Assassinato em Primeiro Grau

I had not heard of his movie before. I caught it in mid-broadcast on cable, while channel surfing, eleven years after its release, and after the first few moments, decided to watch it to the end. It is now one of my favorites, right up there with "To Kill a Mockingbird." This film succeeds both as star turns and as an ensemble piece. But more importantly it succeeds in portraying American society in the 1930s as a whole, and involving the audience emotionally in both the the greater social issues as well as the smaller, more tender, personal issues. Despite its sensitivity, it is far from a chick flick. Despite it's theme of violence, it is far from a macho action flick. It is a courtroom thriller based on real events, and it is worth watching more than once.

The script writing and direction are calculated to be moving, and they succeed. Every actor in the film, every detail of the art direction, every camera angle plays on your heart and sense of moral indignation. To do so successfully, as I think this movie does, is the definition and purpose of art.

Kevin Bacon shows the most range in his film that I have ever seen from him. His physical performance was very demanding, his character work even finer. His chemistry with each actor in every scene is both bold and subtle, raw and complex. He reminds me of DeNiro's performance in the "Cape Fear" remake.

Christian Slater's character provides the viewer's point of view in the film, and he plays with great emotion and passion, and yet with a touch of reserve and detachment. I am strongly reminded of Kevin Costner's performance in "The Untouchables." Needless to say, Gary Oldman is a master at his craft, and always amazing to watch. Every character Oldman plays is memorable, and the antithesis of type-casting. His portrayal of the warden in this film is a brilliant balance of a socially acceptable monster.

This movie has received a lot of criticism for portraying historical facts inaccurately, and for taking sides in a political debate. I would remind the open-minded viewer that "To Kill A Mockingbird" also took great liberties with the facts of the historic court case on which it was based (there were six accused rapists, not one; the person on whom Atticus Finch was based was in reality the judge and not the defense attorney, etc.) and emphatically took sides in the even more hotly contested political debate over racial discrimination in America. Both films were based on real life, but neither claimed to be a documentary. Whether you resent historical tampering and political statements for dramatic impact is something only you can decide for yourself. Personally, I support both "To Kill A Mockingbird" and "Murder in the First" as films whose merits outweigh their flaws.

In short, this movie is worthy of your time, and will reward you, whether you want entertainment thrills, a good popcorn movie, a morally inspiring story or the appreciation of a well-crafted piece of work. It falls a little short of "The Shawshank Redemption," but not far. Despite what this or any other review says, start this movie without any preconceived notions, and just go along for the ride. I think you will be surprised, happy and satisfied.

This movie didn't do well, in fact drove a talented filmmaker away from directing.

Its because it has powerful characters and powerful actors that viewers snap to one of the six viewing modes they have and read it as a "character-driven" drama. Others were upset that the story deviates from real events rather drastically.

My own view is that this is one of the very few films we have that features a building as a character. This is a traditional trial form, where conflicting and synthesized realities are understood to exist by ordinary viewers. Usually this form is used to support battling stories, or versions of reality. Powerful characters can exist ("Mockingbird," "Few Good Men"), but they are there only as representatives of conflicting realities.

What makes this so interesting is that it is the building itself that is on trial. This is exploited by Rocco to an extraordinary extent. Fincher tried to take this notion to the next level in "Panic Room," but got fired. Too bad, because it is a cinematic thrill of sorts to see someone try to present a space as a character.

Sure, it is unusual and many viewers thought the man was going crazy with his odd camera angels, his swoops, his unusual blocking. But I ask you to watch this and see how the prison is introduced to us, and the supposed core, its antebellum dungeons. Then see the contrasting "open" space of the courtroom where it is to be tried. Slater's opening statement is an amazing exploration of space with one multi-encircling movement.

Ted's Evaluation -- 3 of 3: Worth watching.

As Wayne would have it---"DENIED!!"

how this film escaped the attention of Oscar and Globe voters is one of the great Hollywood mysteries of our time...if Bacon ain't Oscar meat here, i don't know what is...an absolutely brilliant performance in the kind of role the voters usually jump all over at ballot time...ya really gotta wonder...

conspiracy theories aside, this is one helluva flick...besides our pal Kevin, there's outstanding work from Christian Slater, Gary Oldman, and everybody's favorite drill sergeant, Lee Ermey...Moe Greene's kid, Marc Rocco, gets a great period feeling economically...solid work by the wardrobe and make-up units...this film deserved a much better fate at the box office and at awards season in '96...if you haven't seen this one yet, you're missing a real gem...

Having caught up again with this film on t.v., I can only support all other commentators who have observed how utterly ridiculous is the American Academy Award system for not having even nominated the utterly brilliant performance by Kevin Bacon in this film for the best actor award, let alone in not giving him the damned thing! I am always impressed by whatever Kevin Bacon does, and am constantly surprised that he is one of those stars who always seems to creep under the public's radar of appreciation and awareness. As to the comments about the film not exactly being the "true" story of Henri Young, there again it always come down to the precise meaning and interpretation of a film's initial caveat of "inspired by a true story". Certainly, the film will have me searching the internet for more of the "true" facts of this harrowing story. And whether exactly the film was totally "true" or not, as any visitor to Alcatraz (as I have been myself) can tell you, just imagine yourself in any part of that prison in its heyday and say whether any filmic representation needs to be totally 100% accurate to convey the horrendous nature of what it must have been like there. Returning to the antics of the members of the U.S. Academy Award, their failures over this Kevin Bacon performance remind me of the time they robbed Cate Blanchett for her out of this world outstanding performance in "Elizabeth" in favour of that whimpering blonde piece of fluffy air Gwyneth Paltrow for the paltry "Shakespeare in Love".

This was a very entertaining film about the horrible treatment of a certain prisoner at Alcatraz named Henri Young who robbed a store for five dollars ($5.00) and was sent to prison. Henri Young was played by Kevin Bacon who did a fantastic job of acting and captured your attention through out the film. There were many scenes filmed on the Island of Alcatraz and some old time footage of the first time Warden of Alcatraz, James R. Johnston. Christian Slater, (James Stamphill) was the lawyer assigned for Henri Young's defense, who had a hard job trying to rehabilitate his client so he could stand trial and even speak a few words. Young was in such bad shape mentally from being put into the solitary confinement for three (3) years, he was like an animal instead of a human being. This Hollywood version is not all completely true about Henri Young, he really had a long history of crime and mental problems. However, this film is very entertaining and Kevin Bacon put his heart and soul into this role. Enjoy.