Recensioni degli utenti

I've seen quite a few episodes of the original Perry Mason series, but this was my first Perry Mason movie. So I don't have any others to compare it with.

I enjoyed it. I liked the cast and although the writing was not inspiring, just adequate, it was a fun story. And it kind of predicted the future. Just do a Google search of Alec Baldwin and you'll see what I mean. There was a tragic accident involving Baldwin, a "dummy" gun, and a young woman who was killed. Heartbreaking.

But back to our movie. It takes place in the world of show business. I'm not going to go into the plot because I don't like reviews that do that and there are numerous other ways to get the plot if you really want it.

So I'll quickly wrap this up and say that it was fun to watch.

An actor rigs a fake on-air shooting with the connivance of his friend, the show's host, but the practical joke goes horribly wrong when the gun, which he'd loaded with blanks, turns out to contain a live round.

A good idea, though a little farfetched, but it's fun mainly due to the film sets, the world of making films - oddly, the firing blanks subject has been in the news recently due to an incident on the film-set. The ending was a bit unpredictable- the suspects are quite good, especially Ron Glass who acts as a possessive manager of an actress. Joe Penny is good as the suspect. The courtroom buildup isn't as strong as in the other entries.

When movie star Joe Penny stalks onto the stage of talk-show host Alan Thicke and, in front of forty million people, shoots him dead, can even Perry Mason make the real killer confess on the stand? We all know, of course, that Penny didn't do it, since he hired Perry Mason.

Unhappily, this entry in the TV movie series starring Raymond Burr is not a topnotch one. Despite the many familiar faces in the cast, the comedy-danger routines by William Katt as Mason's investigator are weak, the clues that reveal the killer are revealed just before the denouement, and Toronto standing in for New York by placing a lopsided green street sign on a corner is very unconvincing.

Those issues aside, it's always a pleasure to see Raymond Burr in his signature role.

As part of a comic prank on a live TV show, Robert McCay takes a gun loaded with blanks and pretends to shoot his friend and host Steve Carr. However the gun is loaded and McCay kills Carr. Mason agrees to defend McCay as he claims someone else loaded the gun. Meanwhile Paul Drake tries to track down the film shot on the set of McCay's movie that may show who loaded the gun with live shells.

When you've seen one Perry Mason film then you've pretty much seen all of them. Seemingly open and shut case is contested by Perry Mason. Drake chases the key piece of evidence (often with a sidekick) providing comedy and action while Mason does the courtroom shocks. It all ends with twist that you couldn't guess unless by luck. If you like them then this will just about hold you as it is about average fore the series. The plot is OK but if you start to look closely at it, it is so full of holes it could be called a sieve. The twist at the end is out of the blue but just feels silly in the setting of a courtroom (I mean – where has the judge gone during the two `private chats').

The cast hold their roles well. Burr is only doing his thrid Mason movie of the period and feels fresh and enthusiastic. Katt is OK and some of his stuff is amusing – his ususal side kick is poor though. The best part of the cast is Stiers who I always felt was one of the more capable actors to play Mason's opposite number on the prosecution team.

Overall this is the rule – if you like a Mason film then you'll like them all. This is true here, all the formula is in full effect and only a weaker than usual plot means it feels like it is slightly below the average for the series.

Perry Mason (speaking to a group of prospective college alumni donors): "There was a trial once in which the artist Whistler sued a man for liable about remarks he made concerning the fees Whistler charged for his paintings. 'Can you tell me,' the opposing lawyer asked, 'how long it took to complete your painting?' Whistler replied, 'two days.' 'And you expect 200 guineas for your two days work?' 'No, I expect it for the knowledge of a lifetime.'"