Rating: 
Summary: An Honest Hollywood Adaptation, For Once!
Review: No, this film is not "based on a true story" or the cringe-inducing "inspired by a true story" (the latter which can mean anything, and usually does)--the fact is, this film IS a true story. It is the true story of how a materialistic personal injury lawyer pursues a noble yet unwieldly case, at the cost of all the materialistic benefits that he had spent his entire career in creating for himself. Yes, this case really did exist. Yes, there really was (and still is) a lawyer named Jan Schlichtmann (as portrayed by Travolta), who really did pursue this case against two large corporations, Beatrice and W.R. Grace (both named in the movie), who really did illegally dump pollutants in a neighborhood somewhere in Massachusetts, and which really did cause the deaths of 12 children from leukemia. Yes, Mr. Schlichtmann really DID comment cynically when he was first presented with the case, "I really don't see the value in a bunch of dead babies." There really was a corporate defense attorney named Jerome Facher (as portrayed by Duvall) who played this case as if constantly hedging his bets at a Vegas casino poker table. And so on...you get the idea. This film is brutally honest, names names, pulls no punches...and forgoes the typical, traditional Hollywood-style happy ending for one that is completely real, unfabricated, and ultimately satisfying in the realization that, it too, is real. That doesn't mean that it is emotionally unsatisfying. After all, after investing nearly two hours with this case, and these characters, about which we grow to care completely (especially because we know they're real), this film does provide the payoff in the end. I just won't tell you which one; you have to see this brilliant film in order to find out. This film proves, for once and for all, that the truth really is stranger than fiction! MOST RECOMMENDED
Rating:
Summary: The Price of Justice in A Civil Action
Review: In A Civil Action John Travolta plays Jan Schlichtmann the hottest young lawyer in Boston. He is a personal claims lawyer with a successful small practice and he is one of the 10 most eligible bachelors in Boston. Jan will do anything to win a case. During the progression of the story, he narrates advice to the audience as if a he is a law professor. It is this instruction that he himself does not follow and thus leads to trouble for himself and his clients. The movie, in this way, is almost as much about the apparently unreasonable reason behind litigation then it is about the individual case it portrays.
We are introduced to the way Jan Schlichtmann operates in a dark yet amusing prologue. This shows Schlichtmann pushing one of his unfortunate clients into court, fixing his pillows, getting him a drink, and wiping his face. All while the jury tries to choke back their tears, and the defending lawyers frantically try to settle before the trial begins by writing increasingly large settlements on a pad for Schlichtmann's approval. While this is all going on Schlichtmann gives a brilliantly deadpan voiceover, explaining how much you can expect to receive for various types of injury and which types of clients are worth more in winning cases. He concludes "that whites are worth more than blacks, men more than women, the rich more than the poor and a long agonizing death over a quick one. A white male professional in his 40's, in his prime earning potential, is worth the most and a dead child is worth least of all."
Everything is going well for Jan and then a case with at least 10 dead children drops into his lap. This case is known as an "orphan" as it has landed in every prominent lawyer's office and all have passed on it prior to him. But Schlichtmann's firm takes on the case when he discovers that culprits are owned by two of America's major corporations WR Grace and Beatrice Foods. But for the families, money isn't the point, and all they want to know is what happened, and for the responsible parties to come over and apologize to them for their loss. The thing is, "corporations apologize with money," and if the corporations have deep pockets, it's a case worth taking, so money does indeed become the point in A Civil Action. From then on, we get to watch a characteristic David versus Goliath clash, which involves the lawyer with his limited team and funds and the huge corporation with unlimited resources and a very clever lawyer (Jerome Fasher) heading its case.
