IMDb रेटिंग
6.4/10
8.8 हज़ार
आपकी रेटिंग
एक दुर्घटनाग्रस्त पीड़ित व्यक्ति का प्रतिनिधित्व करने वाले एक वकील को यह पता चलता है कि प्रतिद्वंद्वी बचाव पक्ष की वकील है -उसकी अपनी बेटी.एक दुर्घटनाग्रस्त पीड़ित व्यक्ति का प्रतिनिधित्व करने वाले एक वकील को यह पता चलता है कि प्रतिद्वंद्वी बचाव पक्ष की वकील है -उसकी अपनी बेटी.एक दुर्घटनाग्रस्त पीड़ित व्यक्ति का प्रतिनिधित्व करने वाले एक वकील को यह पता चलता है कि प्रतिद्वंद्वी बचाव पक्ष की वकील है -उसकी अपनी बेटी.
- निर्देशक
- लेखक
- स्टार
- पुरस्कार
- कुल 1 नामांकन
Laurence Fishburne
- Nick Holbrook
- (as Larry Fishburne)
Fred Thompson
- Dr. Getchell
- (as Fred Dalton Thompson)
Anne Ramsay
- Deborah
- (as Anne Elizabeth Ramsay)
फ़ीचर्ड समीक्षाएं
Jed Ward (Gene Hackman) is a lawyer who fights to protect people against corporations. His daughter Maggie (Mary Elizabeth Mastrantonio) works for a big legal firm. A case comes up which pitches them against each other. To make matters worse she resents her father for cheating on his wife (her mother) in the past. When they start butting heads over the case all hell breaks loose.
Great legal drama with Hackman and Mastrantonio giving incredible performances in the leads. Either being politely legal to each other in the courtroom or tearing into each other in private they're great. I'm no lawyer but the film seems to follow legal procedures and rules pretty accurately (unlike some legal dramas that completely ignore most of the them). Even better it doesn't dumb down the dialogue and treat the audience like a bunch of idiots. It's well-written, thought-provoking and brings up some very good legal and ethical questions. Sometimes it's a little too slow and occasionally people seem to be giving speeches rather than talking but it still works all around. Also Colin Friels, Larry (Laurence) Fishburne, Donald Moffat and Jan Rubes give strong performances in supporting roles. This came and went pretty quickly in 1991 (probably because it had the most boring posters I've ever seen advertising it) but it's a good legal thriller that's worth catching. I give it an 8.
Great legal drama with Hackman and Mastrantonio giving incredible performances in the leads. Either being politely legal to each other in the courtroom or tearing into each other in private they're great. I'm no lawyer but the film seems to follow legal procedures and rules pretty accurately (unlike some legal dramas that completely ignore most of the them). Even better it doesn't dumb down the dialogue and treat the audience like a bunch of idiots. It's well-written, thought-provoking and brings up some very good legal and ethical questions. Sometimes it's a little too slow and occasionally people seem to be giving speeches rather than talking but it still works all around. Also Colin Friels, Larry (Laurence) Fishburne, Donald Moffat and Jan Rubes give strong performances in supporting roles. This came and went pretty quickly in 1991 (probably because it had the most boring posters I've ever seen advertising it) but it's a good legal thriller that's worth catching. I give it an 8.
I still find it kind of a coincidence that this was aired here on the cable the day before Fathers' Day here. Father Jedediah Ward (Gene Hackman) and daughter Maggie (Mary Elizabeth Mastrantonio) are both lawyers and coincidentally, they are on the opposing ends of a major court case.
From the start, one can see that Maggie is very driven to be successful in the lawyers' circles given she told her boss she wanted to take on the case because she is very aware of the company the law firm she works for represents. And her colleagues then told her that her father is the plaintiff for the case. Now this drove the daughter to outwin her father in the courtroom even more.
All the estrangement actually went back to the time when Maggie realised her father is not faithful to her mother. So whenever they passed by each other, Maggie often never gave her father one look. After Mrs Ward's passing, father and daughter reunite each other for a while...but! The old issues all came back.
And when along the way in researching for the case, an obstacle appeared and it almost led Maggie into trouble. Jedediah thought his daughter is almost in trouble and they managed to clear out some things between each other. It even led to surprising events which happened on the day of the big court case.
For me who has always been interested how lawyers always go about their work, this is a nice introduction. Father-daughter relationship is also being explored here. That is why I said about the movie on cable the day before it's Fathers' Day today here.
From the start, one can see that Maggie is very driven to be successful in the lawyers' circles given she told her boss she wanted to take on the case because she is very aware of the company the law firm she works for represents. And her colleagues then told her that her father is the plaintiff for the case. Now this drove the daughter to outwin her father in the courtroom even more.
All the estrangement actually went back to the time when Maggie realised her father is not faithful to her mother. So whenever they passed by each other, Maggie often never gave her father one look. After Mrs Ward's passing, father and daughter reunite each other for a while...but! The old issues all came back.
And when along the way in researching for the case, an obstacle appeared and it almost led Maggie into trouble. Jedediah thought his daughter is almost in trouble and they managed to clear out some things between each other. It even led to surprising events which happened on the day of the big court case.
For me who has always been interested how lawyers always go about their work, this is a nice introduction. Father-daughter relationship is also being explored here. That is why I said about the movie on cable the day before it's Fathers' Day today here.
