Flick of the Day: Witness for the Prosecution

Charles Laughton is one of the greatest actors ever to grace the silver screen and yet he is not anything like the kind of household name of a Brando or DeNiro or in receipt of the same plaudits as Olivier or Gielgud. A versatile talent he worked until his premature death in 1962 from liver cancer with starring roles in classics such as Mutiny on the Bounty and Hobson's Choice. A fine entry in his later career work is today's flick of the day, Witness for the Prosecution, an adaptation of an Agatha Christie play of the same name from writer and director Billy Wilder.

Laughton fills the role, in every sense of the word, the role of Sir Wilfrid Robarts, an eminent barrister and legal scholar who at the films open is recovering from a recent heart attack despite his own best efforts to the contrary. He is determined to return to his legal practice despite the opposition of his nurse Miss Plimsoll played by Laughton's own wife Elsa Lanchester. However a most interesting case soon falls into his lap, that of a down at heel inventor named Leonard Vole, played by Tyrone Power as an Englishman with an inexplicable American accent, who has been accused of the murder of a wealthy widow. His only defence is the alibi of his wife, an immigrant whom he rescued from the ravages of post war Germany played by the excellent Marlene Dietrich. Sir Wilfrid is immediately suspicious of Vole's wife and of her willingness to appear in his defence though there is no doubt in his mind that Vole is an innocent man. He launches himself into a new trial putting his health in danger to defend an innocent man whilst investigating the machinations of Vole's supposedly loving wife.

Billy Wilder could easily lay claim to being one of the great director's of Hollywood's golden age with a filmography to rival anyone including highlights such as Double Indemnity, The Lost Weekend, Sabrina, Sunset Boulevard, Some Like it Hot and The Apartment. He is on top form here, carefully weaving the various strands of the tale into a suspenseful legal thriller. Of course it helps when the cast is as strong as that on offer here. Laughton dominates the screen both with his immense bulk and his deep booming diction, a performance perfectly suited to that of a barrister. Dietrich and Power are equally strong with Power giving one of his final performances before his untimely death while filming Solomon and Sheba in Spain.

Wilder was always a director who could turn his hand to any kind of film and in this case, he manages to transcend the genre of courtroom thriller to make a film that is enjoyable and thrilling in equal measure. It doesn't really have any weak elements and would have surely swept the board at the 1958 Oscars were it for the stiff upper lip juggernaut that was The Bridge on the River Kwai. He deviates from Christie's play by inserting humour into the script where it can bare it such as the verbal back and forth between Laughton and his put upon nurse. 

While the ending might stretch the believability stakes in an attempt to keep the film from falling foul of the Production Code which stated that crime must not go unpunished, it is an entertaining drama all the same. If for no other reason then to admire Laughton at somewhere not even near his best, this is a film worth seeing.

Flick of the Day: Runaway Jury

Adaptations of John Grisham novels have become something of a cottage industry over the years producing a slew of films of varying quality ranging from the excellent (The Firm, A Time to Kill) to the dull (The Chamber) to the downright ill advised (Christmas with the Kranks). Today's flick of the day is somewhere in the middle, possessing a fine cast and an engaging tale without setting the world alight.

Runaway Jury

Opening in a New Orleans office, a recently let go employee returns to commit a mass killing spree with an automatic weapon during which he kills a young father. This motivates his widow to launch a lawsuit against the gun manufacturer for not taking more care of who purchased their product. We fast forward to the beginning of the trial. The gun manufacturers have hired the legendary bagman Rankin Fitch to deliver a favourable verdict. Fitch is played by a menacing Gene Hackman in a fine turn. Opposing Fitch's machinations is the idealistic attorney (a Grisham trope if ever there was one) Wendell Rohr played by Dustin Hoffman. Into this face-off steps juror number 9, Nick Easter, a game store clerk played by the always charming John Cusack. It soon becomes apparent that Nick and his other half played by Rachel Weisz have for reasons which become apparent in the final reel, their own agenda for the trial regardless of what the two legal teams want. Together they begin to communicate with both Hackman and Hoffman, promising to swing the jury for the right price.

As a screenwriter it is surely impossible to please fans of any source material be it a novel or a play without being too slavish to it. A film has to stand on its own. In this regard, the film makes a major departure from the source novel by amending the heartless corporation to a gun manufacturer from a big tobacco firm. I can't fathom the reason behind it but it adds an additional layer of unreality to an already overburdened tale. At numerous points in the film, one is forced to suspend the nagging question in the back of your mind that perhaps this wouldn't really go like that.