Schlichtmann does a couple things during the case that leads ultimately to his downfall. First, he gets personally involved. In a news broadcast, he holds up snaps of the Woburn kids who have died. He shows empathy, which is a grave disservice to the legal profession because it clouds his judgment. He says it's like a doctor recoiling at the sight of blood. That leads to his demanding of WR Grace and Beatrice Foods a multi-million dollar settlement, including money for a research foundation, to cover expenses, and to provide for the families for thirty years, which the corporations refuse, which in turn takes the case to trial. He does this without consulting his partners, which doesn't sit well. James Gordon, the accountant, points out that they need to work on other cases to provide a cash flow. Schlichtmann has sunken a million into the Woburn case, and pretty soon, they teeter on the waterfalls of bankruptcy to the point of mortgaging their homes. It's become a source of pride, which has undone many an attorney as opposed to idiot witnesses, lousy evidence, and the hanging judge put together, as Jerome Fasher (played by Robert Duvall) tells his law class.
Fasher, the attorney for Beatrice, is a statesman-like man of experience, but has a isolated yet eccentric personality. He is a knowledgeable man, and his observation on the justice system is true, but at times appalling. When Schlichtmann tells him he's searching for the truth, he tells him, "You've been around long enough to know that a courtroom's not the place to look for the truth." And he truthfully says that the case stopped being about children the moment Schlichtmann filed for action.
Robert Duvall gives an excellent performance as Jerome Facher, Beatrice's attorney, who is the complete opposite of Schlichtmann. In a scene at a fancy hotel conference room, the frugal Facher is not impressed by any of the lawyers or their arguments, but the free pen that he can take home. It's a subtly funny scene that illustrates Facher perfectly.
The film does a great job in presenting the feelings and priorities of those injured by the negligence of a corporation. Often people think that money is everything in a civil trial, but this example shows that that is not always the case. Some of the characters evolve greatly during the story, understanding what is really important and what is superficial. This film initially gives an impression of a film where a greedy lawyer grows a conscience and starts out on a quest to defend the less privileged. But, even though the subject is not new, the way in which the story is presented and the performances by John Travolta, and especially Robert Duvall, make this a decent production nevertheless.
The blurb on the jacket claims that A Civil Action is "The best legal thriller ever." I personally believe this quote does the film a major disservice, because by calling it a "thriller" it gives the audience the idea that this is going to be something standard and Hollywood, with the obligatory "Hollywood" ending, and it's not. It's based on true events and exposes our legal system bare, it shows the impartial brutality of the adversarial system, and how one mans flaws can be amplified by that system, until they consume not only him, but all those around him.
Trials and lawsuits are examples of how corrupt and rotten the legal system and some lawyers are. Is it worth having a system where the first party to come to their senses (i.e. to cut their losses and call for a settlement) is the loser? A Civil Action also shows that despite the need for compassion, it's better to have a lawyer who thinks more with the head than the heart. This film shows startling conclusions about our Justice system, and that is what A Civil Action chooses to focus on more so than the true story it tells. The film shows the price of justice and how justice is understood in the legal process. In fact, it draws a very fine dichotomy between non-legal and legal justice and shows how hard it is to get "justice" in a legal setting. Needless to say, it becomes a very expensive ordeal full of interpretations of the law and unfortunate manipulations of it. What we can gather from the story, however, is that we should be grateful for people who are willing to go to extreme lengths, at great personal cost, to define justice on their own terms and to fight for it.
Rating: 
Summary: How much are you worth?
Review: This is one of those typical movies in which the greedy lawyer grows a conscience and starts out on a quest to defend the less privileged. But, even though the subject is not new, the way in which the story is presented and the performances by John Travolta, and especially Robert Duvall, make this a pretty good production anyhow.
Travolta plays Jan Schlichtmann, a successful lawyer that measures everything in terms of money, including the life of others. For example, the perfect victim / client for him is a white male professional in his forties, while the one that has the least worth is no other than a child! Jan is one of Boston's most eligible bachelors and is having a ball; he believes he is above everyone else and does not care about mundane events or tragedies that other people may suffer. One day though, he receives a call from a client while he is on a radio show on air, and has no other option but to follow through on the case; at least so as to look a little better in the public eye.
