Genres

Visitors Review

Chris Brown 2012-05-25 05:47:09

See what happens when one gets money-hungry and greedy...

A Civil Action is the true story of Jan Schlichtmann, a personal injurylawyer out of Boston. He was a pompous, money hungry man whohappened upon a case that he thought would change his life. And it did,justnot in the way he expected.Children in Woburn have been dying of leukemia. The consensus opinion isthat factories have been polluting the river, which is causing the wellwater to become contaminated. At first Schlichtmann doesn't want to takethecase. But when he finds out that two large companies with deep pockets maybe involved, he sees dollar signs in his eyes. But things don't go the wayhe planned. Eventually he and his partners end up penny-less and he ends upbankrupt. The parents of the dead children didn't want money, they justwanted an apology, something they never end up getting. But in some ways,things end up for the better. Or do they?It's hard to fault a movie for creating bad or annoying characters, whenthecharacters are based on real people. From the moment he stepped onto thescreen, I didn't like Schlichtmann. I didn't like his attitude or what hestood for. It doesn't help that Travolta just naturally has a pompous "I'mbetter than you" look on his face. I didn't like Robert Duvall as theopposing lawyer. I didn't like John Lithgow's portrayal of the judge. But Irealized after a while that I wasn't really supposed to. This is whathappens in real life. This wasn't a typical Hollywood courtroom drama whereall of a sudden a witness cracks on the stand and everyone goes home happy.Schlichtmann went for the gold and ended up with almost nothing. He sayshe'd do it all over again, but I'm not sure if he would. If he knew thathe'd end up bankrupt, I don't think he'd end up doing it all over again. Hewas a money hungry, no morals kind of lawyer. The only reason he took thecase was for the money. Even by the end of the film I didn't believe thathehad a moral turnaround (although the postscript said that he became anenvironmental lawyer).If I had to find fault with part of the movie, it was the fact that wenevergot to know anyone else in the film. I realize that the story was to beabout Schlichtmann, but I think it would have helped to get to know otherpeople. There was only one scene where we got to hear the story of thechildren's parents. We never got to know the other lawyers in the firm. Fora court case that was centered on dead children, we only got to see onelawyer. I thought the movie could have been a lot better had we gotten toknow more of the story surrounding the case, rather than just one man'sviewof what happened.Overall A Civil Action was an interesting story, but one that wasn'tcaptivating. The performances were almost non-existent only because JohnTravolta was front and center the entire time. As far as being a courtroomdrama, most of the action took place outside of the courtroom. For all thetalk, I thought it would be better.

anonymous 2012-05-24 16:19:14

awful

Reviewers keep complimenting this movie for its "unconventional story," as ifcredit is due to the filmmakers for the true story on which it's based. Infact, standard movie cliches are used to tell the story. Wait, Travolta'staking a sip from the symbolic glass of water, and shock of shocks, he hasan epiphany about the case! Of course, you can also count on the lawyerprotagonist trashing his office during moment of despair.The real problem with the movie, though, is that every character isone-dimensional. Most parts are woefully underwritten, and Travolta'scharacters' motivations and changes are unbelievable.There are so many better legal thrillers. Don't waste your time onthis.

Sean Finnigan 2012-05-23 18:55:49

good courtroom drama

Jan Schlichtmann is just a normal accident lawyer who cares more aboutmaking money then anything else. This begins to change when he takes on acase involving 8 children who died of leukemia. The families want anapologyfor what two may have done to their children. Jan will not accept asettlement and the case goes to court. The scenes where James Gordon istrying to get money were quite funny. The performances were good, themoviegoes to slow in couple of parts but otherwise it was a compellingcourtroomdrama. Based on a true story.

2012-05-23 10:18:14

Solid Flick with very pertinent material despite its age.

