Recensioni degli utenti

I have seen this movie numerous times and it has become one of my favourites.

Rebecca DeMornay gives a convincing portrayal of slick Chicago Lawyer Jennifer Haines, who is looking to "feel her oats" as she puts it by taking on the toughest cases she can find. Enter the completely psychotic David Greenhill played extremely smoothly and surprisingly convincingly by Don Johnson.

He is a compulsive womaniser and has lived off of women most of his life. He is cold calculating but also incredibly charming and attractive to women. He is accused of throwing his wife from an 18 storey window and makes a good case for his own innocence. DeMornay though initially reluctant eventually decides to take on his case and here begins a nerve shredding game of Cat and Mouse that will ultimately end badly for one of them.

I really enjoyed the photography and the top drawer performances from the two leads, in particular Don Johnson who totally surprised me in his ability to portray a truly psychotic individual.

Stephen Lang's role as DeMornay's boyfriend is small and ultimately inconsequential in the film, Jack Warden's part is also fairly small but he does okay as an investigative aide to DeMornay. Ultimately though your eyes will be firmly glued on the two leads, to see how this plays out.

The ending although a little unbelievable does not detract much from the film which for me is worth 7/10

In Chicago, after winning another important case, the prominent lawyer Jennifer "Jenny" Haines (Rebecca De Mornay) is approached by the cynical David Edgar Greenhill (Don Johnson), who is accused of murdering his wife. Greenhill is an arrogant self-confident womanizer that explores wealthy women and Jenny declines the case. However she finds Greenhill an intriguing blunt man and she decides to accept the challenge of defending him in court seeking the promotion of the trial by the press and the chance to prove how good she is again. But soon she regrets since her friend and veteran investigator Moe Plimpton (Jack Warden) finds that Greenhill has a suspicious past with other wealthy women that died and her boyfriend Phil Garson (Stephen Lang) has problems with him. But the manipulative Greenhill creates a situation and Judge D. Tompkins (Dana Ivey) forces Jenny and her firm to defend Greenhill. Soon Greenhill confidentially discloses other murders to Jenny using the lawyer-client privilege. Trapped to a criminal, what will Jenny do?

"Guilty as Sin" is an absurd courtroom psychological thriller written by Larry Cohen and directed by Sidney Lumet. The plot is entertaining but exaggerated, and despite the evilness of the wolf Greenhill, his power of manipulation and seducing women and plotting schemes in advance are unbelievable. He is always one step ahead and the efficient but naive Jenny does not find a way out afraid of losing her bar. Hard to believe that the justice system and her law firm could not find a way out of the situations created by her client. Don Johnson has great performance and the music score is also good. My vote is six.

Title (Brazil): "Culpado Como o Pecado" ("Guilty as Sin")

The movie is pretty straghtforward when it comes to the guilt (or not) of our main character (played by Don Johnson). Since there only is a yes or no to that answer, there are not brownie points if you guessed right before the early on revelation. But you need someone with the charisma of Don Johnson to carry the movie - and a lot of other actors to assist (Rebecca De Morney being the other main character).

As far as thrillers go this lives off the screen presence of the actors and their ability to convey anything. And maybe even make you root for someone you shouldn't. You should not root for a bad guy/gal, but since this is a movie, maybe you can at least partially feel that way without being a complete and utter bad person yourself.

Having said that, the end is quite gruesome and may take some out of the movie (maybe there was even an alternate take or end to this?) ... but it is true to what would happen in a situation like that ... and a nice throwback to what ignited all this ...

Johnson plays a womaniser accused of murdering his rich wife. DeMornay is the hot shot lawyer defending him. After a while DeMornay regrets having taken him on, gets convinced of his guilt and is afraid he may have some designs for her.

Slow but interesting thriller from Lumet. Film creates a kind of cat and mouse game between the two leads that's well written and fairly suspenseful. Rebecca DeMornay is tolerable in the lead, never quite convincing as the tough no nonsense lawyer. Much more effective when she's all broken down and vulnerable. Don Johnson however excels in his part, playing a slimy bad guy (who's, by the way, totally obsessed with himself) to a tee. Pity Johnson didn't establish himself as a major player in Hollywood.

Guilty as Sin is a bit slow but it's got a good story and some genuine suspense. You could do a lot worse.

