Das Messer

JAGGED EDGE (1985)-- Grade: B

I don't know why JAGGED EDGE is known as one of the best mystery films of the '80s. Let's face that this decade was not amazingly great for movies, but of course there were better mystery films: DRESSED TO KILL, BLOW OUT, HOUSE OF GAMES, BODY HEAT, just a few that come to mind. JAGGED EDGE is not able to escape from most of the clichés of courtroom drama and what it's worst: it shamelessly manipulates the audience. The main comment here has the same complaint, so I think many people agree with me. The one that should be blamed is Joe Eszterhas, who would write the screenplay for BASIC INSTINCT, a worldwide success, seven years later. He knows how to manipulate audiences, to make them stay aware and to keep their attention tightly without a shame, purposing questions with only two answers: yes or no. Did he kill her or didn't he? Eszterhas makes us believe in both possibilities several times during less than two hours. Using, of course, not very credible plot twists. ....... OK! So JAGGED EDGE is cliched and manipulative. It's difficult to forgive the first, but why shouldn't we forgive the latter? Don't we like to be cheated in some cases?

If you think it's difficult to forgive the way this film grabs you, there are other ways to like it. The story, even cliched, is still interesting and suspenseful. The directing is great and the actors are pretty good. Glenn Close is reliable as the lawyer and Jeff Bridges, who has made a career of hits (ARLINGTON ROAD) and misses (KISS ME GOODBYE), is convincing as the mysterious client.

JAGGED EDGE is a flawed film, but its manipulation has a good side. At least we care about the characters and the story. This is not a good way to write screenplays. This is not the best thriller of the '80s. But it is far ahead of some cheap productions of the '90s (BODY OF EVIDENCE, SLIVER, both with similar situations to JAGGED EDGE).

Intriguing movie mixes the high standards of ethics and forbidden love. I like Glenn Close, and she gives a powerful character reference as lawyer Teddy Barnes, and the 'did he or didn't he?' storyline is very intriguing. The 'jagged edge' role is interestingly portrayed by Jeff Bridges, and the movie details a sensational court case and the trials and tribulations of either believing in your morals or in your heart. But sometimes your heart rules your head, and maybe that's not a good thing....

Jagged Edge is a jagged movie, a little rough around the edges, but smoothing out to a reasonable sense of conclusion.

This courtroom thriller was one of the films that spawned a huge wave of copycats through the mid '80's and early '90's. Now, of course, these types of stories are on TV nightly in the glut of crime/law based shows. However, in 1985, audiences could still be (and were) riveted to the big screen by stories like this. Bridges plays a newspaper editor whose wife is brutally murdered along with their maid (in an opening sequence that is not overly graphic, yet is very disturbing.) Before long, he is prime suspect in the killings and is defended by a tentative, reluctant Close who is trying to redeem herself after some earlier unethical legal behavior. She squares off with slimy former prosecuting partner Coyote (in a slick, effective performance) to clear Bridges. She then, foolishly, becomes intimate with Bridges. There is constant doubt in her mind, as well as in the audience's, as to whether or not Bridges did the deed or not. Because the story is a tease and exists to manipulate and captivate the audience, there are plot holes galore. However, the film works very well on a visceral level, providing twists and shocks along the way (including one startling break-in near the end which is jarring no matter how many times it is seen.) The film's greatest strength is the acting, notably Close. Unlike later Eszterhas scripts, in which no one is sympathetic, she is a heroine to root for, despite her flaws. She brings great conviction to her poorly conceived role. Bridges does well also as the perfectly moussed, tan dreamboat who might be a savage murderer. Loggia brings a welcome salty edge to the film with his foul-mouthed portrayal of Close's investigator friend. All cussing and cigarettes, he is a stock Eszterhas character, but is acted well. There are other fine smaller roles played by Dehner as a crusty judge, Young as a haughty rich-bitch and Austin (an underrated actress) as an attack victim. Close has two annoying kids and a wimpy ex-husband to make her life that much more unbearable. Drawbacks to the film would be the illogic of the script and the bizarre editing of the courtroom scenes in which the clothing Bridges and (especially) Close wear inexplicably switch! Her hair is also consistently inconsistent throughout...(within scenes!)...flat one moment, curly the next, varying in height and swoop, etc.... The discordant music by Barry is very unsettling and his use of low piano keys doubtlessly inspired Jerry Goldsmith for "Basic Instinct". It's the same type of sound. Folks expecting a watertight story will be disappointed. Those who just want to be entertained and spooked should love it.

******SPOILERS****** A brutal double-murder of prominent socialite and newspaper heiress Mrs. Paige Forrester, Maria Mayenzet, and her house-maid Consuela Martinez occurs one rainy evening at the Forrester Estate outside San Francisco.

Page's husband Jack, Jeff Bridges, who was also injured in the attack, is indited for murder by the San Francisco DA Thomas Kersny, Peter Coyote. DA Kersn feels that Jack not only murdered his wife and her house-maid but also faked his own injury to throw off the police's suspicions about him being the killer. DA Kersny also has it in for Jack personally in that being the owner as well as editor of the influential San Francisco Times he's been writing unrelentingly negative editorials about him.

Being indited for his wife's murder Jack seeks out former DA Teddy Barnes, Glenn Close, who used to work with Thomas Kersny at the DA's office. Teddy quit some four years ago because of a case that she helped him with in which a defendant Henry Styles was convicted. Teddy later found out that Kersny withheld vital evidence that would have found Styles innocent. Later in the movie Teddy finds out that Styles hung himself in his cell from non other then Kersny himself! This got her even more upset then she already was about that case.

This sets up the movies storyline: A brutal double-murder is committed and a DA who has it in for the murder suspect jumps into the case for personal more then for professional reasons. The lawyer who defends the murder suspect has guilt feelings for working with the DA prosecuting the case against her client. Added to all that she's almost driven into a serious depression when she finds out that the person that she helped the DA convict, who she later found out was innocent, has just killed himself. With all the "red herrings" flying around in the movie does the murder weapon a hunting knife with a jagged edge belong to Jack? Most of all did the affairs, by both Jack and Page, one or both lead to Page's murder?

It's also a mystery if the dashing and handsome tennis gigolo Bobby Slade (Marshall Colt),who was having an affair with Page, killed her when she threatened to leave him and then frame her husband Jack for her murder?

The movie "Jagged Edge" holds itself together pretty well until the final fifteen minutes and then just falls apart like a house of cards. The totally contrived as well as unrealistic ending hits the viewer like a solid punch right in the stomach and knocks all the wind out of him or her. It's hard to believe that the killer would end up being so careless and stupid after bing so smart and cunning during the entire movie. This after he got away with the crime Scot-free and having nothing at all to fear from the law, why did he have to blow it all in the end?

"Jagged Edge" is not a bad movie it's a very good murder/mystery/court thriller but with a terrible ending and it's a good ending that's the most important thing in a movie like it.

If you have never seen this film, then stop reading reviews and watch it because the film really works better if you don't know anything about it.

Now, the film is certainly flawed, but it's still interesting to watch.

I love courtroom thrillers, and there's plenty of court drama here, but not enough to make the picture work. I think another 20 minutes would've added much more depth to courtroom sequences.

The acting is excellent, but the direction could've been sharper. I found the romance to be contrived, never had a flow to it, it just happened.

Some blame must go to the screenplay, it wasn't strong, not enough depth to the characters, and some of the courtroom stuff was unrealistic.

The photography is excellent, it hooked me into the picture.

Overall, a good film, but I think the writing was a bit lazy.