Thanks to the recent legal decision against Toyota and memories of the ill-fated Ford Pinto, it's difficult not to think of "Class Action". Many reviewers like to think that court room dramas can always be better, but if you've ever witnessed real court proceedings then you'll discover they can be immensely boring and why film makers avoid it. What makes "Class Action" so refreshing is the context of the case, which is a bona fide problem considering numerous cars with dangerous design problems, the devious corporate view of profit over loss (including life), which gives the film an underplay of David vs. Goliath, the spicy exchanges in court, the conflict between father and daughter, which is essentially a clash of Right vs. Wrong, and of course first rate performances by the actors. There are a few predictable story lines, but that's to be expected. "Class Action" is altogether a very entertaining and insightful film.
Though I shan't name specifics, back in the '90s, when Class Action was made, vehicle component malfunction affected and scared more everyday folk than the usual cases for U.S Courtroom dramas i.e Medical and Corporate cases.
So, when a lighting circuit component fails in a popular car model and causes vehicle fires, naturally a case is lodged against the manufacturers. Taking the case is a crusty, liberal lawyer, Jed, (Gene Hackman). But, to his shock and fortunately for us, in defence is Jed's estranged daughter Maggie (Mary Elizabeth Mastrantonio), who's ambitious and ruthless. This creates a tension, in the courtroom and privately as reasons and causes for their differences are aired.
Unlike some more well known courtroom dramas, there's little shouting or violence. No one gets murdered. The case is reasonably involving and both leads are good. The outcome wasn't as full-blooded as I'd have liked and so I give six and bit stars. Quietly recommended, though, especially for lovers of the genre.
So, when a lighting circuit component fails in a popular car model and causes vehicle fires, naturally a case is lodged against the manufacturers. Taking the case is a crusty, liberal lawyer, Jed, (Gene Hackman). But, to his shock and fortunately for us, in defence is Jed's estranged daughter Maggie (Mary Elizabeth Mastrantonio), who's ambitious and ruthless. This creates a tension, in the courtroom and privately as reasons and causes for their differences are aired.
Unlike some more well known courtroom dramas, there's little shouting or violence. No one gets murdered. The case is reasonably involving and both leads are good. The outcome wasn't as full-blooded as I'd have liked and so I give six and bit stars. Quietly recommended, though, especially for lovers of the genre.
Everything starts nice: the subtleties of the story line are introduced in an admirable low key fashion. And the 'expert' critics say this is a great new twist on a worn out theme, and maybe at the time this movie was released it was - but that was then and this is now and frankly the idea wears thin. There seem to be three writers attached to this project and one will of course conjecture what they were up to, for sections of this loose tale seem rather poorly written - and even poorly directed, and the director Michael Apted, who three years earlier made the excellent Gorillas in the Mist, will have to forgive.
The flaw seems to be thinking that the marriage of these two 'sub-plots' can work. And for a courtroom drama there is precious little courtroom time, and what is there jumps about a bit too much.
The cast are great; the acting is generally top drawer - except for a mother daughter scene near the beginning which simply unequivocally does not work and undermines the viewer's confidence in the movie - and I never before realised how beautiful MEM could be - but maybe anyone dressed in threads like that would look as good.
You'll enjoy it, you'll regard it as adequate entertainment, but if you're looking for excitement or a better overall premise, you'll be disappointed.
The flaw seems to be thinking that the marriage of these two 'sub-plots' can work. And for a courtroom drama there is precious little courtroom time, and what is there jumps about a bit too much.
The cast are great; the acting is generally top drawer - except for a mother daughter scene near the beginning which simply unequivocally does not work and undermines the viewer's confidence in the movie - and I never before realised how beautiful MEM could be - but maybe anyone dressed in threads like that would look as good.
You'll enjoy it, you'll regard it as adequate entertainment, but if you're looking for excitement or a better overall premise, you'll be disappointed.
क्या आपको पता है
- ट्रिवियाThe movie's screenplay was in development for around five years and went through a reported twenty-five drafts of the script.
- गूफ़When Maggie drives to the countryside to first meet Dr. Pavel, her Alfa Romeo Spider has a front license plate (asymmetrically applied as is customary with Alfas). Later when she drives through San Francisco, the car has no front license plate.
- भाव
Jedediah Tucker Ward: By the way, you so much as look at my daughter, they won't be able to identify you with dental records.
टॉप पसंद
रेटिंग देने के लिए साइन-इन करें और वैयक्तिकृत सुझावों के लिए वॉचलिस्ट करें
- How long is Class Action?Alexa द्वारा संचालित
विवरण
- रिलीज़ की तारीख़
- कंट्री ऑफ़ ओरिजिन
- भाषा
- इस रूप में भी जाना जाता है
- Class Action
- फ़िल्माने की जगहें
- उत्पादन कंपनियां
- IMDbPro पर और कंपनी क्रेडिट देखें
बॉक्स ऑफ़िस
- US और कनाडा में सकल
- $2,42,77,858
- US और कनाडा में पहले सप्ताह में कुल कमाई
- $42,07,923
- 17 मार्च 1991
- दुनिया भर में सकल
- $2,82,77,918
- चलने की अवधि
- 1 घं 50 मि(110 min)
- रंग
- पक्ष अनुपात
- 1.85 : 1
इस पेज में योगदान दें
किसी बदलाव का सुझाव दें या अनुपलब्ध कॉन्टेंट जोड़ें