As a former resident of the Greater Boston area this was a film that evoked memories on a number of levels. The investigations of cancer clusters and their relationship to EPA Super Fund Sites is still something that should be coordinated. Moving film with solid performances.The follow up to the story is perhaps more hopeful. The sites have been cleaned and are being utilized! Despite the irepairable damage done to these families America can heal itself via the tenacious actions of its citizen/victims and the scar tissue shoud be a reminder as to the dangerous and destructive nature of unmonitored business interests.

fox-23 2012-05-17 15:09:41

The slowest movie from John Travolta

This has been one of the slowest films I have seen which starred JohnTravolta.The way the story is treated is almost like a documentary, and the end ofthe picture its not worth the money you are paying to watch thismovie.Since it is a true history they should never have thought about bringing thisstory to the movies.This picture was really a disappointment.

mark-thomson 2012-05-16 22:44:29

Very enjoyable drama

I watched this movie last night, and enjoyed it very much. Travolta wasvery good, and Robert Duvall was simply outstanding. The interplaybetween the two of these guys is where the drama in the movie lies.Even though the underlying human drama of the residents of Woburn mayhave been the most important element of the real life story, here it isjust a backdrop for the "war" between the lawyers.My favorite scenes are (i) the hotel meeting where Travolta makes hissettlement demand while Duvall is admiring the fruit and thecomplimentary pen and quietly pocketing a bread roll, and (ii) theexchange between them outside the courtroom waiting for the initialjury verdict, when Duvall offers $20M.One scene I didn't enjoy so much (only from the point of view of reallywanting Travolta's character to succeed) was where Travolta meets withcompany boss Al Eustis, played by Sydney Pollack. Eustis really playswith him, making him put his feet up on the furniture. The fact that hewent along with that showed how intimidated he was by this stage, inconstrast to his earlier bravado.I thought the ending of the movie was a little soft. I know this isbased on a true story, so we shouldn't expect a wildly triumphalending. And the initial settlement added to the drama, knowing thatthere was still another 15 minutes or so of viewing left. However, whatdisappointed me a little was that we never got to find out how the EPApicked up the case after Travolta had to pass it up. It raises thequestion of why they weren't involved in the first place. There maywell be good reasons, but after all of the tension in Travolta's firmtrying to survive the case on their own, to me this was a bit of ananti-climax.

2012-05-14 00:15:31

Travolta's best film yet

I think this is one of the best films I have seen.John Travolta was so good in it just as good as pulp fiction. If not the best movie he has done.The movie was great if not buy at least rent it.

anonymous 2012-05-13 02:00:53

the most boring, dragged out movie i've seen this year.

what a boring flick! no drama, no intense court scenes, no nothing!!! ifyou like travolta and must see his movies, rent this one, don't waste your$$ at the theatre.

2012-05-06 18:44:34

Even John Travolta can save this film

I was going to see this movie hoping to see a well acted courtroomthriller that kept the me guessing to the end. I was disappointed to say theleast. Instead, I saw a sub par movie which mostly talked about how JohnTravolta and his defense team would finance the case. I would like to haveseen more of the courtroom battles between John Travolta and Robert Duvalland be focused more on the actual case rather than financing thecase.Frankly, the only decent performances came from William H. Macy, TonyShalhoub, and Kathleen Quinlan. Robert Duvall's performance is nothing tospeak of because he didn't make a significant enough impact in my mind. Anyactor could have done what Robert Duvall did. I rate this movie a 3.......out of 10.

2012-05-06 09:25:00

Good for use in Class

This is an interesting and educational movie, and is a good portrayal of what happens to human health when environmental regulations are non-existent or not enforced. I use this in my classes, but also enjoy the film from a recreational standpoint. It's worth a look!

aberlour36 2012-05-05 08:32:06

A bomb

Travolta almost single-handedly kills this lame film. He looks like JerryLewis and sounds like Wayne Newton. He must have a total of three facialexpressions and is never seen except in a dark suit. But the script isn'tmuch better. Good vrs. evil: selfless trial lawyers (that's a joke initself) fighting against greedy and vicious corporations (take that,capitalism). The funniest part of the film is the portrayal of CornellUniversity as a boondock, somehow anti-establishment institution. Peoplewho go to Harvard are villains. Ho hum.

2012-05-04 13:12:59

It was okay

I found some parts unrealistic. Overall, it was a satisfying enough rental.

