Absence of Malice (1981) User Reviews

All the news that's fit to print (and then some)

[Howlin Wolf · 7/10 · 1 October 2005]

This movie provides a clever insight into the principles the press live by. Reporters sometimes lose their basic humanity because they're not looking at the human interest, but at covering all the angles. What's newsworthy is what's in the public domain as fact, not gossip. It's definitely something to think about in this age when large sections of the media are intent on muckraking over the affairs of those who are deemed to be 'high-profile'...

The movie asks us, though, to keep in mind that sometimes there's more going on than meets the eye, and that certain acts function as a means to an end. It can be seen as an extension of that great 70's movie tradition where acclaimed directors make polished films exposing high-level corruption. "Absence of Malice" is an involving exercise in paranoid mystery, with Newman in fine form as always, and Sally Field providing capable support.

How to outsmart a covey of smartasses

[helpless_dancer · 7/10 · 13 August 2001]

Mighty good drama depicting corruption in the justice department intending, on the surface, to solve a crime, but, beneath the waters, to further political careers. Sally Field played the self centered, self deluded reporter perfectly against Newman's confused, angry victim. Worth seeing.

Very much a post Watergate film...

[AlsExGal · 7/10 · 29 January 2023]

... as audiences would not relate to anything this cynical prior to Watergate. This was made only seven years afterwards.

Sally Field is an ethically-challenged reporter. With the help of an even more unscrupulous federal investigator, played by Bob Balaban, she writes a story that implicates Michael Gallagher (Paul Newman) in the disappearance & presumed murder of a union boss. Gallagher is on the radar because his uncle is a mobster. The film employs a procedural narrative that delivers little dramatic tension. The severest act happens off screen. The characters feel slightly underwritten. The exception is Melinda Dillon's poignant portrayal of Teresa Perrone, Gallagher's best friend, who occupies the moral epicenter.

While everyone else is playing a game of extreme cynicism, not uncommon in journalism and politics, Teresa feels most acutely. I liked the straight-forward approach and lack of style. Of course, director Sydney Pollack was never known as a stylist. I'm not saying this in the pejorative. I enjoy Pollack's work. Wilford Brimley makes a needed, late appearance to munch down on some scenery.

It does have the distinct feel of a film made to make a go for the Oscars, with Paul Newman making repeated failed runs at the Best Actor prize at this point in his career. Still Newman in the lead gave gave a film at that time the same amount of heft that Tom Hanks in the lead gives a film today.

Reporter Responsibility.

[AaronCapenBanner · 7/10 · 15 October 2013]

Sydney Pollock directed this interesting drama starring Paul Newman as Miami Liquor salesman Mike Gallagher, who is the son of a mobster, though Mike himself is unconnected. When a Union Head is murdered, and mob involvement suspected, an overambitious Federal Attorney(played by Bob Balaban) decides to pressure Mike into helping them(even knowing his innocence) by going to irresponsible reporter Megan Carter(played by Sally Field) to publish the story. Mike has a solid alibi for the murder, but won't reveal it because it would hurt his fragile friend Teresa(played by Melinda Dillon) When the story(and her involvement) is published, it leads to tragic consequences, and Mike decides to teach the reporter and FBI a lesson by beating them at their own game...

Well acted and made drama makes good points about the media and personal responsibility. Almost goes wrong with misguided romance of Mike and Megan, but rights itself with memorable finale, with Wilford Brimley stealing the film in a fantastic supporting performance, laying down the law in amusing yet intelligent fashion.

Requiem for two heavyweights...

[Lejink · 7/10 · 3 October 2008]

I taped this lauded 80's movie months ago and prompted by the recent death of Paul Newman, finally made time to watch it, only realising as I did so that its director too, Sydney Pollack, has also lately taken his last bow. The film is about the corrupting power of trial by newspaper to damage and sometimes destroy innocent lives and in this particular case of one man's courage and ingenuity in fighting back, even for what seems in the end a Pyrrhic victory against his malefactors. Pollack's favoured ouevre certainly seemed to be contemporary thrillers, often positing a faceless establishment body, personified by dehumanised no-names and their usually destructive oppression of innocent individuals. Although dated by things like contemporary fashions and background music, (no-one surely can defend this era for its style and music!) these films (and there were loads of them in the mid 70's and early 80's - "All the President's Men", "Dog Day Afternoon", "The Verdict", to name but a few, often directed by the two Sydneys, Pollack and Lumet, and peopled by acting heavyweights like Pacino, Redford, Newman, Winger and Fonda) represent a largely neglected sub-genre of quality movie-making rarely seen today. The film at hand here, "Absence of Malice" occasionally lacks narrative drive and suspense but makes up for that with everyday realism, for example drawing in themes on disparate subjects like abortion and trade-union relations. With Pollack's usual high-standard cinematography, particularly his naturally-lit interiors and indeed exteriors, you always feel that this fictional story could actually be happening here and now. It's helped by good dialogue and the skills of the ensemble acting cast. Newman walks away with the acting plaudits, effortlessly drawing the viewer's sympathy and admiration although I was very impressed by Melinda Dillon's underplaying of her part as Newman's "close personal friend", caught in the cross-fire and also Wilford Brimley's cameo as the State Department official who effectively acts as judge and jury at the mini-courtroom climax. Sally Field, who was briefly, at this time, the it-girl for modern-day character parts, lacks some heft alongside the predominantly male cast and at times plays the part more like Jean Arthur than Faye Dunaway. You can also see her acting at key points, particularly in the scene when Newman loses his temper and almost assaults her. Despite a brief (perhaps unnecessary) romantic liaison between the two leads, the film ends satisfyingly with an enigmatic shot of Newman sailing (literally) into the sunset leaving a chastened Field behind. In conclusion then, an intelligent, thought-provoking, well-structured and plotted movie, its main theme still relevant today in tabloid-land.