For all that, it is a compelling tale, director Gary Fleder manages to ratchet up the tension as the trial wares on and avoids spending too much time on court room drama. Focusing on the goings on in the jury room is a smart move and it relies on good character actors for the jury. Thankfully this is the case with most of them faces you have seen before like Cliff Curtis, Bill Nunn and Gerry Bamman.

Perhaps the best reason for seeing a film that is only so-so is the chance to see Hoffman and Hackman face off on screen. The old masters share only one major scene together but it is an entertaining turn all the same. Hackman's Fitch is the polar opposite of the crusading Rohr and is so often the case, the bad guy gets all the best lines. 

Rankin Fitch: You think your average juror is King Solomon? No, he's a roofer with a mortgage. He wants to go home and sit in his Barcalounger and let the cable TV wash over him. And this man doesn't give a single, solitary droplet of shit about truth, justice or your American way. 

Whereas Rohr would prefer to win the trial based on the veracity of his arguments, Fitch wants victory at all cost and is prepared to go to any lengths to get it including buying the jury or coercing them through nefarious means.

Cusack's Nick on the other hand is a cipher through which the plot flows though it is entertaining to watch the way in which he charms his way into the hearts of each of his fellow jurors.  Without giving too much away, the twist in tale is his motivation for playing with the trial and it should be obvious enough before it lopes into view.

All in all, this is an entertaining trifle and nothing more. Like so much of Grisham's work it goes best with the throwaway nature of books you read on an airplane.The cast are fine throughout with Hoffman and Hackman making the best of their roles. There is just enough tension to keep you interested until the end. 

Flick of The Day: And Justice For All...

Perhaps best remembered today for Al Pacino's ranting monologue which ends the film, or perhaps for the various pastiches and homages of it, today's flick of the day is Norman Jewison's And Justice For All... A big hit in its day garnering another Oscar nomination for Pacino, it is a film which is rarely given its due in comparison to other films of the era for two reasons. Firstly it is possessed of a truly dire late 70's Disco soundtrack that would not be out of place in an episode of Cagney & Lacey and which dates the film horribly getting in the way of what is a fine tale. The second reason is the inconsistent tone of the picture, veering from a courtroom drama to light comedy, leaving the viewer never quite sure whether it is fish or foul. This is unfortunate because at its heart is a decent story of good versus evil and one of Al Pacino's more varied performances of the decade that built his reputation as perhaps the best actor of his generation. 

And Justice For All...

Al Pacino is Arthur Kirkland, a rabble rousing but ultimately idealistic young lawyer working the courthouse in Baltimore. As the film opens we meet Arthur's varied cast of clients from wealthy philanderer's like Dominic Chianese's Carl to downtrodden folk seeking justice. It becomes apparent that Arthur is not your average lawyer, with an almost unrealistic zeal for the truth, exemplified by his willingness to attempt to knock out a Judge he felt was obstructing his case. Indeed at the beginning of film, Arthur is in present for contempt of court for this attempted assault on Judge Fleming, played with a dark sliminess by John Forsythe. It is this kind of farcical event that leaves you unsure of the true tone of the film. How often outside of Hollywood could a lawyer punch a Judge and still practice law? In any case, the thrust of the movie revolves around the arrest and trial of the aforementioned Judge for a brutal rape. You would imagine Arthur would be delighted to see his nemesis get his comeuppance and perhaps he is though no sooner has he digested the news of the arrest that he is approached by Judge Fleming  to act as his defence in the trial. Fleming proceeds to coerce Arthur into taking his case on, promising to see him disbarred otherwise. Arthur's attempts to exonerate this odious Judge are at the centre of the film though they are only one strand of the various problems and sub-plots that beset Arthur before his final showdown in court. Will he defend a man he hates?

Pacino excels in the role of Arthur, perhaps because it is so different to the usual performances we have becomes used to over the years. Much like his equally talented colleague Robert De Niro, over the past 15 years or so Pacino has retreated into playing a pastiche of himself. No matter the role, Pacino's characters are the always over the top and loud. There is nothing wrong with this per se, it just feels like he is operating within himself, not pushing for the performance. Perhaps this is natural in middle age but is a delight to seem him a young man again in the role of Arthur, giving the kind of wild eyed and varied performance he can deliver. 