The case involves kids getting sick, and some dying, due to water wells contaminated with ethylene. Jan knows that since the victims are kids there is no real money in the case, so he is reluctant to take it. But when he is leaving town something catches his eye; the small tannery believed to be the culprit is owned by a huge company with various subsidiary companies, including the producer of Tropicana. From then on, we get to watch a typical David versus Goliath fight, which involves the lawyer with his limited team and funds and the huge corporation with unlimited resources and a very clever lawyer heading its case (Duvall).
The film does a great job in presenting the feelings and priorities of those injured by the negligence of a corporation. Often people think that money is everything in a civil trial, but this example shows that that is not always the case. Some of the characters evolve greatly during the story, understanding what is really important and what is superficial. For these reasons, the movie deserves an above average rating.
Rating:
Summary: Brilliant but ultimately sad portrayal of an uncivil system
Review: Sometime in the late 1960's, a hideous act of pollution took place in Woburn, Massachusetts, a small town north of Boston. Over the next fifteen years, twelve people died of leukemia. Eight of those were children. The firm of Jan Schlichtmann, Kevin Conway, James Gordon, and Bill Crowley take on the case on behalf of Anne Anderson, a woman who lost her child to cancer. For her, money isn't the point. All she wants to know is what happened, and for the responsible parties to come over and apologize to her and the other families. Thing is, corporations apologize with money, and if the corporations have deep pockets, it's a case worth taking, so money does indeed become the point in A Civil Action.
Schlichtmann uncovers the culprits, a chemical company, WR Grace and Beatrice Foods, who provide services for a tanning company owned by Riley. With that, he files a lawsuit, the legal equivalent to a declaration of war, and hires a geological team to provide scientific evidence should it come to trial.
Jan then does a couple things that leads to his downfall. One, he gets personally involved. In a news broadcast, he holds up snaps of the Woburn kids who have died. He shows empathy, which is a grave disservice to the legal profession because it clouds his judgment. He says it's like a doctor recoiling at the sight of blood. That leads to his demanding of WR Grace and Beatrice Foods a multi-million dollar settlement, including money for a research foundation, to cover expenses, and to provide for the families for thirty years, which the corporations refuse, which in turn takes the case to trial. He does this without consulting his partners, which doesn't bode well. James Gordon, the accountant, points out that they need to work on other cases to provide a cash flow. Schlichtmann has sunken a million into the Woburn case, and pretty soon, they teeter on the waterfalls of insolvency to the point of mortaging their homes. It's become a source of pride, which has undone many an attorney as opposed to idiot witnesses, lousy evidence, and the hanging judge put together, as Jerome Fasher tells his law class.
Fasher, the attorney for Beatrice, is a statesman-like man of experience, but has a detached air coupled with some eccentricities. Yet he is a clever man, and his observation on the justice system is true, at times sickening. When Schlichtmann tells him he's searching for the truth, he tells him, "You've been around long enough to know that a courtroom's not the place to look for the truth." And he accurately says that the case stopped being about children the moment Schlichtmann filed for action.
The movie is sprinkled with legal commentary from Schlichtmann, which lays out how callous, ugly, and illogical the justice system is. He begins by talking about which types of clients are worth more, i.e. are winning cases. Whites are worth more than blacks, men more than women, a long agonizing death over a quick one. A white male professional in his 40's, in his prime, is worth the most. A dead child is worth least of all. Well, Schlichtmann finds out that children are worth something after all, especially when he imagines an agonizing scene where the LaFierros were taking their son to the hospital and died en route.
While John Travolta's best known for Grease and Saturday Night Fever, A Civil Action proves he can handle serious drama and he turns in one of his best ever performances. However, the real Jan Schlichtmann came to Farmington. He's close to seven feet tall, and in terms of resemblance, could've been played by Richard Gere. As Anne Anderson, Kathleen Quinlan is the other great performer, playing a woman changed through her ordeal into someone who has a tired and sad visage. The scene where Al Love (James Gandolfini), a conscience-stricken tannery employer personally apologizes to her shows that maybe the only real meaningful apologies come from humans, not corporations.
