UnowPriceless hyped garbage

Numerootno A story that's too fascinating to pass by...

Robert Joyner The plot isn't so bad, but the pace of storytelling is too slow which makes people bored. Certain moments are so obvious and unnecessary for the main plot. I would've fast-forwarded those moments if it was an online streaming. The ending looks like implying a sequel, not sure if this movie will get one

Kirandeep Yoder The joyful confection is coated in a sparkly gloss, bright enough to gleam from the darkest, most cynical corners.

Elewis1195 This is one of my favorite David vs Goliath stories of all time. It's the (to my mind) perfect fable. A small law firm, 3 lawyers and an accountant makes a good living selecting cases they can win, until the lead lawyer, played by John Travolta, gets hooked and wants to help.The film kind of works as a courtroom drama. It makes several points, rather obviously that the trial process is rather long and not always successful, which in the case of finding a suspect innocent or guilty, can be riveting, but over money, tends to lose some of it's edge. There's a particularly painful and almost pointless scene in a rented hotel boardroom where Travolta asks for a preposterous sum of money that he feels is justified, but he didn't even tell his partners about before hand (really? They put everything they had in this case and they didn't even know what he was going to ask for???) - and of-course the Goliath law firms say no. There's another equally painful scene where the judge (John Lithgow) knows and is friendly with the defendant lawyers and kind of belittles Travolta a little bit. The legal aspect was a bit heavy handed and the loss in trial, disappointing but not surprising. This film lacks the legal edginess and surprises of a few good men - as one example.But what it lacks in legal drama, it makes up for in human interaction. A half dozen scenes in this film are precious to me. John Travolta telling (I forget which one) "this isn't our kind of case" and the other lawyer, I think Tony Shaloub says "if you don't want to take it you tell her" - in effect, you tell the woman who's son died that this isn't our kind of case.His drive up and him stopping at the river - he only stops cause he got a ticket, but you can tell he's thinking. considering his options. He sees dollar signs when he sees the big companies that ultimately own the small company that did the polluting, but he also seems to care. He doesn't just take the case for money - at least, that's what I read into the river scene.Travolta talking to the witnesses is also very real and well done, as they don't trust the big city lawyer and they don't want to betray their company, but beneath it all, they are honest and want to do the right thing - one witness played effectively by James Gandolfini, who I can't help thinking "there's Tony Soprano" whenever I see him on screen.Then there's the frustration with the environmental research team that wants millions of dollars to run tests and properly survey the flow rate of any pollutants released), played brilliantly if briefly by Stephen Fry.And the tension between Travolta and his fellow lawyers as he's pushing the firm towards bankruptcy, some brilliant interactions with William H. Macy and Tony Shaloub. While much of the movie was dramatized the the legal points, more blunt than sharp, it's the interactions and the overall story. Even Travolta's bankruptcy hearing with Cathy Bates was very human. It's the interactions that make this movie and that draw me back to re-watch it when I see it on cable. The parts are bigger than the whole.The whole story has a good guys win in the end, ending too, which almost feels anti-climactic the way it's played out, and that doesn't do justice to the real story - Anne Anderson's 20 year battle, not the 3 years the law firm put into it. Still, blunt story telling and some Hollywood re-writing, warts and all, this still holds together as one of my favorites with some scenes that I can watch again and again. It's a flawed movie, but it's a flawed movie with heart and some brilliant interactions. Unlike many films that are great fun to watch but not ultimately memorable, this one moved me and inspired me to learn more about the full story. 10 out of 10.

