Execution TV

Alert: ***might contain mild spoilers***

The basic idea has been used in countless books and films. The media (especially TV), lead by greedy and corrupt people (focus is on one character story wise) turn a very serious real life issue into a circus. This is of course all about ethics.

I liked the look and feel of the movie, a mixture between (fake)live TV broadcast, documentary style interviews and dramatic film footage. I loved the(purposely)cheesy CGI used for the opening of the TV show 'Citizen Verdict'. I actually liked to see Jerry Springer in this - he is winking an eye at himself, which one can either see as distracting or as a bonus. I go for the latter. Of course Springer can't act. He is not an actor, he is a TV show host - which is totally different. The difference between Jerry Springer and the 'real' actors very well counterbalanced by the 'interview' footage. One character seems to be a real-life judge or lawyer, also with no 'acting' abilities - and is very believable and I agree with what he says, as much as I agree with some of the others.

In any case the movie is very far fetched in its basic premise. I no next to nothing about the US justice system (having seen hundreds of courtroom dramas definitely isn't enough) but I can't believe that the scenario is even remotely feasible: people can vote guilty or innocent without any prove that they have even seen one second of the TV show (=trial). Nah...

I also think that the characters of the prosecutor and the defense attorney are very unclear. There are definitely many loose story threads.

The film ends with all characters agreeing that the US justice system as it is is still the best possible. In many a movie I would have thought: come on! A satire and now you are pulling out??? But I agree with the ending: a film cannot be clear enough about its message when it comes to the legal system and death penalty. Yet, I really didn't get the 'point' of the movie. Is the hole system corrupt? Is it just the Jerry Springer character? Whom does he stand for? Armand Assante (the defense attorney) is a hot shot, so he should have known from the start that the whole thing is manipulated, or let's say 'controlled' by someone. The ethical issues, the politics are all oversimplified and the plot threads to fussy. What about the mail prostitute who testified in trial that the victim actually was into S'n'M? Oh yes, he was bought. But a flavor of yet another fuzzy and loose plot thread remains...

two out of four stars: plus: the 'Harry Dean Stanton rule' also applies to Roy Scheider: they never appear in a bad movie.

Almost forgot: the soundtrack is excellent! The songs as well as the orchestral underscore.

The film ostensibly has an outrageous plot. For the last few years, TV audiences have been swamped with "reality shows". As Armand Assante's character Sam Patterson says: "You're not voting someone off an island: you're not evicting someone from a dormitory: you're banishing someone from the planet!". It is illusion versus reality. It is the ultimate "what if" proposition. What if the citizenry were to be able cast a vote on guilt or innocence in the manner that a jury does? I have problems with the basic hypothesis and hence with the film itself. You may as well have "Citizen Surgery", "Citizen Psychiatry" or "Citizen Dentistry" (I hope they're not going to be sequels - they'd have to be comedies if they're ever made) where anyone could put in their $19.95's worth. First and foremost, you would be allowing people who might not be fit for all sorts of reasons to cast a vote, the only criterion being of whether the person in question can muster up $19.95 on their credit card to enable them to vote! People may be racially motivated; be prejudiced against a certain profession e.g. teachers. They may be mentally unfit and so on. That's why juries are screened as you can see in "The Devil's Advocate" (Al Pacino, Keannu Reeves). True that's open to manipulation but it's better than open slather. The story fails on its basic premise. It's interesting to revolve it as a speculation but no more than that. I sense the film-makers expected us to take it a little more seriously. One of the previous reviewers, nitatestock35 made a comment to the effect that he suspected that some of the people were not actors. The clue to an answer to this is in the final credits where it is revealed that Armand Assante himself was the interviewer. Most likely real interviews were conducted by Assante (probaly as an afterthought) which were then melded into the storyline to give the film a sense of verisimilitude which it desperately needed. There was indeed a judge in the interviews but also a defence lawyer as well as a District Attorney and a smattering of 'ordinary folk' with their various prejudices.

American jurisprudence is not my long suit but I cannot imagine any jurisdiction in the world allowing a court of first instance to be the final arbiter of a capital case. Any decision rendered by a single judge of lower would be taken to an appellate court. No lawyer/attorney/solicitor/barrister worth his salt would be content with an adverse verdict and would appeal the decision perhaps all the way to the Supreme Court of America or in Australia's case, the High Court. Is this one of the "loose story threads" mentioned by others. Of course the 'deus ex machina' employed by the scriptwriters in introducing damning videotape (which it is also suggested would have been inadmissible under those circumstances in a real court case) obviates the more subtle nuances of court procedure. The tape brings the trial to a grinding halt and we don't have to think about the byways of the appeal process.