Stalking and talking seems to be what "Guilty as Sin" is all about. Don Johnson does the stalking of his lawyer, Rebecca De Mornay, and everyone in the film talks and talks. Unfortunately, the womanizing Johnson, comes across as an almost unreal villain. He assaults Stephen Lang, yet no police are ever involved. He produces a surprise witness, who's motivation for giving him an alibi for his wife's murder borders on ridiculous. The only redeeming factor about Don Johnson is that his character is so despicable, you have to hang around for the ending, simply to see him get what's due. Don't blink however because the end when it finally does come is both swift and a real stretch of reality. Watchable, but not much more. - MERK

Juicy and supsenseful courtdrama, which should deserve a bit more attention then the few reviews it has gotten on Imdb, because it is rather well made. How couldnt it have been, because the director is none other then the famous Sidney Lumet, who is well known for some other great classic courtdramas and other famous pictures.

These actors in this movie however arent exactly A-list material, but they perform their characters with reasonable credibiltiy. I really got hooked on this story about womanizer Don Johnson, who gets accused of murdering his wife for money. But nothing is what it seems in this juicy and quite suspeneful story, with lots of insidious erotic powerplay between slick Don Johnson and oozing hot Rebecca de Mornay.

Suspenseful till the very last minute. Not a masterpiece, but certainly quite enjoyable to watch.

The issue with this film for many will probably be the ending, which isn't bad by any stretch but falls short of the well done job throughout. Don Johnson is simply at the top of his game and De Mornay is captivating herself. I strongly recommend a watch for any fans of either actor. The story itself is compelling enough.

What makes Guilty Of Sin so much fun, lies in it's title. We wanna believe the bad guy, Johnson, who we believe is pretty much guilty from the start, the movie's title, a strong inference, so you really can't call it a thriller. Johnson has always been an underestimated or underrated actor in my opinion, who never grade of A list, but has given so many good performances. Only here as a sexy, slimy, smarmy, narcissistic, son of a bitch who is as the title refers, he's exceptionally good, while De Mornay, defending him, isn't too bad. She falls for him, of course, despite the fact she's already involved. She soon realizes, this is her downfall, and by now he's pretty much soon he's got her, making her shake and cringe. Soon people around her are getting hurt, and the game becomes more violent. I've never enjoyed watching Don Johnson more, than in this, it's cool finale making you wanna jump up and clap. Despite the movie being a tad dry, with a kind of slow moving story, the latter really doesn't affect the film, thanks to bad guy Johnson and all the effectively tense and truly scary moments he delivers, in his performance, where sinning never looked better.

this was one of the worst movies I've ever seen. I'm still not sure if it was serious, or just a satire. One of those movies that uses every stupid who dunnit cliché they can think of. Arrrrgh.

Don Johnson was pretty good in it actually. But otherwise it sucked. It was over 10 years ago that I saw it, but it still hurts and won't stop lingering in my brain.

The last line in the movie really sums up how stupid it is. I won't ruin it for you, should you want to tempt fate by viewing this movie. But I garantee you a *nghya* moment at the end, with a few in between. If you have nothing better to do, and you like to point and laugh, then maybe it might be worth your while. Additionally, if you're forced to go on a date with someone you really don't like, suggest watching this movie together, and they'll probably leave you alone after they see it. That's a fair price to pay, I guess.

Every few years you see a performance by an actor in something that really impresses you, where you want to watch the whole thing again just to watch him/her, where the person is so fascinating as a character, so extraordinarily in that role, that the performance just BECOMES the experience. That was true in this movie with Don Johnson - on one level alone, he was more believable as a fabulously wealthy man who'd been wildly successful on all levels throughout his life - than anyone I've ever seen.

Think of say, the great performances of say, Steve McQueen in Thomas Crown Affair, any actor who's played James Bond, any of the wonderful character actors playing wealthy men in movies like My Man Godfrey, The Philadelphia Story, Holiday, The Awful Truth, Meet John Doe, Fifth Avenue Girl, Bachelor Mother, You Can't Take it With You -- and Don Johnson is yet more believable.

Nothing's ever gone wrong for this man - and he relies on it, and he's very very smart, and very very charming, and he knows all of that - and yet somehow he IS charming nonetheless -- And you suspect from the first moment, there is something bad there.

I remember thinking when I saw Lisa Eichhorn in 1979 in Yanks, that I had seen someone who really and truly seemed that character - Don Johnson seems this character and it's a great and effortless performance and you should see it. (And if you weren't a fan of his television series, don't worry - neither was I - I never really paid attention to him - and wham, I'm now a fan!).

This guy has gotten to be a superb actor.

This is a movie with good "bones" (written by Larry Cohen and directed by Sidney Lumet) that for some reason doesn't quite make it.

Rebecca DeMornay plays Jennifer Haines, an attorney who notices a man (Don Johnson) while tying up another case. He's staring her down, so she recognizes him again when he makes the newspaper for allegedly killing his wife and then walks into her office after being told she can't see him.

