This movie bugged me. What was that anyway? And what were its problems? Sure it got many!
The movie looked provocative in dealing with the monsters it had. True, it demands to look into its characters like usual human beings inside their own world. But the main problem is that it happens at the moment of taking revenge on them by us, the moment where they go to their righteous end, as the natural fairness from our very point of view. You sense anger and fear when those mean old criminals go free at the end that easily! So it's hard to see any human type that Mr. Lumet wants us to see in (Jackie DiNorscio / Vin Diesel) and learn about. And it's harder to feel sympathy out of this courtroom movie.
Moreover, how the logicality of the whole trial / movie has gone with the wind? It's impossible for us as viewers to BELIEVE for a second how the jury decided that the accused killers and dealers are all NOT GUILTY! Even if it's a very known case from the 1980s, the movie, dramatically, pushed me to not buy that, and to assume that those mafia bosses bribed all the jury?, or maybe, it's Sidney Lumet's special satire...
When we see all the mobsters walk joyfully in one street with the members of the jury to mingle with each other you'll conclude what vision is shown for the American society, or its big family - echoes from Lumet's (Family Business - 1989) - like it's that nation's naked truth. Which even breaking it, is a breakage for a LIFE STYLE, like their lawyer's first pleading. So, similar to Lumet's (Q & A - 1990) also, it's the case of perversely established ground. It's like Roman Polanski's films where evil is finally dominating. Or the world of Coppola's The Godfather however the mafia is axiomatic fact and ordinary part, yet with no purgation.
Therefore the federal prosecutor's shouting "They're Criminals" wasn't to assure sense of morality at it only. But to manifest how hopeless his character is in a world like this. Though the movie doesn't try to give us the reason how he has been beaten at the end, since the answer of why is: naturally!
It could be another violent commentary on the American, explicitly incomplete, justice. So the prosecutor looked nasty while his efforts to achieve the lost justice, as the evil man of "this" world who had to lose to "our" world's real evil men! I told you earlier, this movie can bug cleverly. It makes you think: Maybe the mob produced it?!
In fact, the moral dilemma was for the viewer to decide is (Jackie DiNorscio) a hero of his world or not? The finale just answered a big yes for that, and exaggerated it passionately, after living his redemption till his noble statement of willingly self-sacrifice at the end. However, you have to ask: How he sacrifices for people who will kill you and your kids by bullets or drugs?!, How even his attempt to sacrifice was fake, since he's going to jail anyhow?!, and How he didn't learn about himself as long as he says: "Send me to jail. I'm not guilty, but I'm used to it"?!!, Baby, you're so guilty to the backbone. And I think I must say the same about (Sidney Lumet) here too.
It was difficult to catch on the movie's message, or its type of a hero. Simply, (Jackie) is the only one who discovered through the whole trail that he lost everything and everyone by himself, the only one who owns love, and asks for non-conditional love. But the treatment didn't pinpoint that seriously. I sunk under so many defects. One of them is making it as a courtroom movie, which tried to be so loyally realistic also, since the normal viewer would live continual heavy defense for the mafia's sake, with a happy end for them too! This distracted the attention to heed anything but the appearance of a heart of gold inside the personality of (DiNorscio). Not to mention the ethical complication of understanding his redemption with another possible satire about the ones who he sacrifices for. You can't ignore that precise look into the world of Italians, who are not the progeny of Italian artists but Italian bottom, to ask what's the original basis of America exactly?, and how its crime is a victor force, and organic limb.
Ok, the try of 2 movies in one is the same problem of (Lumet)'s (The Anderson Tapes - 1971), refer to my comment about it on the IMDb: (A Political Crime Movie? NAAAY!!). However, like that last one, (Lumet) uses criminals to expose something wrong in the American system, but this round it seemed disharmonious and annoying. It's not the movie where the evil guy goes to jail at last, it's the movie where the evil guys go to society free while the good guy is beaten, and the less evil imprisoned, but none of these stories was done fairly.
This is one of (Lumet)'s less powerful movies. Marketing it as a "Comedy" tells you how they were desperate to market it anyway. They did it before with his better one (Family Business). Maybe he's making movies about subjects that are too hard to face or stand. Here as a director / co-writer, he went to the sink to seek heroes, read: less impure, yet he did it in a movie that needed to be more emotional, concentrated, and effective.
PS: Despite Diesel's good efforts, the make-up and the gray wig were heavy mask that made him a freak, and devitalized his acting.
