Rating: 
Summary: It's Better than I Remember....
Review: ...remember in the movie "Some Like It Hot" when Jack Lemmon was confronting Tony Curtis for fooling "Sugar" Marilyn Monroe with
his Shell Oil Millionaire schtick? What am I saying? Of course you do. The killer line associated with that is "No-boddy tawlks like that". Which, of course, was a slap in Cary Grant's face. Well, no disrepect intended, but I felt myself saying that a coupla times at Irons rendition of Claus Von Bulow in this movie: the snobbery, the effeminacy, the ostentation, the euro-aristocracy just dripping and oozing from every syllable escaping his lips.Then I thought, well, Duh! That is the point of the movie, ain't it? The Rich and Regal are quite different from us working stiffs. And it is easy to be jealous and of some one who's so Monied. But, does that mean The Rich deserves any advantages fron the legal system if being tried for a crime? Or anything less than a fair trial even if everyone believes he's guilty? That what this movie explores. What's chilling about this are those voice-overs of Glenn Close as Sunny as we watch her in the hospital bed, as we watch trial scenes, etc. If you're anything like me, it is also one of those movies that you get a different point of view of when you watch it at an older age. There was some what of a friendly competition thing between the majors--Claus and Dershovitz. There is the nebulosity of the recounting of the chain of events in Claus' retelling, the reasons why behind Sunny's various state of emotions....it makes for a low keyed but potent mix of moral questions for the thinking movie goer.
Rating:
Summary: Fine Dramatization of Celebrated Rhode Island Criminal Case
Review: Along with the scandal-ridden career of Vincent "Buddy" Cianci, the mayor of Providence, the Von Bulow case was, and probably remains, a popular topic of conversation in Rhode Island. Barbet Schroeder gives a mesmering look at a dark chapter in the history of Newport, Rhode Island with exceptional performances from Jeremy Irons and Ron Silver. Iron portrays Claus Von Bulow with the right mix of elegance and sleaziness thrown in, letting us know that he is not quite the man he seems to be (Indeed, Von Bulow had married far above his station when he wed Sunny - Glenn Close in the film; there are many who still believe that he deliberately tried to poison her for her wealth.). Fellow Stuyvesant High School alumnus Ron Silver is magnificient as Harvard Law Professor Alan Dershowitz; although he doesn't quite resemble Dershowitz, he does a remarkable portrayal of the latter's personality, judging from what I have seen of Dershowitz during his conversations with television talk show hosts Larry King and Ted Koppel. This splendid film is both a first rate thriller and a revealing look at how rewarding justice can be for those who are wealthy. Without a doubt, it is one of the finest dramatizations of a celebrated criminal case ever filmed.
Rating:
Summary: Fine Dramatization of Celebrated Rhode Island Criminal Case
Review: Along with the scandal-ridden career of Vincent "Buddy" Cianci, the mayor of Providence, the Von Bulow case was, and probably remains, a popular topic of conversation in Rhode Island. Barbet Schroeder gives a mesmering look at a dark chapter in the history of Newport, Rhode Island with exceptional performances from Jeremy Irons and Ron Silver. Iron portrays Claus Von Bulow with the right mix of elegance and sleaziness thrown in, letting us know that he is not quite the man he seems to be (Indeed, Von Bulow had married far above his station when he wed Sunny - Glenn Close in the film; there are many who still believe that he deliberately tried to poison her for her wealth.). Fellow Stuyvesant High School alumnus Ron Silver is magnificient as Harvard Law Professor Alan Dershowitz; although he doesn't quite resemble Dershowitz, he does a remarkable portrayal of the latter's personality, judging from what I have seen of Dershowitz during his conversations with television talk show hosts Larry King and Ted Koppel. This splendid film is both a first rate thriller and a revealing look at how rewarding justice can be for those who are wealthy. Without a doubt, it is one of the finest dramatizations of a celebrated criminal case ever filmed.
Rating: 
Summary: Aside from Jeremy Irons, Laughably Bad Acting
Review: Am I the only one who thinks that Ron Silver and everyone else in this picture--with the exception of Jeremy Irons--is terrible?
Admittedly, the parts are poorly written, but the director let these actors ham it up so badly it ruins the film. The self-righteous liberal (and I am one!) characters--especially the law students (gag!)--are such obvious caricatures I felt embarrassed for them.