His name is David Edgar Greenhill, and he wants Haines to defend her. She doesn't want to, but the court assigns her to the case over her objection. There's something about this guy that's creepy and makes her uneasy.

She's right to be uneasy. Greenhill knows all about her life and her boyfriend, and basically uses her as a pawn in his own schemes, all the while intimating that they're lovers and disrupting her relationship.

I'm going out on a limb here and guessing that this movie did not have a big budget, and that was part of the problem. It was filmed in Canada, and back in 1993 anyway that meant low-budget.

Also, while I like Rebecca DeMornay and Don Johnson okay, they're not exactly Michelle Pfeiffer and Mel Gibson, to name two stars of that era. I think better acting would have helped the movie.

Don Johnson was just too much of everything - overly oily, overly smooth speaking, overly gentlemanly, overly charming, overly dressed. Supposedly his character is a gigolo. Maybe some women are desperate enough to fall for this guy but anyone who can't see through his act is pathetic.

This movie needed a "star", an attractive man who comes off as very likable naturally, without it being put on, even someone going against type like John Travolta or Tom Hanks (this is the '90s, remember) and then it might have been more compelling.

It isn't an easy role - he has to have a threatening subtext, a look in his eyes, something, with everything about him belying it until the claws really come out.

De Mornay, on the other hand, definitely conveyed her character's tension, anxiety, and attempt to stay calm, as well as a lot of allure.

Jack Warden gives good support as an investigator who helps De Mornay.

This is a decent story, with a few things that stretch reality, but like someone said on the board, Johnson is so evil you have to watch the whole thing to see if he gets his comeuppance. A worthy attempt if just not quite right.

Don Johnson was magnificent. One got the impression that he could have done these things in real life he was that convincing. How can Rebecca Mornay have been miscast unless there was a clear example of what her character should have been like ? Clearly she was not as sharp as she thought she was so who could have been cast in her place - Angelina Jolie etc ? Her sexuality was largely lost in the role - the compulsory bedroom, or was it an office, scene largely wasted her naked charms but no doubt there is an special cut somewhere ? And certainly her boyfriend could have looked a bit more of a high flier and up to the job of satisfying her. I never quite worked out why Don Johnson kicked the c##p out of him. But then regrettably I missed the denouement as my LP recording as I went to be well after midnight failed to track leaving me with only a usable soundtrack. But I presume that the gigolo had to die as there really wasn't anyway else for him to leave the stage.

I thoroughly enjoyed "Guilty as Sin" but had to scroll up twice to remember the title so perhaps it wasn't representative ? "Gigolo without a Soul" might have given too much away ? "Pack em, rack em and dispatch em" might have been too crude ? "So Don Johnson can really act" might have been too Patronising ? "Too seductive for his own good" is off a critic' note pad ? Watch it the next time it is on TV and it is well worth your time to do so.

This movie no good, grammar defies it. I mean it's not terrible, but it sucks to watch this movie. I feel like Rebecca DeMornay has been shamefully misused by the film industry, most women in film have been shamefully misused, but with Rebecca DeMornay in her eyes you can see that she knows it, she knows she got screwed. OK movie tries to be steamy erotic thriller but never actually commits- movie tries to be suspenseful but instead is only slow and jerky. No one is offensive with their acting, the directing is passable, cinematography is quality work as is editing, professional grade production value, story sucks is all, story is crap. A lifeless bloodless narrative that fails primarily for lack of characters- oh its got characters, but they are nothing people who feel nothing and go nowhere and never ask why. Needs more tittie and a car chase?

Looks like a TV-movie. Slow. Drab. Then becomes quite violent and is clearly not in TV-movie land anymore. Rebecca could have done much more with this. And the director should have avoided that boring feel that pervades the movie especially at the beginning. And that cheap way of starting the opening sequence, hell, what were they thinking? A computerized dummy tumbling down that takes forever sort of sums up the essence of the whole thing.

By 1993 standards, very weak. Must be meant as an old-style thriller, but fails to deliver on its potential. Don's line re why he didn't use gloves, "it would have felt like f*cking her with a rubber" is the climax of the movie, and stabs at the wasted opportunity, as this could clearly have been truly suspenseful if they maintained such high evil standards. Instead of just low evil standards.

By focusing more on character development rather than on the "whodunit" aspects of the plot, this courtroom thriller manages to hold your interest and rise somewhat above the average level of the genre in the 90s. Don Johnson is ideally cast as the manipulative, quietly menacing possible killer. Unfortunately, the film never becomes as thrilling as it should have been, due to Lumet's static, unexciting direction. (**)

I saw this film last night, and was surprised by it. I was very well written, directed and acted, yet no had put any comments about it on here, and it only scored a 5.6 user rating.

