Homicidio voluntario

Admittedly, "Deliberate Intent" is not the greatest film ever made, but a 5.4 rating seems a little harsh.

The true story concerns the lawsuit against Paladin Press for their handbook "Hit Man," which helped a man kill his family.

A first amendment attorney, Timothy Hutton, who normally would be on the side of the publisher, is approached by another attorney (Ron Rifkin) who wants to take on Paladin.

Up to that time, no publisher had ever been successfully sued for content, as publishers depend on the first amendment to publish their material.

Granted, it can be a slippery slope, but this case was not only very interesting but thought-provoking, calling into issue the responsibility of the publisher. Is it enough to say, I just published the book, collect the money, and not care about the content?

This seems like it was a TV movie and not particularly well put together. It would have made a great feature film and could have used some extra time to flesh out the story a little. Also, the Supreme Court scene was not well researched, so it was done incorrectly.

Worth seeing for the story and for Timothy Hutton, who gives an excellent performance.

This movie is based on a true story. I just finished watching an episode of The New Detectives on the Discovery Channel about a triple homicide in Maryland. Near the end of the program, they showed a canceled check marked NSF made out to Palladin Press and then they showed the actual book, Hit Man, and it was the same book from this movie. The episode made brief mention of the court case and briefly showed the headline of the outcome of the case. I knew I'd recently seen a fictional program about this and I racked my brain until I came up with this movie. The movie coupled with The New Detectives episode give the complete story of a brutal and senseless occurrence.

This film was inspired by a real life event. It is a workmanlike but solid courtroom thriller starring Timothy Hutton and Ron Rifkin.

In 1993 an intruder broke into a house shot and killed a woman, nurse and then disconnected the woman's handicapped son's breathing apparatus.

The prime suspect was out of work music producer and the divorced father Lawrence Horn (James McDaniel) who was accused of hiring a novice hit man to carry out the crime so he can gain money from his son's trust fund.

Timothy Hutton plays a free speech lawyer enticed by Rifkin to bring a case against the publisher of the book Hit Man, which was used as a blueprint by the hired gun to plan and carry out the crime. There was also the motive that the publisher Paladin press had the financial deep pockets to pay compensation.

This case makes an interesting debate on the US first amendment rights but since this film was made I felt real life events have overtaken it.

Since 9/11 people can be prosecuted and thrown into jail for downloading documents that can aid you prepare to carry out mass violent crimes. Since the publisher had to pulp existing copies of the books and in effect give up copyright of the book, even Hit Man is down-loadable online.

It kind of feels like a Pyrrhic victory and made the film out of date.

After catching this flick on late night cable, I did not expect much at all. I was not mistaken. The film raises some interesting questions on free speech and the US first amendment as it follows the story of a lawyer suing a publisher, whose book is responsible for a triple murder. This is an interesting topic to look at in a film and makes you think about books, films and songs and how they can influence weak-minded individuals, and have done in the past. John Hinckley Jr. and "Taxi Driver" is one that springs to mind. However the actual delivering of this message suffers due to the plot. The director does not seem to be sure whether he wants to concentrate on the murders the court case or the main characters divorce and is the worse for it. It jumps around too much, has no character development and is decidedly flat. Good idea but could have been better.

I in no way mean to suggest that 3 people being murdered for money is hilarious, but for anyone who knows a bit about the appellate process, the "dramatic" scene in the US Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit -- with the gallery shouting out and the two lawyers sparing on rebuttal -- was laughable. I know it made for a better scene -- in reality, attorneys are given a certain time period to speak and answer questions, and there is no confrontation between parties -- but a little authenticity would have been nice. For a "real" film appellate argument, I suggest watching the Supreme Court scene in "The People Versus Larry Flint" (plus the guy who play Scalia is a dead ringer!).

It was interesting, however, to see a case I read about in law school brought to life. The case actually has some pretty strong First Amendment ramifications, which I am delighted to see people on this site have discussed. So it was not all in vain!