this movie was horrible, if u liked it u're nuts, who agrees?

[deleted]

You don't have to agree with the subject matter to like a film. Sidney Lumet is a respectable director and, as a writer, I was impressed with the screenplay. Granted, most of the courtroom dialogue was taken from actual transcripts from the trial.

I'd hardly call this a comedy, either. Certainly, it has some funny moments, but that's because of the sort of man DiNorscio was. He was also naive and taken advantage of by the people he considered family. The movie isn't about getting a bunch of "goons" off. It's a true story about a man's loyalty to his friends. He may not have been an upstanding citizen, but there is great honor in staying true to the people you love.

Vin Diesel is terribly underrated as an actor. People see him as just an action star and don't realize that the guy actually has talent. His performance in Saving Private Ryan is heartbreaking and Pitch Black is nothing short of genius. Diesel and writer/director David Twohy put out a top notch drama that is often ignored as "just action/sci-fi". The writing is brilliant -- how often do you see a triple character arc? The character of Riddick himself is so multi-dimentional that they knew from the start that it would take more than one movie to scratch the surface. Sadly, the second film fell flat and I pray that the third can redeem the trilogy. But I digress.

The point is that a movie doesn't have to be about noble superheroes or brain surgeons to be good. Monster was about a serial killer prostitute and no one said "Boy, you people that liked it must be very proud." Likewise, Pirates of the Caribbean. Pirates are murdering, rapist thieves, yet no one is ashamed to be a fan of those movies. Casablanca, Butch Cassidy & the Sundance Kid, The Godfather, Dog Day Afternoon, West Side Story, Pulp Fiction, A Clockwork Orange, Fatal Attraction, GoodFellas, Silence of the Lambs, The Green Mile...all movies that could be dismissed as "glorifiying" criminals. They're also all Best Picture nominees or winners.

Don't judge the merit of a film based on the occupation of its central characters.

You assume the movie has a moral message to be taken at its plot. The plot of the movie is a mobster who "gags" a jury into a favorable outcome. The movie does NOT celebrate this. In fact, the guy looks pretty F$&*#$&' stupid throughout. But he is likeable, no doubt about that. It's a commentary on a REAL situation. Does the history channel support hitler? C'mon man.

Agree that the movie isn't the best made movie out there, but it is till better than 60% of the years released movies. Regarding the comment"Despite overwhelming evidence", the evidence was week founded and the Fed's put together a week case with no hard hitting evidence/witneses..."Rapists?"...a very empty assumption....you have obviously seen to many movies...lol....the reality is that the crime and corruption is two-way its just that the government is better at covering it up

That doesn't relate to the quality of the film, it was a genuinely good movie.
Sure, from a moral perspective this is a bad movie, but it's certainly not the first one to glorify mobsters, and I dare you to write something like this about The Godfather.

I think the directing, script and acting was brilliant, it must've been seeing as how it can make you genuinely wish for these "murders, rapists and drug dealers" to walk free at the end.

As an outside observer of the American court system, with juries consisting of regular people with no legal education, I can agree that it is disturbing.
Guilty or not guilty should not be decided by democratic vote, it should be decided by fact.

However, the makers of this movie and the movie itself is not responsible for this and certainly nor is it's viewers. I personally enjoyed the movie because it was entertaining, it got me hooked and reeled me in, and that's what a good movie should do.

If you think this movie glorifies criminals, then it'd be safe to say your post glorifies idiots everywhere

check out the movie "Idiocracy", it glorifies you.

No. . .

It's not about the stupidity of American juries.

It's about the horrible structure of the judicial system.

But the movie was still fantastic.

At least my grandfather's free.

So keep talking.

05.18.07:

"May" (7.5/10)
"Devour" (6/10)
"Malevolence" (8/10)

"Actually, he's not even remotely alone. It's just that most people that hated it don't bother coming to this site to read about it. "

yeeeah, because the imdb board usually are not filled to the brim with people voicing their hatred for specific movies, right? xD

Who knew Vin Diesal could act? I love Riddick, one of the coolest characters in movies, but Riddick is a man of few words, mostly one liners and kickin ass. I thought Vin Diesal was great in this and it came as a total shock. Some parts seemed slow or that the movie dragged on abit, but overall I enjoyed it. I always enjoy movies based off true events, but nowadays it seems the only thing thats true are the peoples names. Most of the courtroom scenes were taken from actual testimony, pretty cool. I don't think it glorified the mob either, Vin Diesal's character returned to jail after the case for another 10 years or so. He lost his wife, did'nt see his kids much, that does'nt sound to appealing. Now hopefully we get a Riddick 3!!!