"You're out of order! You're out of order! The whole trial is out of order! They're out of order! That man, that sick, crazy, depraved man, raped and beat that woman there, and he'd like to do it again! He *told* me so! It's just a show! It's a show! It's "Let's Make A Deal"! "Let's Make A Deal"! Hey Frank, you wanna "Make A Deal"? I got an insane judge who likes to beat the shit out of women! Whaddya wanna gimme Frank, 3 weeks probation?"

If one Judge is Arthur's nemesis then another is the closest thing he has to friend. A criminally underused Jack Warden is Judge Rayford, an interesting character who is semi-suicidal but has a fondness for Arthur yet this is never developed too deeply.

Great performances aside, it is difficult to get past the tonal shifts that cause the film to stutter. One moment, the film is almost biting in its social commentary on the dark corruption endemic at the lower levels of the American Justice system and the next is some grand farce with Arthur taking his fear of flying up in a helicopter ride above the city with Warden's Judge Rayford in a scene that wouldn't be out of place in an episode of M.A.S.H. It is unfortunate because if Barry Levinson and Valerie Curtin's script could have taken a tone and stuck to it, this could have been a classic rather then just a film that has more positives then negatives. The is essential cinema if only to see the development of cinema in the late '70s and for the work of Pacino, but it could have been more. C'est la vie.

Flick of The Day: 12 Angry Men

It is difficult sometimes to understand the popularity of some films. I'm sure you can think of at least one film that is near universally popular and adored but that you just can't bring yourself to enjoy. Then again, popularity has rarely been an indicator of greatness. If it were then Titanic would be the greatest film of all time, rather then an over-long teen romance punctuated by explosions. That said, to every rule there is an exception and if there is one film that is both well liked and acclaimed then it is today's flick of the day, 12 Angry Men, director Sidney Lumet's classic psychological drama of a deliberating jury.

12 Angry Men

On a sweltering Summer day in a Manhattan courthouse, 12 white males deliberate on a teenage Puerto Rican boy accused of murdering his father. A fantastic ensemble cast of some of the best character actors of the day each bringing their own views, backgrounds, suspicions and prejudices to the table. Martin Balsam, Lee J Cobb, Ed Begley and Jack Warden each give stunning performances as the various jurors. After the first ballot, the vote is 11 to 1 to convict with the sole dissenter being Henry Fonda, Juror Number 8 and the film's conscience. As Fonda persuades the others to re-examine the evidence piece by piece, cracks begin to appear in the case and we learn more about the backgrounds of each of the men. Cobb's Juror Number 3 is a bully with an estranged son, Warden's Juror Number 7 wants to get to a ball game and has a natural mistrust of foreigners. Others are loath to make a wave, some want to blend in but to a man they have not examined the case in their own minds. As Fonda chips away at the case, he brings more jurors to his side as the temperature rises throughout the day until each man draws his final conclusion and a decision is reached.

A landmark film on its release, it has withstood the test of time because it asks fundamental questions of the jury trial system and does so in an entertaining and persuasive manner. Fonda has never been better in his role as the doubting Samaritan but it is a real ensemble piece and some of the best performances come from the lesser known talents. The cross section of society in the characters is well balanced, though this being the 1950's all are white males. 

Juror #3: Everything... every single thing that took place in that courtroom, but I mean everything... says he's guilty. What d'ya think? I'm an idiot or somethin'? Why don't cha take that stuff about the old man; the old man who lived there and heard every thing? Or this business about the knife! What, 'cause we found one exactly like it? The old man SAW him. Right there on the stairs. What's the difference how many seconds it was? Every single thing. The knife falling through a hole in his pocket... you can't PROVE he didn't get to the door! Sure, you can take all the time hobblin' around the room, but you can't PROVE it! And what about this business with the El? And the movies! There's a phony deal if I ever heard one. I betcha five thousand dollars I'd remember the movies I saw! I'm tellin' ya: every thing that's gone on has been twisted... and turned. This business with the glasses. How do you know she didn't have 'em on? This woman testified in open court! And what about hearin' the kid yell... huh? I'm tellin' ya, I've got all the facts here... 

Juror #3: [He struggles with his notebook, throws it on the table. The photo of him with his son is on top] Here... Ah. Well, that's it - that's the whole case! 

[He turns towards the window as the other jurors stare at him] 

Juror #3: Well... say something! You lousy bunch of bleedin' hearts. You're not goin' to intimidate me - I'm entitled to my opinion! 

[He sees the picture of his son on the table] 

Juror #3: Rotten kids... you work your life out! 

