GurlyIamBeach Instant Favorite.

Platicsco Good story, Not enough for a whole film

Huievest Instead, you get a movie that's enjoyable enough, but leaves you feeling like it could have been much, much more.

Mischa Redfern I didn’t really have many expectations going into the movie (good or bad), but I actually really enjoyed it. I really liked the characters and the banter between them.

Prismark10 This is an adaptation of a play by David Mamet which he also directs. Unusually it does not feature con artists, a favourite area that Mamet likes to re-visit.The film where a family wants to clear the name of their almost 14 year old boy who has been dismissed from the naval academy for stealing a postal order is all about performances, there is very little visual trickery but good use id made of sets, lighting, music and direction. The actors are very much at the fore of the performance with Jeremy Northam as the Barrister delivering the goods as someone who believes in the boy's innocence but seems distant and uninvolved. In some cases he got the role of the barrister in the pre World War 2 era very much spot on. Its all about the law and proving your case.Nigel Hawthorne does well as the father of the family who might be on the edge of financial ruin as he fights to clear his son's name. It might be viewed the Hawthorne would be too old to play a father of a 14 year old lad although his other children are older.Rebecca Pidgeon who in other roles comes across as uninspired especially when she plays tough Americans is more comfortable here as the radical sister of the accused who also suffers loss as her engagement is broken because of the fight to clear her brother's name.Its a brave undertaking to adapt a Rattigan play on the screen and Mamet has done very well in making the film watchable and highlighting the mores of the time.

jc-osms A drawing room, period, study of manners, domestic drama, if you will... The drama is ittedly light, centring on the impact of a teenage son's expulsion from naval college and the truth or otherwise of this occurrence. Strangely enough, you never get to learn whether the boy was actually guilty or not of his "crime" - although he gets off, it's never fully resolved and could be attributed to the superior advocacy of his attorney - sadly still a predilection in modern society. However the dramatic content could have been increased with some kind of courtroom climax, or confession, but now I'm arguing with the original play, hardly the fault of David Mamet or his actors. The Edwardian, pre War "golden - era" is nicely evoked with the big house, coterie of servants and upper - class manners of the family, although contemporary influences such as suffragetism (strongly) and the approaching war (mildly) are referred to. I'm not sure Mamet properly and fully brought home the "sensational" aspect of the Winslow case on the British public, even as I appreciated his subtlety in demonstrating this via newspaper hoardings, contemporary cartoons and the like. He does however marshall his acting troupe well. Nigel Hawthorne shines as the patriarch who sacrifices the wants and needs of his wider family for the sake of clearing his son's name. I didn't get the impression that it was the family name he was defending and genuinely believe it was for his youngest son's future which concerned him, which is as it should be. I'm not quite sure however that Hawthorne seems just too old to have fathered the boy. The rest of the cast play very well although some of their roles seem stereotypical and perhaps more could have been made of the interfamily tensions...but again that takes us back to Rattigan's source material. Mamet this time, quite rightly eschews all opportunity to contemporise the play and his cinematic devices are subtly reined in, no overlapping dialogue or sharp cross-cutting here. I liked the utilisation of the swinging garden gate at the start of the film, letting in the "bad" from outside, which recalled to mind J.B. Priestley's "An Inspector Calls". How often English dramatists seemed to write about the so called idyllic society of the upper classes breaking down...nothing lasts forever it seems. Anyway, in summary, a wordy piece, well shot, well played but ultimately probably best enjoyed as a stage play.

riverbendbill Subtlety, restraint and reserve are the hallmarks of this beautifully crafted version of a classic piece of theater. The characters are all flawlessly created by a cast of brilliant actors. Jeremy Northam is amazing in everything he does but never better than in this film where he plays a politician who takes the case with reservations and then sticks with it risking his own future by his courageous stand in defense of a young boy who seems guilty but swears he is innocent. The sacrifices each person in the family makes to uphold the family honor and name is an inspiration and the sexual chemistry between Jeremy Northam's character and that of Catherine Winslow who plays the feminist older sister of the title character is like a smoldering ember about to burst into flame.

Framescourer A peculiar and, I think, almost radical film. The plot is as that of countless other courtroom dramas, individuals against the might of state. However, set in pre-war London the drama of the film is almost conceptual, with the characters playing out their lines from behind a veil of propriety. This has its point, made after the denouement concerning the nature of law (Northam's relatively flambouyant law lord Morton warns against the indulging emotion in pursuit of justice/right).I can't see the justification here. Despite the undeniable tension in the narrative that the dialogue builds (I'd imagine it's all very close to the stage play) I keep having to suspend my dismay in what looks like disastrously bad acing in order to keep watching - especially in scenes where there is layered dialogue and the lines tend more toward texture.Out of all of this does come a miraculously balanced performance from Nigel Hawthorne. Whether he's just much better than everyone else (undeniable) or has ignored the injunction to deliver lines divorced from their emotive impetus (possible) he manages to draw in the themes of the serious vs folly, legal machination vs romance, the corruption of state vs the irreducible core of faith and integrity like satellites. It's amazing.The is able but subordinated - Mamet's (well researched and well dressed) exercise has its use but as an object in itself. 5/10