Peligrosamente juntos

Full of plot holes and expensive excesses, LEGAL EAGLES wouldn't be much without the genuine star power it receives from it's first class cast.

Redford is very charming as the assistant D.A. whose becomes involved with defense lawyer Winger (terrific as always) to solve a case that includes arson, stolen paintings, insurance fraud, and even murder.

The chemistry between Redford and Winger is very much like Spencer and Tracy and is very enjoyable to watch. However, Daryl Hannah steals the show as the slightly off center performance artist who is in the middle of the complex case.

The film's story will not hold up under much thought and the many shots of buildings on fire will only appeal to pyros. Still, this film is fun entertainment and is a must-see if you are a fan of one of the three stars.

I'd rate this a good 6 out of 10.

With a stellar cast and mediocre plot, this movie is well executed and the acting skills of the leads raise the movie above it's material on paper. Redfor seems to be enjoying himself and the writers gave each character little human quirks that can't help but make you smile. In one seen, Redford, playing a lawyer is sharing an office with "Kelly" his new partner after he gets caught shaking the sheets with D. Hannahs character and he is moving from chair to chair in the small office finally stating, "I'm a pacer", someone who needs to walk back and forth in order to think clearly.

There is an opening scene with a 60's party that has a Warhol feeling" to it that I enjoyed, as I grew up in those times. And while it plays only a small part in the movie, it brought back a flood of good memories for me. (Anyone remember "The Electric Circus?")

D. Hannah gives a completely 80's reminiscent piece of performance art that is very pych. connected to the wounded character she plays, and if you wait for the credits, you find she played a big part in authoring the piece.

Basically, its the types of movie that is not even in your top ten or twenty, yet you can't help but enjoying it each time you watch it, and you are pleased to see it on the schedule when it is. Kind of a "non-guilty guilty pleasure", I can't help but enjoy the cast, the full of holes plot and poor continuity, (the faux pas of timing and lighting are mentioned in other reviews.) Even Redford's little girl in the movie is one of those kids you have even and enjoy, but can't recall her name. there is an early character role played by Christine Baranski who either got some work done or simply learned how to use her assets better later in her career.

Just watch with an excepting, open mind and you may not only enjoy it, but it may be a cult favorite at some point. *note-my wife is a wall st. attorney and absolutely hates the film as do many other lawyers we know. why? Who knows? Maybe they're strung too tight to let go and enjoy the simple ride.

It's far from perfect but 'Legal Eagles' is quite nostalgic and entertaining. The story is very contrived especially with so many plot holes and the characters aren't fully fleshed out either but it has a very noire style approach and does keep you in suspense. The humour also works quite well. On the technical side it's a decently made film, nothing too flashy which is good. I also liked the presentation of the art world.

No matter what one says about 'Legal Eagles', for me the highlight is easily Robert Redford and a very cute Debra Winger. Both actors are spellbinding, delivering subtle and charming performances. As performers, they just look so comfortable with each other. Their chemistry is amazing and their scenes, especially their on-screen banter, are a delight to watch.

Daryl Hannah's role is sketchy but she looks sizzling and I enjoyed her sequences with Redford and the scene where she demonstrates her art. Brian Dennehy is wasted. Terence Stamp is adequate.

So yes, it's got its flaws but how can you not enjoy it for Redford and Winger?

I really do love Legal Eagles, it's a film that hearkens back to the stuff that William Powell and Myrna Loy did at MGM. I can see a younger Tracy and Hepburn in this film as well.

Robert Redford is the Jack McCoy of the New York County District Attorney's office and wouldn't you know it, Steven Hill plays the New York County DA here. Hill's thinking of hanging it up, but obviously as fans of Law and Order know, he eventually didn't. He's thinking of promoting Redford as his candidate to succeed him come the next election.

But for budding politico Redford, his life gets real complicated when defense attorney Debra Winger and her client Darryl Hannah enter his life. Hannah is the daughter of a famed artist who was killed in a loft fire where she barely escaped from when she was about 6. Since then she's become something of a wild child.

Hannah steals a picture from art dealer Terrence Stamp that she says is really hers. That starts a chain of events in which she's eventually accused of Stamp's murder. That same night Hannah decides she needs a little tender loving care and who better than the assistant district attorney to give it. The police bust her when she and Redford are in flagrato.

After that Redford decides to see how the other half lives working with Debra Winger on Hannah's defense.

What I liked about Legal Eagles is that it glided nicely from comedy to drama with little effort. The climax at Terrence Stamp's gallery was very well staged and Redford is being a most heroic lawyer.

Also in the cast are Roscoe Lee Browne as the judge at Hannah's trial and Brian Dennehy as a most interesting investigator. It's one of Robert Redford's best films and it's got style and substance.

With Redford, style is a given.

Ivan Reitman, fresh off the special effects high of "Ghostbusters" takes on romantic comedy that works in fits and starts in "LEGAL EAGLES".

Robert Redford, with breezy style, is a NYC D.A. who prosecutes at whim. Enter Debra Winger, a scrappy lawyer so desperate, she once chose to put a dog on the stand to make her case. The two fall in love (or about as 80's as it gets - they become partners) in representing an airy client (Daryl Hannah) who may (or may not) have committed a major art fraud/crime.

This is a time-capsule of a film... written by the guys who wrote "Top Gun" and "Dick Tracy", it's a big, over-packaged film that's both romantic comedy, star-vehicle, and glossy, synthetic who-done-it. All the Reitman glitz-and-polish is there (with big setpieces scattered throughout), and the movie is easy on the eyes, especially with Redford's easy, casual performance pulling the viewer along and Reitman's deft comedic touch.

It was also a troubled production to be sure: Bill Murray was once considered for the Winger role, creating a love triangle that would have found Hannah torn between the Sundance Kid and Nick The Lounge Singer - but alas, Murray opted out. In interviews long since the film's release, Winger claims no desire ever to work with Reitman again.

1986's "LEGAL EAGLES" is probably the textbook case of the all-powerful talent agency known as Creative Artists Agency packaging a Real Motion Picture - what industry wags call a "filmed-deal". But is Legal Eagles any good? Sure, I guess. It's competently directed, it makes great use of it's New York City art-world locales, it has a wonderful Elmer Bernstein score, great cinematography by the legendary Laszlo Kovacs and both Winger and Hannah make for delicious eye-candy when pared with Redford. Ultimately, it becomes systematic of what was askew in these "packages": the movie relies solely on the audience goodwill, fine craftsmanship and former successes of its primary players to carry the load. "LEGAL EAGLES" is by no means a failure, but wrapped in such a glossy serving, it's hard to really enjoy anymore than for its quick, empty calories.

I have a soft spot for this film - it's great to see Redford on screen seeming to have such a spirited good time after an absence from movie comedy for a number of years - but after all is said and done, "LEGAL EAGLES" is as enjoyable as a Big Mac, albeit one served on a fine china dinner plate.

PS - the TV version of this film has a curious, bizarre alternate ending which negates the whole court case!