Peligrosamente juntos

charming is the right word. because it is a nice film, without high ambitions and using old recipes, mixture of crime and romance, with a good performance of Daryll Hannah and same Redford who does a seductive character. a movie who can not be real convincing but who know explore in a smart manner, the common clichés. and that is its great virtue - to not be serious or a parody but a perfect choice for Sunday evening. the secret - maybe, courage to use tricks from old romantic comedies in decent doses. and it works at whole. the vulnerability of characters, the action scenes, the thin artistic stain, all as tools for a charming show who reminds classic films and who can be opportunity for rediscover good actors at duty.

Legal Eagles

The reason no one dates personal injury lawyers is because they only want to promenade in front of businesses with icy sidewalks.

Luckily, the lawyer in this comedy-thriller is sleeping with a client, not a colleague.

Assistant D.A. Tom (Robert Redford) decides to help attorney Laura (Debra Winger) defend Chelsea (Daryl Hannah) against charges she stole a painting from an art dealer (Terence Stamp).

Adamant her father gave her the painting before his suspicious death - and destruction of his art collection - Chelsea not only convinces Tom but seduces him as well.

But when a dubious cop (Brian Dennehy) uncovers the entire collection intact, it threatens Tom's career and his life.

Crackling with comedic repartee, a fiery May/December romance and an unpredicted adversary, Legal Eagles may be clichéd but it's not without its charms.

Incidentally, if you're going to sleep with anyone in the court system - make it a judge. Yellow Light

vidiotreviews.blogspot.ca

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?

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.

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!