mentalgirl12 First of all, if you want a rehash of the plot, go read another review. This is a great movie. It's not your typical courtroom drama, but more of a legal drama. And it's a bit more realistic than what we're used to on the screen (but only a little), and some don't feel comfortable with stories told like it was. (The reason I say 'a little' is because I used to work for lawyers and I can't see any of those guys going that far out on a limb for a case.) But this was a true story and the filmmakers really stuck to the truth. It doesn't have the usual courtroom scenes, yet it still depicts what a hellish, slippery slope (and costly one) it is to win justice for your client in the only venue permitted: a court of law. I don't believe there's ever been a film that's told this story quite this way before.I always wondered why our protagonist in the film (that's Jan) took the case in the first place. I always assumed it was forced on him, but don't know where that came from. (I'll probably have to look it up in the book since I don't own the movie.) If it was voluntary, he had to have seen dollar signs in it somewhere. But I don't know because Jan doesn't know. He doesn't even remember the case, let alone why he took it. He sure doesn't remember Anne Anderson when she calls him on the air of a radio show, and asks him why he doesn't return his client's phone calls, which makes him look, sound, and feel like a real jerk.And exactly when he realized Beatrice Foods was Granddaddy to a plethora of stuff that America consumes daily, that's fuzzy too. It's after he's been humiliated on the radio that we see he's got the file and talking to one of his partners about Beatrice Foods' deep pockets. And his partner (I think it was Macy) tells him that kind of case is just a "black hole" and he should get rid of it. So he goes out to Woburn to meet with the families for the first time (he's had the case 2 years!) supposedly to get rid of them. But after hearing their stories, he can't do it. He's too much of a coward. I also think he's embarrassed by their unbelievable loss and suffering; maybe he feels somewhat sorry for them. But I really believe that the increasing obsession he soon develops over securing the highest number he can for his clients isn't due to a sudden awakening of conscience, or a heart burgeoning with pity, which is what it looks like on the outside. But there's been no character change yet. His anger grows, but it has little to do with the crimes committed by the big corporations against his clients. What really jerks his chain more than anything at this point are those pompous defense attorneys; how they act and how they treat him makes him furious. He's consumed with beating them down and knocking them out of the game for good really because of hurt pride. Jan Schlictman is no hero. One reviewer aptly wrote that he had "feet of clay." He's a hot-shot. I wouldn't say he "loves the law;" I would say he loves having knowledge of the law which allows him to manipulate it, and that gives him power. He doesn't appear to respect the law. We see him getting a speeding ticket on the way to Woburn, and again — from the same cop — on the way back. As he takes the ticket and insolently slams it into his glove compartment that's just teeming with others, he resembles a rebellious teenager. And the filmmakers made sure to show us that early in the film.In my opinion, his character starts to change ― and here comes a spoiler ― the moment near the end when he picks up Grace's number off the floor. (That part always kills me!) His partners have read him the riot act and walked out on him. He's sitting on the floor, his body slumped over the phone as he picks it up and dials. His body language reflects utter despair. Note: To those who get bored when there's not enough action, and/or can't tell what's happening with a character because there's no dialog to explain, learn to read the actor's body language. If he or she is an above-average actor, (and you are somewhat intelligent), you should be able to get it.As for Oscar nominations, for once I can see why the Academy didn't nominate Travolta for his acting here. I compared this performance with Travolta's take on Tony Manero in "Saturday Night Fever," and again with Vincent Vega in "Pulp Fiction." For me, it just doesn't compare. He's not that skillful at the underplaying thing. Robert Duvall's nomination didn't surprise me.Having read the book, I thought the writers accomplished the ending fairly well, even if they omitted a heck of a lot from the book's ending. (It seems to me the families actually did get to testify, but I could be wrong.) There are too many movies that are dumb, pointless, predictable, and a waste of two hours, with too few being clever, absorbing, stimulating, and different. I can never pass this up whenever it's on. But it bores most of my friends, too— probably for the same reasons others have stated — no action, no high drama. Also, Travolta underplays his performance for the most part, (which allows Duvall all that scene-stealing) and I think that was an excellent decision for that role, whose ever it was. And whenever an actor does that, sometimes people don't get it; they think nothing's going on, that the star is holding back. Trust me, they did this one right.

mattkratz Any movie with John Travolta, James Gandolfini, Robert Duvall, and John Lithgow in it has to be good. This was a top-notch legal drama based on a true story with Travolta (in a standout performance) as a lawyer whose firm has to do representation in an environmental case. They handle it brilliantly. It starts off with a monologue presented by Travolta's character about the "worthiness" of clients, shows a case, and proceeds from there. I liked Travolta's role and Lithgow's performance as a judge, as well as everyone else in it and the entire movie in general. This was one of those must-see, feel-good movies that everyone is guaranteed to love.*** out of ****

jDriftyx82 The case in Woburn, Massachusetts began with one woman's suspicions. Anne Anderson discovered her son, Jimmy, had leukemia in the summer of 1966. During the time Jimmy was being treated for leukemia, Anne began to talk to people in her neighborhood. She soon heard of two other cases of childhood leukemia only a street away from her. Anne began talking with one of the mothers, Joan Zona, because her son had leukemia as well and the two women became friends. They discussed the incidences of leukemia in their neighborhood and both agreed that it was a strange coincidence, but Anne became obsessed with the idea. She discovered several other cases of leukemia and began to analyze why this was happening. Anne started worrying about the water in Woburn, which had not tasted good since two wells, called G and H, were drilled and began pumping water into eastern Woburn in 1965. Complaints began pouring in to the city of Woburn regarding the quality of the water and the rusting of pipes, thus causing wells G and H to be shut down several times. However, the wells were not shut down for good until much later. Anne expressed her worries to her family doctor, her church minister, and her husband. Anne's husband and doctor listened to her suspicions, but did not believe they had any validity.Now, after reading the book, it became apparent to me that, the book was much more interesting and intriguing.