[He grabs the picture and tears it to pieces. He suddenly realizes what he's doing] 

Juror #3: [Breaks down] No. Not guilty. Not guilty.

Lumet's real genius as a director here, is how the tension ratchets up as the day progresses. The film opens as a reserved almost up tight piece but as the claustrophobic jury room closes in on the men and the tension begins to mount it opens up into something very special. The camera seems to take a tighter view of the men's faces and oppressive heat takes it toll. Ultimately the tensions reach their natural conclusion and the jurors are forced to confront their own prejudices in the search for the truth. There are some fine set pieces along the way and each actor is given their chance to shine for really this is an actors piece.

Currently sitting at Number 6 on the IMDB Top 250, a position apparently owed to the fact that it is one of the few black and white films that American schoolchildren are exposed to though it is a fine film and worthy of its position. That said, it is a product of its time. As noted, the jury is all white and all male and the cigarette smoke hangs in the humid jury room. 

[last lines] 

Juror #9: Hey... what's your name? 

Juror #8: Davis. 

Juror #9: My name's McCardle. 

[pause] 

Juror #9: Well, so long. 

Juror #8: So long.

12 Angry Men is a interesting compelling film even today and well worth a look. Directed by the legendary Sidney Lumet who passed away earlier this year, it is a fine example of his work which includes such diverse work as The Pawnbroker, The Verdict and Dog Day Afternoon.

Flick of The Day: The Lincoln Lawyer

Once upon a time John Grisham was the king of the legal thriller, where every new book was snapped up by a studio as soon as it was released. The Firm, The Pelican Brief, The Client, The Rainmaker, the list goes on. However times change and Grisham has expanded his oeuvre away from pure legal drama. Step in Michael Connolly, the crime writer with a strong following for his Harry Bosch series with his first legal thriller, The Lincoln Lawyer, a twist filled tale and today's flick of the day.

The Lincoln Lawyer

Matthew McConaughey is Mickey Haller, the low rent lawyer of the title, so called because he conducts most of his business from the back of a Lincoln town car. He specialises in getting guilty men off for cash fees, in short he is as low rent as his clients. His newest client though is different. A wealthy spoiled brat played by Ryan Phillipe called Louis who has requested him by name. He is accused of brutally beating a young woman though protests his innocence. Mickey and his investigator begin to dig deeper into his story and the more they find out, the more they doubt his story. The case bares striking similarities to a murder which Mickey unsuccessfully defended a few years back and he now fears he helped send an innocent man to prison. Of course all is not as it seems and Mickey is forced to question whether his own client is trying to frame him.

McConaughey is pitch perfect as the charming lawyer with an air of sleaze. Haller is both a brilliantly tricky customer inside the courtroom and out of it. The scene where he completely outwits both the prosecutor and his own client is thoroughly entertaining.  There is a fine supporting cast to help carry the film along including the terminally underrated William H Macy as Mickey's investigator and Marisa Tomei in an underdeveloped role as Mickey's ex wife. There is also a blink and you'll miss it performance from Bryan Cranston.

Mick Haller: When do you retire, Lankford? 

Detective Lankford: When do I retire? 

Mick Haller: Yeah. 

Detective Lankford: Eighteen months. Why? 

Mick Haller: I wanna make sure I show up the next morning so I can kick your ass.

Ryan Phillipe makes the most of his role as the scheming Louis. He is a truly dislikeable character without any redeeming features.

 Films like this live or die by how clever the plot is. Thankfully, this is clever enough to keep you guessing till the end. Sure its nothing more then multiplex fluff but it is well crafted and entertaining fluff. Something so many modern films fail to achieve. Stylish and suspenseful it passes a few hours pleasantly.

Frank Levin: [looking out of top floor window] Your so vain. Nobody would care if you killed yourself. 

Mick Haller: It'd look cool. What do you think the last thing to go through your mind would be? 

Frank Levin: Your asshole. 

Mick Haller: Yeah.

All in all, a worthy addition to the genre and the kind of old school thriller based on a best seller that just doesn't get made too often these days. Why bother paying for the rights to a novel when you can just adapt a video game or television show from the 70s?

Flick of The Day: The Verdict

The American director Sidney Lumet passed away earlier this month at age 86. This master of cinema left behind a body of work that would be the envy of any director. Spanning the ages, from the classic and oft imitated 12 Angry Men to 70's new Hollywood fare like Serpico and Dog Day Afternoon and ground breaking work like media satire Network. Today's flick of the day is another of his finest films, The Verdict.