Nocgirl72 2012-05-02 05:10:52

Boring!!! This movie sucks!!!!

I was reading the comments about this movie and noticed that somebody (whois obviously on some serious drugs) commented that this movie was alotbetter than Erin Brockovich. WRONG. Erin Brockovich won an academy award fora reason and this movie won NOTHING because it doesnt deserve anything. ErinBrockovich was FUNNY and CREATIVE and had GREAT acting. This was one of themost boring, uneventful, lackluster movies I have ever seen in a theatre. Ihad a really hard time staying awake. So what if this was a lawsuit whocares the story of it was told very poorly. There is not one even remotelyinteresting scene in this movie. The script was dull and bland. Skip thisone. 3/10.

michael e 2012-05-01 13:09:50

A good underdog story "in the courtroom."

Another movie about major business damaging the environment, while the citizens pay for it through sickness and death. John Travolta plays a lawyer in a small firm of three lawyers who take on two major companies seeking monetary damages and ownership of the problem. Robert Duvall is on the defense. Robert plays a old time work ethic simpleton. Very sly, but realistic. I didn't care for the ending. Yet, it is based on a true story, so the ending could not be changed. Darn good movie.

richard cohen 2012-04-29 00:10:10

Dreary

A totally slow and dark movie without any suspense. I was hoping throughoutthe film that someone would turn on a light. The use of available light isokay if the action is outdoors but indoors people usually have the lightson. I wish directors and cinematographers would realize that we filmgoersare voyeurs and we would like to see what's on the screen. Spielberg lightsup his movies and thus, one measure of his success. Watching this movie,while looking at my watch every 15 minutes, left me with the feeling that Ididn't care who won.

Jake Cox 2012-04-28 11:29:35

Great story, but poor acting

This film could have been great....instead, it's mearly ok. Why? Choice ofactors. John Travolta is a great actor, but his portrayal of this lawyersimply struck me as typecasting. The same could be said of Robert Duvall ofhis role, only worse. The only outstanding role in this film is William H.Macy (of FARGO fame) as one of Travlota's partners. His performance keptthe movie watchable, and believeable as well. I know that it is based on atrue story, but a better choice of actors would have really made the storycome to life.

Ruthie-8 2012-04-26 16:04:09

A good story, but no oomph.

John Travolta - an effortless performance, as usual.Robert Duvall - This man is superb in everything, and once again does notdisappoint.Supporting cast - all excellent.Plot - Full of potential, meaty, with a good progression, and a frank,satisfying ending.So why do I only give it a 6 out of 10? To be honest, I don't exactly know.As the credits rolled I asked myself why I wasn't wearing a satisfied smile,happy that I had paid to watch it. Well, I wasn't unhappy or disappointed,but the truth is "it don't mean a thing if it ain't got that swing". It hadno oomph. By this I don't mean glitzy, expensive special effects anddramatic action. I don't know what it lacked. But whatever it was that wasmissing stopped this film from being a lot better than itwas.

ABechtel 2012-04-25 23:16:24

a fizzle

The primary problem with the film is the casting of Travolta as JanSchlictmann -- he can't pull off the character's transition from sleazebagto hero. The script heightens the good (the families in Woburn) vs. theevil(the heartless corporations) at the expense of credibility.Read the book instead.

2012-04-22 23:29:26

ONE OF THE BEST MOVIES IV EVER SEEN !!!

John Travolta gives an award winning performance in this movie. Its about everything thats wrong with our justice system. Its about a man who has everything but will risk it all for the sake of what he comes to think is right. Iv seen alot of John Travoltas' movies and this is by far one of my favorites. Its a great movie and I would recommend to anybody !!!

Adam Capitanio 2012-04-22 08:53:28

Been there, done that

Zaillian's A Civil Action fails to elicit any response from its viewersbecause they've seen it before. Whether they view it as "The Verdict 2" ora reversal of the story that John Grisham has told us a dozen times, thefact remains the same. The only thing that saves A Civil Action fromcinematic oblivion is Zaillian's startlingly bleak and monchromaticcinematography and a pair of wonderful performances from Bill Macy andRobert Duvall.