the villain one - the victim seeking vengeance !!! A very interesting scheme, isn'it? !!

I suppose there are some other films with such topics, telling the same stories, films made for TV or video releasing, bad directed and acted. B movies, for most of them. The only positive thing in this is that those features give us sometimes interesting schemes, that we don't find in big budget movies, which don't dare to take risks, and use always the same tales, for the most popular audiences. Such a shame.