The Verdict (Two-Disc Collector's Edition)

Paul Newman, is Frank Galvin, an ageing alcoholic attorney with a broken marriage in his past and a baggage filled career. He spends his days drowning Bushmills in his local bar while playing pinball, and trying to pick up clients at funerals, preying on the grief of others. He is in a bad way, and in one last attempt to help him, an old friend and mentor Mickey played by Jack Warden throws him a medical malpractice case to get him back on track. Warden is superb throughout, acting as the rock that supports Frank. The case in question appears like an easy pay day. A young woman goes into the hospital to have her third child, and is given the wrong anaesthetic leading to her slipping into a coma after severe brain damage. The hospital is owned by the local archdiocese who are keen to cover up the mistake. They offer to settle but against his clients wishes Frank goes to court. It is as much about his own redemption as getting justice for his client who has been grievously wronged. On the opposing side, is a conniving Judge, played by the great Milo O'Shea who doesn't want the case in his court and a defence lawyer who is without scruples, in an Oscar nominated performance from James Mason. Against all the odds, Frank tries the case and as the obstacles mount up, gives his all in the search for justice, including sacrificing his relationship with Charlotte Rampling who has more to her then meets the eye.

The actors are aided in their performances by a great script from David Mamet, whose fine work we have reviewed before. The dialogue gets to the heart of the matter and offers some great interplay between the characters, particularly in the court room scenes. The shocking testimony of the admitting nurse is a highlight when James Mason breaks the cardinal rule of cross examination, asking a question you don't know the answer to. You will almost feel the urge to cheer to finally see the good out.

Judge Hoyle: It seems to me, a fellow's trying to come back, he'd take the settlement, get a record for himself. I, myself. would take it and run like a thief. 

Frank Galvin: I'm sure you would.

This is after all the classic tale of David Vs Goliath. Paul Newman excels in the role of Frank Galvin, another in the long line of great performances earning him his fifth of eight Oscar nominations. Lumet shoots the film with a lot of wide angles, we are viewing this as outsiders. It is almost a documentary feel, an indictment of the American justice system and how hard it is to obtain justice.

The film isn't showy, Boston is a dark cold city, permanently bathed in snow. All of the interiors seem weathered and have seen better days, much like Paul Newman's Frank. There is very little music, indeed very little noise of any kind, focusing the viewer's attention on Newman's performance, which as I've said is superb.

Frank Galvin: You know, so much of the time we're just lost. We say, "Please, God, tell us what is right; tell us what is true." And there is no justice: the rich win, the poor are powerless. We become tired of hearing people lie. And after a time, we become dead... a little dead. We think of ourselves as victims... and we become victims. We become... we become weak. We doubt ourselves, we doubt our beliefs. We doubt our institutions. And we doubt the law. But today you are the law. You ARE the law. Not some book... not the lawyers... not the, a marble statue... or the trappings of the court. See those are just symbols of our desire to be just. They are... they are, in fact, a prayer: a fervent and a frightened prayer. In my religion, they say, "Act as if ye had faith... and faith will be given to you." IF... if we are to have faith in justice, we need only to believe in ourselves. And ACT with justice. See, I believe there is justice in our hearts

All in all, a great film, not Lumet's best but its definitely up there. A host of great actors, Newman, Mason and Warden make the best of a great Mamet script. What else can I say?

Flick of The Day: Call Northside 777

Filmed in a pseudo-documentary style by director Henry Hathaway, perhaps better remembered these days as director of two John Wayne's best films True Grit and The Sons of Katie Elder, today's flick of the day is a true crime tale set in 1940's Chicago. The documentary style is used to highlight the true to life tale at its core.

 Call Northside 777 (Fox Film Noir)

In 1932, prohibition era Chicago a policeman is gunned down inside a speakeasy and Frank Wiecek played by Richard Conte is quickly arrested and sentenced to 99 years for the crime. Fast forward 11 years and Wiecek's ageing mother places an ad in a newspaper offering a reward of $5,000 for any information. She is firm in her belief that Frank cannot be guilty. This leads a sceptical editor of the Chicago Times, Brian Kelly played by the always brilliant Lee J. Cobb to assign one of his reporters P.J McNeal to investigate. Jimmy Stewart, perhaps the greatest American actor of his time, shines as McNeal. He imbues the character with the kind of lived in feeling that earned him the nickname The Ordinary Hero.