Raffaelo Degruttola gave a sterling performance as a violent schizophrenic time-bomb whose cloak of calmness is easily torn away. But if he hears voices, as he says he does after admitting to the murder, should not psychiatric evaluation been available to him. Are schizophrenics executed regardless in America? The execution scene is harrowing. One of the most interesting characters was Carlene Osway played by Dorette Potgieter, a beautiful blonde girl in the Finnish style, whose outer beauty is counterbalanced by an inner moral bankruptcy and void. Bad people are almost always the most interesting. Indeed ironically she uses her beauty to further her ignoble pursuits first turning up unannounced to Sam's yacht (please don't tell me it's a ketch or yawl, I'm not strong on boats either) dressed like "stripper" to help him but who eventually ends up in Marty Rockman's spa-pool and bed. This is a girl who wants to get to the top in the shortest time possible. She definitely 'stoops to conquer'. I don't watch the Jerry Springer Show for reasons you can guess at. I thought, despite other comments to the contrary that his performance (and he's no stranger to the camera lens) was creditable ending in his penultimate scene where his diatribe on his perceptions of reality are summarised as he declares TV to be the present God. The scene is skilfully edited into a melange of overlapping and interlocking images reinforced by the crescendo of clashing music chords giving the viewer a surreal insight into the distempered mind of a megalomaniac corrupted by power and money.

The film was entertaining enough but I cringe at the preachy proclivities of some American directors. After delivering a speech to law graduates on the incorruptibility of law (ha-ha!), Sam sails off in his 'boat' emblematic no doubt of the American ship of state on the vast blue ocean of hope and promise. But just in case we didn't get the point, or perhaps it was slipped in gratuitously for us foreigners, we are treated to the strains (and I do mean strain, the tenor barely made the high notes) of "Mine Eyes Have Seen the Glory of the Coming of the Lord" and I was seriously wondering whether I was expected to stand up in my lounge-room and put my hand over my heart. Well! that's it! Having sung that, we're all better now! Nothing could ever go wrong again, they would have us believe. But it doesn't work. For all its imperfections, it is still a mild diversion which really doesn't offer any answers and if you can as Coleridge exhorts to bring yourself to accept a "willing suspension of disbelief for the moment which constitutes poetic faith", then the film viewed as an diversion rather than a didactic vehicle, stands the test as entertainment.

Live with the fast forward button or suffer the consequences. Roy Scheider and Armand Assante seem like they would rather be in a different movie, any movie except "Citizen Verdict". Everything is annoying, from the hand held video cameras, to the redundant interviews. Jerry Springer is the only actor that appears comfortable with this sensationalized swill. Wrap the whole thing up in one sentence. This is not entertainment, it is merely a trick on unsuspecting audiences who admire Armand Assante or Roy Scheider. Terrible beyond belief, this should be avoided at all costs. ..... - MERK

I just finished watching the movie, so I didn't have the time to fully digest it yet. Not that it is a "heavy" film, it's just that I've watched Almodovar's Bad Education before this one and I'm still under the impression...But let's get back to The verdict. All I can say is that the movie is acceptable and it isn't a blockbuster or an Oscar movie, but you can still watch it, especially when you're bored :-) No I mean, Jerry Springer is not that bad as an actor, after all, the medias are his area. Assante is always the same- in every single movie- it's like he has been playing this one role he knows during his whole career. He always have that same expression, the same intonation...it's a little bit weird, don't you thing? Anyway, to summon it, the movie's not bad, the idea is better though. I think a much better movie could have been made based on it. It's interesting to see how TV manipulates people so easily. And it get's you to, all of us, even though we don't see it sometimes. An interesting subject, but it hasn't been analysed as well as I expected it. I give it a C for the idea and some of the acting.

I am trying to think of a quality that this movie has that I admire. The concept was weak to start with, the plot abysmally developed, the acting shocking (can't you give a long rant in one take Jerry?), production, even sound far below par.

I am glad that I was watching on DVD so could easily skip straight to the predictable verdict, which I did only out of a morbid curiosity rather than actual interest. We were taking bets on what how the movie would pan out after that, and while technically I feel bound to say that it wasn't predictable, because none of us predicted it quite right, it was nonetheless, very lame.

We really didn't have the stomach for the self-congratulatory epilogue and switched off.