Alert: ***might contain mild spoilers***
The basic idea has been used in countless books and films. The media (especially TV), lead by greedy and corrupt people (focus is on one character story wise) turn a very serious real life issue into a circus. This is of course all about ethics.
I liked the look and feel of the movie, a mixture between (fake)live TV broadcast, documentary style interviews and dramatic film footage. I loved the(purposely)cheesy CGI used for the opening of the TV show 'Citizen Verdict'. I actually liked to see Jerry Springer in this - he is winking an eye at himself, which one can either see as distracting or as a bonus. I go for the latter. Of course Springer can't act. He is not an actor, he is a TV show host - which is totally different. The difference between Jerry Springer and the 'real' actors very well counterbalanced by the 'interview' footage. One character seems to be a real-life judge or lawyer, also with no 'acting' abilities - and is very believable and I agree with what he says, as much as I agree with some of the others.
In any case the movie is very far fetched in its basic premise. I no next to nothing about the US justice system (having seen hundreds of courtroom dramas definitely isn't enough) but I can't believe that the scenario is even remotely feasible: people can vote guilty or innocent without any prove that they have even seen one second of the TV show (=trial). Nah...
I also think that the characters of the prosecutor and the defense attorney are very unclear. There are definitely many loose story threads.
The film ends with all characters agreeing that the US justice system as it is is still the best possible. In many a movie I would have thought: come on! A satire and now you are pulling out??? But I agree with the ending: a film cannot be clear enough about its message when it comes to the legal system and death penalty. Yet, I really didn't get the 'point' of the movie. Is the hole system corrupt? Is it just the Jerry Springer character? Whom does he stand for? Armand Assante (the defense attorney) is a hot shot, so he should have known from the start that the whole thing is manipulated, or let's say 'controlled' by someone. The ethical issues, the politics are all oversimplified and the plot threads to fussy. What about the mail prostitute who testified in trial that the victim actually was into S'n'M? Oh yes, he was bought. But a flavor of yet another fuzzy and loose plot thread remains...
two out of four stars: plus: the 'Harry Dean Stanton rule' also applies to Roy Scheider: they never appear in a bad movie.
Almost forgot: the soundtrack is excellent! The songs as well as the orchestral underscore.
The basic idea has been used in countless books and films. The media (especially TV), lead by greedy and corrupt people (focus is on one character story wise) turn a very serious real life issue into a circus. This is of course all about ethics.
I liked the look and feel of the movie, a mixture between (fake)live TV broadcast, documentary style interviews and dramatic film footage. I loved the(purposely)cheesy CGI used for the opening of the TV show 'Citizen Verdict'. I actually liked to see Jerry Springer in this - he is winking an eye at himself, which one can either see as distracting or as a bonus. I go for the latter. Of course Springer can't act. He is not an actor, he is a TV show host - which is totally different. The difference between Jerry Springer and the 'real' actors very well counterbalanced by the 'interview' footage. One character seems to be a real-life judge or lawyer, also with no 'acting' abilities - and is very believable and I agree with what he says, as much as I agree with some of the others.
In any case the movie is very far fetched in its basic premise. I no next to nothing about the US justice system (having seen hundreds of courtroom dramas definitely isn't enough) but I can't believe that the scenario is even remotely feasible: people can vote guilty or innocent without any prove that they have even seen one second of the TV show (=trial). Nah...
I also think that the characters of the prosecutor and the defense attorney are very unclear. There are definitely many loose story threads.
The film ends with all characters agreeing that the US justice system as it is is still the best possible. In many a movie I would have thought: come on! A satire and now you are pulling out??? But I agree with the ending: a film cannot be clear enough about its message when it comes to the legal system and death penalty. Yet, I really didn't get the 'point' of the movie. Is the hole system corrupt? Is it just the Jerry Springer character? Whom does he stand for? Armand Assante (the defense attorney) is a hot shot, so he should have known from the start that the whole thing is manipulated, or let's say 'controlled' by someone. The ethical issues, the politics are all oversimplified and the plot threads to fussy. What about the mail prostitute who testified in trial that the victim actually was into S'n'M? Oh yes, he was bought. But a flavor of yet another fuzzy and loose plot thread remains...
two out of four stars: plus: the 'Harry Dean Stanton rule' also applies to Roy Scheider: they never appear in a bad movie.
Almost forgot: the soundtrack is excellent! The songs as well as the orchestral underscore.