Trials and lawsuits are examples of how corrupt and rotten the legal system and some lawyers are. Is it worth having a system where the first party to come to their senses (i.e. to cut their losses and call for a settlement) is the loser? A Civil Action also shows that despite the need for compassion, it's better to have a lawyer who thinks more with the head than the heart.
Rating:
Summary: Intelligent and Compelling Courtroom Drama
Review: Jan Schlichtmann (Travolta) is a Boston tort lawyer and something of an ambulance chaser who is initially reluctant to take on an industrial pollution case involving some children dead of leukaemia in rural New England. He changes his mind when he realizes the likely defendants are a couple of big companies with particularly deep pockets and smells the possibility of serious money. Over time, however his interest in the case becomes a moral obsession. The cynical becomes a crusader, refusing offers to settle as his company's finances spiral downwards towards bankruptcy. If you like courtroom dramas, this is highly recommended. It's one of the best specimens of the genre to come out of America since `The Verdict'. It's interesting to compare it to `Erin Brockovich' released a couple of years later. EB is about how a heroic small timer takes on the big boys of corporate America and how her pluck and determination triumphs over all obstacles, something of a legal feelgood movie in other words. Which this, to its great credit, is not. Its central character, for starters, is far more amibivalently likeable: initially just out for a fast buck, moral seriousness has to creep up on him and take him by surprise (perhaps reminding writer/director Zaillian of Oskar Schindler whose story he scripted for Spielberg a few years earlier) and the story's development paints a significantly more ambivalent picture of what pluck and determination can accomplish. It's a highpoint of Travolta's acting career even if he is comprehensively upstaged by Robert Duvall, on brilliant form as his quietly cynical adversary, bigshot lawyer Jerome Facher who knows far better than to look for the truth in a courtroom...
Rating: 
Summary: The book is SO MUCH BETTER
Review: The movie is fine... but the book is an amazing read. There is so much detail and nuance lost in the adaption to a visual medium.
Rating:
Summary: Underrated
Review: 'A Civil Action' is one of the most underrated movies of the past 5 years. Pay very close attention to the very first scene of the movie and the very last scene of the movie. THE POINT will come to you. :)
Rating:
Summary: Liberal Cinema Not Dead After All
Review: If like me, you're something of a sucker for socially conscious movies, flicks with their hearts in the right place, then A CIVIL ACTION is definitely a must-see for you. In terms of facing complex moral and legal issues (not always the same thing, in fact often miles apart), writer director Steven Zaillian seldom takes the easy way out. The film rings true on those fronts--although he does frequenly engage in a kind of cinematic shorthand that compresses time and events and I do believe there are some of those "composite characters" so ubiquitous in true-life films. Still it's commendable effort. If you like courtroom drama at all, you will appreciate the wheeling and dealing and the high stakes human drama going down here. The cast list suggests that there will be some quirky characterization going on, if not a downright acting feast. Any movie that boasts Robert Duvall, James Gandolfini, William H. Macy and John Lithgow can't go wrong on the acting front, right? Well, yes and no, they all turn in fine performances. Only Macy and Duvall get to do anything really quirky though. Others have suggested that John Travolta is somewhat miscast here. I disagree. He makes a believable transition from money grubbing ambulance chaser to impassioned champion of the common man (woman and CHILD). Not easy to do in the space of a couple of hours. Jonathan Harr had over 500 pages to tell that tale. Harr tells it better, but Travolta and Zaillian do a credible job, given the limitations of cinema. A CIVIL ACTION is a worthy effort. Certainly not perfect, but many will find it provocative. Most will find it well worth their time. These days, when you seldom see anything like the classic socially conscious filmmaking, so common from the 30s to the 70s, it's heartening to see a film this intelligent and authentic. (Why can't all these notorious Hollywood Liberals make a halfway decent liberal film anymore?) This is a film well worth your time.
|