Well, I'd just like to say that I thoroughly enjoyed it. It was a clever tense thriller, that wasn't a million miles away from Fatal Attraction with the roles reversed.

The two leading roles were brilliant (Don Jonson genuinely scary). In short, it was certainly a tense thriller that I'd recommend people to see, if only once.

It isn't the best film ever (it came from the writer of Maniac Cop 2 & 3) but it was neatly handled (it WAS directed by Sidney Lumet!).

Check it out.

Did I love the Sidney Lumet film Guilty as Sin? No. Did I enjoy it? You bet. Compared to Lumet's previous films like 12 Angry Men or The Verdict, it's weak, but as entertainment it works. Lumet is always making us question the nature of his characters, are they good or evil? Are they guilty? There's no denying that Lumet is a master of creating questions and letting us slowly receive the answers. The acting is serviceable, Johnson is good as a woman-killing madman, DiMurray makes the grade as a lawyer that loves the smell of victory. Is the dialouge masterful? No. Just like the whole film, it just makes the grade; no more, no less. Yet when you contrast this film with other killer-oriented films, it's honorable.

I distinctly remember going to see this in the cinema with a group of friends. I did not want to watch this as I knew it had got bad reviews but they won the vote so I had to go with them.

I also remember leaving the cinema after it ended almost in tears having realised that Sidney Lumet was reduced to directing this garbage. If I had a mobile phone in those days I would had probably called the Samaritans in the middle of the film.

Rebecca De Mornay plays a hot shot, win at all costs criminal defence lawyer who likes to win even for the most unlikeable and presumably guilty clients.

Don Johnson is the latest slimy client who wants her to defend him for killing his rich wife. Johnson is a ladies man with an unsavoury past and De Mornay doubts him and may have put herself in danger.

The film is rubbish. Lumet must have gone to Las Vegas and lost big in the casinos or a family member was ill and he needed to pay huge medical bills and therefore he needed money very badly. This is one of the best directors not to have won a Directing Oscar and you can never get over the realisation that a great talent is behind this film.

This movie is badly written, badly acted, badly made. Its actually tortuous viewing.

There's a big laugh in the middle of this contrived psychological thriller. I won't give it away, because it's easily the best moment in the film. It's the scene in a bar with Don Johnson, and it sketches in his character more brilliantly than anything before or after. You'll know it when you see it.

Well, if you see it. If the script had displayed that kind of wit throughout, this movie would be a must-see. As it is, there is too little that makes it memorable and too much that makes it hard to suspend disbelief.

Rebecca De Mornay plays a flashy criminal defense attorney who does her job with spectacular cunning – even for the most unsavory defendants. But her newest client (Don Johnson) is not just unsavory. He could be dangerous enough to kill her.

The first thing you'll notice is Howard Shore's excellent score during the title sequence. It's silky and sinister and immediately draws you in (despite the tacky-looking computer graphic that accompanies it). Next, the film looks really good. Sidney Lumet – who also gave us "Twelve Angry Men," "The Verdict" and many other terrific movies – knows how to direct a good courtroom thriller. And what a courtroom. The photographer, Andrzej Bartkowiak, makes the most of this spacious green-marble set.

An early scene is promising. Don Johnson glides into De Mornay's office and asks her to take his case, brazenly confessing that he's a womanizer and a gigolo – yet innocent of throwing his wife out of a skyscraper window. She refuses at first, but Johnson's boyish egotism is too hypnotically fascinating.

But later, both actors falter. De Mornay makes several bad choices in her performance, playing too many scenes like a frightened rabbit. Johnson has a scene in his apartment, where he makes a sandwich with a long kitchen knife that he winds up waving in De Mornay's face. His character loses control, but so does the actor. Johnson looks and sounds ridiculous.

But the main problem is the script from schlock-horror director Larry Cohen. First, there's Jack Warden's character, a father figure to De Mornay, who comes off as purely functional. He's there to do things De Mornay's character cannot, and we don't give a damn about him, not even when he winds up in danger.

Second, De Mornay ends up framing her own client, an enormously risky endeavor that could easily destroy her career and even send her to prison. Why? Presumably to protect herself and other women from Johnson. But the movie fails to convince us she has no saner options.

Third, there's the woman who becomes a last-minute witness for the defense. I won't give away too much, but her motivation for doing what she does is totally inscrutable.

Lastly, there's the gruesome climax. It plays ludicrously, though De Mornay is allowed one last, good moment. Her hysteria at the peak of her ordeal is touchingly real. Otherwise, the whole thing feels forced and phony.

So does the movie.