Intention criminelle

This film was inspired by a real life event. It is a workmanlike but solid courtroom thriller starring Timothy Hutton and Ron Rifkin.

In 1993 an intruder broke into a house shot and killed a woman, nurse and then disconnected the woman's handicapped son's breathing apparatus.

The prime suspect was out of work music producer and the divorced father Lawrence Horn (James McDaniel) who was accused of hiring a novice hit man to carry out the crime so he can gain money from his son's trust fund.

Timothy Hutton plays a free speech lawyer enticed by Rifkin to bring a case against the publisher of the book Hit Man, which was used as a blueprint by the hired gun to plan and carry out the crime. There was also the motive that the publisher Paladin press had the financial deep pockets to pay compensation.

This case makes an interesting debate on the US first amendment rights but since this film was made I felt real life events have overtaken it.

Since 9/11 people can be prosecuted and thrown into jail for downloading documents that can aid you prepare to carry out mass violent crimes. Since the publisher had to pulp existing copies of the books and in effect give up copyright of the book, even Hit Man is down-loadable online.

It kind of feels like a Pyrrhic victory and made the film out of date.

This movie is based on a true story. I just finished watching an episode of The New Detectives on the Discovery Channel about a triple homicide in Maryland. Near the end of the program, they showed a canceled check marked NSF made out to Palladin Press and then they showed the actual book, Hit Man, and it was the same book from this movie. The episode made brief mention of the court case and briefly showed the headline of the outcome of the case. I knew I'd recently seen a fictional program about this and I racked my brain until I came up with this movie. The movie coupled with The New Detectives episode give the complete story of a brutal and senseless occurrence.

The concept was good and initially this seemed to fit the typical court case film. But it was cut too short, and the family's decision at the end of the film left me with a very sour taste in my mouth. Didn't they get enough money! Wasn't this about more than money? So when u reach the end you'll notice that the story does not deserve to be on film because it is a pre-mature ejaculation!

After catching this flick on late night cable, I did not expect much at all. I was not mistaken. The film raises some interesting questions on free speech and the US first amendment as it follows the story of a lawyer suing a publisher, whose book is responsible for a triple murder. This is an interesting topic to look at in a film and makes you think about books, films and songs and how they can influence weak-minded individuals, and have done in the past. John Hinckley Jr. and "Taxi Driver" is one that springs to mind. However the actual delivering of this message suffers due to the plot. The director does not seem to be sure whether he wants to concentrate on the murders the court case or the main characters divorce and is the worse for it. It jumps around too much, has no character development and is decidedly flat. Good idea but could have been better.

Yesterday I was traveling and heard an interview with a gentleman regarding this case on one of the FM NPR stations. I did not know any of the details so it took me a few minutes of searching (until I arrived at IMDb.) Anyway, it was an excellent interview and the interview story focused on the legal issues rather than the sensational crime. Which is unusual in this day and time. Bingo this morning, I was surfing on TV and this movie was just starting. Excellent timing, just as so many are afraid to assert or actually learn our 1st Amendment rights, or the interpretation of those rights by the courts. Just odd that's all. It is an excellent movie and still relative although it is 11 years old! What with current events perhaps there should be a remake of this movie instead of "Footloose"