Of course, Glenn Close is her usual "Look at me, I'm acting" self.
Terrible!
Without Irons, this film is a flop.
Rating:
Summary: Coma
Review: Audacious, brilliant, cerebral yet firmly grounded in the stuff of life, Barbet Schroeder's "Reversal of Fortune" is as much a winner now as it was when it was first released, 14+ years ago. And this has as much to do with Jeremy Irons' performance as Klaus Von Bulow as it does with Schroeder's masterful writing and directing: here is an example of everything coming together in the right place at the right time.
Rating:
Summary: Coma
Review: Audacious, brilliant, cerebral yet firmly grounded in the stuff of life, Barbet Schroeder's "Reversal of Fortune" is as much a winner now as it was when it was first released, 14+ years ago. And this has as much to do with Jeremy Irons' performance as Klaus Von Bulow as it does with Schroeder's masterful writing and directing: here is an example of everything coming together in the right place at the right time.
Rating: 
Summary: Murder & Class Barriers
Review: Barbet Schroeder's "Reversal of Fortune" works mostly because the director keeps us away from Jeremy Irons' character and his thoughts, and to adopt his point of view would surely be a mistake. The structure is intensely loose, and perhaps owes much to the celebrated "Citizen Kane". The film allows an unconscious Glenn Close to narrate some of the past events, but her calm and sweet voice may lead the viewer to believe she finally found her place, like the William Holden character in "Sunset Blvd.". Barbet Schroeder uses subjective flashbacks (which makes them not necessarily true), and we always adopt the lawyers point of view: the book that was the source of this film was written by the real von Bulow's lawyer. The relationship established between the aristocrat and the lawyer is very subtle: van Bulow's life depends on the lawyer's ability to succeed, and when the lawyer becomes sure of that, he attempts to eliminate class barriers, allowing himself to call the aristocrat for his first name and inviting him to his home. And yet, van Bulow is so intensely attached to his own way of life that he never loses his facade or temperament, as when he says: "I don't carry my heart on my sleeves"."Reversal of Fortune" never attempts to find a climax: its quality resides mostly on the ability of the viewer and in the mannerisms of the characters. The film is constructed like a puzzle and its rhythm is pedantic but strangely fascinating. If the filmmakers were trying to create an exercise in style, they surely succeed it: we are left cold and doubtful and the movie lacks a purpose except entertainment.
Rating:
Summary: Magnificent
Review: Brilliant; Irons was excellent, as was Close. Irons definitely deserved his Oscar. And Ron Silver! I'm surprised he wasn't nominated (of course, I suppose there are only so many spaces to fill in that regard). I did find Closes's narration mildly irritating, but opinion aside, the film wouldn't be what it is without it, and that is an original means of storytelling.
Rating:
Summary: Where's the White Hat?
Review: Could you enjoy a movie in which there was no "good guy" or similar person to root for? Have you ever wondered why Claus von Bulow was eventually cleared of charges after the sensational trial he had in the 1980's. Do you want to know who won the Best Actor Oscar for 1990? Well, if you can say yes to any of these questions, you should see "Reversal of Fortune". If you say no to all of the above you might want to check something else out instead. You may disagree with my assessment that there is no one to root for in this movie. However, consider the characters to choose from; a wealthy socialite who glides through life without any apparent concern for anyone but himself, a wealthy socialite who naps through life without any concern for anyone but herself, a brilliant law professor who believes that the Law is a tool to be manipulated by a skilled craftsman, the law professor's willing accomplices (i.e. students) who enjoy the challenge of finding loopholes to free the legally tried and convicted socialite. There aren't many other to choose from. There are the children we occasionally see but they don't seem to care so why should we. Maybe you might agree with the law professor, Alan Dershowitz (played excellently by Ron Silver) in his legal observations. This is, after all, the man who helped get O J Simpson off a double murder charge. The movie is about his efforts to overturn the attempted murder conviction of our hero(?!?) Claus von Bulow. Lawyer Dershowitz is first met in the midst of a furious attempt to save two brothers from the gas chamber. The brothers are black and have been convicted in the South. Obviously they are innocent as Dershowitz repeated reminds us. However, we come to see that "innocent" is a relative term to Alan Dershowitz. Thus even these two brothers are hard to cheer for. There is a sort of tense excitement as the efforts of the professor and his students unfolds. However, what is at stake? The freedom of