The movie looked provocative in dealing with the monsters it had. True, it demands to look into its characters like usual human beings inside their own world. But the main problem is that it happens at the moment of taking revenge on them by us, the moment where they go to their righteous end, as the natural fairness from our very point of view. You sense anger and fear when those mean old criminals go free at the end that easily! So it's hard to see any human type that Mr. Lumet wants us to see in (Jackie DiNorscio / Vin Diesel) and learn about. And it's harder to feel sympathy out of this courtroom movie.
Moreover, how the logicality of the whole trial / movie has gone with the wind? It's impossible for us as viewers to BELIEVE for a second how the jury decided that the accused killers and dealers are all NOT GUILTY! Even if it's a very known case from the 1980s, the movie, dramatically, pushed me to not buy that, and to assume that those mafia bosses bribed all the jury?, or maybe, it's Sidney Lumet's special satire...
When we see all the mobsters walk joyfully in one street with the members of the jury to mingle with each other you'll conclude what vision is shown for the American society, or its big family - echoes from Lumet's (Family Business - 1989) - like it's that nation's naked truth. Which even breaking it, is a breakage for a LIFE STYLE, like their lawyer's first pleading. So, similar to Lumet's (Q & A - 1990) also, it's the case of perversely established ground. It's like Roman Polanski's films where evil is finally dominating. Or the world of Coppola's The Godfather however the mafia is axiomatic fact and ordinary part, yet with no purgation.
Therefore the federal prosecutor's shouting "They're Criminals" wasn't to assure sense of morality at it only. But to manifest how hopeless his character is in a world like this. Though the movie doesn't try to give us the reason how he has been beaten at the end, since the answer of why is: naturally!
It could be another violent commentary on the American, explicitly incomplete, justice. So the prosecutor looked nasty while his efforts to achieve the lost justice, as the evil man of "this" world who had to lose to "our" world's real evil men! I told you earlier, this movie can bug cleverly. It makes you think: Maybe the mob produced it?!
In fact, the moral dilemma was for the viewer to decide is (Jackie DiNorscio) a hero of his world or not? The finale just answered a big yes for that, and exaggerated it passionately, after living his redemption till his noble statement of willingly self-sacrifice at the end. However, you have to ask: How he sacrifices for people who will kill you and your kids by bullets or drugs?!, How even his attempt to sacrifice was fake, since he's going to jail anyhow?!, and How he didn't learn about himself as long as he says: "Send me to jail. I'm not guilty, but I'm used to it"?!!, Baby, you're so guilty to the backbone. And I think I must say the same about (Sidney Lumet) here too.
It was difficult to catch on the movie's message, or its type of a hero. Simply, (Jackie) is the only one who discovered through the whole trail that he lost everything and everyone by himself, the only one who owns love, and asks for non-conditional love. But the treatment didn't pinpoint that seriously. I sunk under so many defects. One of them is making it as a courtroom movie, which tried to be so loyally realistic also, since the normal viewer would live continual heavy defense for the mafia's sake, with a happy end for them too! This distracted the attention to heed anything but the appearance of a heart of gold inside the personality of (DiNorscio). Not to mention the ethical complication of understanding his redemption with another possible satire about the ones who he sacrifices for. You can't ignore that precise look into the world of Italians, who are not the progeny of Italian artists but Italian bottom, to ask what's the original basis of America exactly?, and how its crime is a victor force, and organic limb.
Ok, the try of 2 movies in one is the same problem of (Lumet)'s (The Anderson Tapes - 1971), refer to my comment about it on the IMDb: (A Political Crime Movie? NAAAY!!). However, like that last one, (Lumet) uses criminals to expose something wrong in the American system, but this round it seemed disharmonious and annoying. It's not the movie where the evil guy goes to jail at last, it's the movie where the evil guys go to society free while the good guy is beaten, and the less evil imprisoned, but none of these stories was done fairly.
This is one of (Lumet)'s less powerful movies. Marketing it as a "Comedy" tells you how they were desperate to market it anyway. They did it before with his better one (Family Business). Maybe he's making movies about subjects that are too hard to face or stand. Here as a director / co-writer, he went to the sink to seek heroes, read: less impure, yet he did it in a movie that needed to be more emotional, concentrated, and effective.
PS: Despite Diesel's good efforts, the make-up and the gray wig were heavy mask that made him a freak, and devitalized his acting.