Of course, as soon as McNeal starts to investigate, the case which had at first seemed so solid begins to slowly unravel. As he chips away at the evidence that sent a cop killer to jail, he comes up against resistance from all corners of the justice system. Everyone is keen for Frank Wiecek to stay where he is. Eventually it comes down to McNeal having to prove that a witness lied in court. In a thrilling finale, an enlarged photograph plays a crucial part, the tension mounting as the photograph is enlarged, reminiscent of The Tell-Tale Heart by Edgar Allan Poe.

The use of a documentary style gives the film an air of fact. You feel like you are following an investigation as each step McNeal takes is lay out in front of you. The use of then cutting edge technology also enhances this feeling. There is a lie detector test in which each operation of the machine is described in such a manner by the operator that he is either a very wooden actor or a real life lie detector. The crucial photograph is sent via the telephone, oh what wonders!. Again this is described in great detail. These scenes are enjoyable curiosities but not overly compelling. The real highlights are the performances of Cobb and Stewart. Its an enjoyable yarn, particularly when Stewart goes searching in the Polish slums for a missing witness. His everyman going where we wouldn't. Sure the ending feels a little corny and god bless america-ish but then you have to watch it in the context of which it was produced. The second world war had just ended and people wanted uplifting tales that reaffirmed their belief that all those people that died, did so for a just cause.

Aw, look, Frank, it's a big thing when a sovereign state admits a mistake. But remember this: there aren't many governments in the world that would do it

Overall, this is a fine film, worth seeing if only for another great performance from Jimmy Stewart. The first film shot on location in Chicago, there are some excellent location shots of that fine city. Well worth a look on a quiet day.

Flick of The Day: Michael Clayton

Today's film is an old-school thriller of the highest order, Michael Clayton. It is often noted that for all his prowess as a movie star and his undoubted charm as an actor, very few of his films though critically lauded make any money, most barely breaking even. It is a shame then that some of his best work such as O Brother, Where Art Thou?, Good Night and Good Luck and Michael Clayton has been the least successful. For all these films deserve to be seen by as wide an audience as possible.

Michael Clayton (Widescreen Edition)

George Clooney is excellent as the titular lawyer and firm fixer with a gambling problem and a failed restaurant who spends his days and nights fixing all the little problems that would otherwise the firm and its clients. He is called in to help when one of the firm's leading litigators has a nervous breakdown in a deposition in relation to a case involving a killer pesticide. Tom Wilkinson is brilliantly manic as the depressive pushed over the edge by the thought that he has spent years defending this carcinogen. Tilda Swinton also shines as an in house legal counsel for the chemical firm, desperate for the case to be resolved in their favour and willing to go to any lengths to ensure this. It quickly becomes apparent that Wilkinson has evidence that the firm knowingly let this chemical loose and the films becomes a chase, with plot building on plot as Swinton's character seeks to ensure that the evidence never sees the lights of day.

The film feels like a paranoia thriller from the late '70s with its grandstanding performances, dialogue heavy scenes and plotting building up to a grand finale that is a thrilling and satisfying end to what has come before. Wilkinson is extraordinary as Arthur Edens, recalling the performance of Peter Finch in Network, and indeed like that fine performance he gets most of the best lines and monologues.

"Michael, I have great affection for you and you live a very rich and interesting life, but you're a bag man not an attorney. If your intention was to have me committed you should have kept me in Wisconsin where the arrest report, the videotape, eyewitness reports of my inappropriate behaviour would have had jurisdictional relevance. I have no criminal record in the state of New York, and the single determining criterion for involuntary commitment is danger. Is the defendant a danger to himself or to others. You think you got the horses for that? Well good luck and God bless, but I'll tell you this: the last place you want to see me is in court."

Praise must also go to the late, great, Sydney Pollack, always underrated as an actor, who gives a strong performance as the head of the firm, giving the film an added gravitas in the few scenes he shares with Clooney.

Tony Gilroy shows himself to be a fine director with this debut, never underestimating the audiences intelligence and ability to follow what is going on around them. His direction shows a lightness of touch, particularly in relation to the shocking murder that is at the centre of the film. Nothing is layered too heavily or signalled too strongly, he trusts the audience to know that this is wrong and all the more shocking for the matter of fact way in which it is portrayed on screen.

In summary, this is a great film with some fine performances and a great script from Tony Gilroy. Tilda Swinton was well worth her Bafta win as a woman who quickly gets in over her head and who's ruthlessness leads to her downfall. Clooney, Wilkinson and Pollack, all deserve praise. In the end, what is most enjoyable is that the bad guys get their due, and what is more old school then that?