a man who very well may have been properly convicted. Is justice to be served in overturning a conviction if there is no real sense that the original conviction was wrong? In a moment of real potential excitement, we find Dershowitz faced with a real dilemma when a potential witness attempts to frame him (this guy is a real sleaze as well so no point in cheering for him). However, this potential excitement fizzles like a dud firecracker as we hear a TV news "sound bite" exonerating Dershowitz. Sorry for all the negativity but I came away with the sense that this movie was made on the assumption that it's neat the way dedicated lawyers can help people. In fact, this movie is testimony that we need legal reforms in this country so that we can regain some respect for the legal processes that we have. This lack of respect that I have observed falls largely on the likes of people like Dershowitz who have shown that it is money, not race, that accounts for the disparity of judicial consistency in this country. In this case, there should be no doubt that the wealthy von Bulow paid a pretty penny the first time around only to be convicted. Why not fork over more money and try it again? Forgive me for not joining Dershowitz's already corrupted students as one of his cheerleaders. I give the movie a 4 star rating because the acting is superb (although I think that Jeremy Irons got his Oscar in a weak year). I also rated it that high because, unfortunately, I think this movie is going to be one I remember for quite a while.
Rating:
Summary: Where's the White Hat?
Review: Could you enjoy a movie in which there was no "good guy" or similar person to root for? Have you ever wondered why Claus von Bulow was eventually cleared of charges after the sensational trial he had in the 1980's. Do you want to know who won the Best Actor Oscar for 1990? Well, if you can say yes to any of these questions, you should see "Reversal of Fortune". If you say no to all of the above you might want to check something else out instead. You may disagree with my assessment that there is no one to root for in this movie. However, consider the characters to choose from; a wealthy socialite who glides through life without any apparent concern for anyone but himself, a wealthy socialite who naps through life without any concern for anyone but herself, a brilliant law professor who believes that the Law is a tool to be manipulated by a skilled craftsman, the law professor's willing accomplices (i.e. students) who enjoy the challenge of finding loopholes to free the legally tried and convicted socialite. There aren't many other to choose from. There are the children we occasionally see but they don't seem to care so why should we. Maybe you might agree with the law professor, Alan Dershowitz (played excellently by Ron Silver) in his legal observations. This is, after all, the man who helped get O J Simpson off a double murder charge. The movie is about his efforts to overturn the attempted murder conviction of our hero(?!?) Claus von Bulow. Lawyer Dershowitz is first met in the midst of a furious attempt to save two brothers from the gas chamber. The brothers are black and have been convicted in the South. Obviously they are innocent as Dershowitz repeated reminds us. However, we come to see that "innocent" is a relative term to Alan Dershowitz. Thus even these two brothers are hard to cheer for. There is a sort of tense excitement as the efforts of the professor and his students unfolds. However, what is at stake? The freedom of a man who very well may have been properly convicted. Is justice to be served in overturning a conviction if there is no real sense that the original conviction was wrong? In a moment of real potential excitement, we find Dershowitz faced with a real dilemma when a potential witness attempts to frame him (this guy is a real sleaze as well so no point in cheering for him). However, this potential excitement fizzles like a dud firecracker as we hear a TV news "sound bite" exonerating Dershowitz. Sorry for all the negativity but I came away with the sense that this movie was made on the assumption that it's neat the way dedicated lawyers can help people. In fact, this movie is testimony that we need legal reforms in this country so that we can regain some respect for the legal processes that we have. This lack of respect that I have observed falls largely on the likes of people like Dershowitz who have shown that it is money, not race, that accounts for the disparity of judicial consistency in this country. In this case, there should be no doubt that the wealthy von Bulow paid a pretty penny the first time around only to be convicted. Why not fork over more money and try it again? Forgive me for not joining Dershowitz's already corrupted students as one of his cheerleaders. I give the movie a 4 star rating because the acting is superb (although I think that Jeremy Irons got his Oscar in a weak year). I also rated it that high because, unfortunately, I think this movie is going to be one I remember for quite a while.
|