The Fourth Estate on trial

[krorie · 7/10 · 23 February 2006]

Paul Newman and Sally Field, though somewhat opposites both in their roles as Michael Colin Gallagher and Megan Carter respectively and in real Hollywood life, mesh and make believable lovers. Megan tells Michael that she is 30 something and doesn't need courting to play in the hay. Michael retorts, "Maybe I do," and drives away. Megan winds up somewhat of a failure both as a newspaper hound and as a liberated female. Then along comes Wilford Brimley in a bit part and runs away with the show. That's saying a lot since the well chosen cast gives it all they've got including ace jobs by Bob Balaban and Melinda Dillon.

The essence of the film is "What is the nature of truth?" What we read in the paper ain't necessarily so. Jibes are poked at bureaucrats too who certainly have problems determining what is truth. As long as the paperwork looks good then so goes the world. With the Horatio Alger success formula still around in the world of big government and big business, empire builders are a dime a dozen. Usually their asses are saved by cover ups and fall guys. In "Absence of Malice" the innocent victim outsmarts the bureaucrats and the Fourth Estate to bring the house of cards down, certainly an anomaly in the 21th century as it was in 1981, maybe even more so.

Admittedly, the film becomes too preachy at times which not only grates on the nerves but also slows the picture down. Yet the well-written script and Sydney Pollack's knowing direction keep it from becoming a total disaster. Not on the level of Pollack's previous "Three Days of the Condor" or his next feature "Tootsie," "Absence of Malice" still packs a wallop.

Difficult but highly rewarding

[fung0 · 10/10 · 10 August 2008]

I'm not at all surprised to see so many reviewers utterly failed to 'get' this film. Given the charismatic big-name stars and the sunny Miami setting, they can be forgiven for expecting to see some sort of conventional romantic cops-and-robbers buddy flick. She's the tough reporter; he's the murder suspect. They have every reason to hate each other - yet they're drawn irresistibly together...! Predictable soaper ensues.

But this is definitely NOT that movie. The irresistible Sally Fields plays an utterly despicable character: a reporter whose greed for the big scoop over-rides all other considerations, and whose unforgivable stupidity leads to several ruined lives. Government investigators - led by Bob Balaban, in a brilliantly slimy performance - exploit Fields to demolish Newman's reputation. It's a sordid tale, with no admirable characters. Newman is the most sympathetic, but he too plays hardball, forgiving nothing, giving nothing away - and even becoming shamefully violent (albeit only when pushed beyond all human endurance by Fields' thoughtlessly destructive actions).

The film is built on several kinds of misdirection. While the story is ostensibly a battle of wills between Newman, Fields and Balaban, Pollack uses it to quietly unfold a moral puzzle. How can people like Fields do so much harm while always thinking they're doing the right thing? And while Balaban seems to be the villain (and is certainly no nice guy), the real evil is represented by a bland, conventional background character whom you'll barely notice the first time through. Fields' editor is a quiet, buttoned-down nice guy, full of fatherly platitudes about journalism. But he's the one who's absolutely certain he's doing good, while actually having no regard for any point of view but his own. And he's the one who epitomizes what's wrong with modern journalism: its willingness to report assertions by self-interested parties as if they were fact.

Don't be fooled: this is a serious, challenging film. It offers no easy answers, and asks viewers to consider tough moral choices. But it's also one of my personal favorites: a perfectly constructed ethical Rubik's Cube, which solves itself with the inevitability and precision of some fine mechanism. And it's definitely worth seeing just for Wilford Brimley's delicious scene at the end - reminiscent of the little dinner parties at the end of the Thin Man movies, or of the entry of Fortinbras, cleaning up the corpses at the end of Hamlet.

Very good, but after a while it kind of loses its way.

[planktonrules · 7/10 · 2 January 2013]

"Absence of Malice" is a film that starts off wonderfully and then sort of peters off after a while. It's a shame, as its focus on responsibility and the press is a very important and thought-provoking subject.

The film begins with a spunky reporter (Sally Field) being manipulated by a rogue government official. She is handed leads--not realizing it's all being planted. However, she NEVER behaves responsibly to confirm or refute the leads and as a result she seriously harms an innocent man (Paul Newman). A bit later, his friend is able to prove his innocence, but instead of letting the story alone, Field very irresponsibly prints the story and ends up doing something HORRIBLE! At this point, the film was amazing and my daughter and I found ourselves yelling at Sally Field's character--which shows just how well they've constructed the story. It makes a GREAT case for a responsible press. HOWEVER, this is only about half way through the film and the second half loses steam quickly. Too much time is spent on a government conspiracy angle which really weakened the first part of the film. The only saving grace during this portion is Wilfred Brimley's character--he was the best thing about the film. And what about Newman and Field? Well, although she really did something horrible (what it is you'll need to see for yourself), now they are friends....WHAT?!?!?! This made no sense at all. The bottom line is that the movie is good but manages to blow much of its point by the end. A decent re-write could have made this a great film. Instead, it's uneven but still quite watchable.

Compelling

[Gislef · 9/10 · 20 October 1998]

There's really no other word for it. I find the whole of this movie compelling, from Sally Fields' naivete to Paul Newman's innocent who turns the tables on his prosecutors, to the various supporting characters who all have their little niche. The best of all is Wilford Brimley, who gets to chew scenery and totally steal the scene he's in. It's an intelligent drama, addressing a subject as relevant today as it was in '81, with just enough humor to leaven the whole thing.

Freedom of the Press? Not Always.

[alfiefamily · 6/10 · 27 November 2004]

"Absence of Malice" has got a lot going for it. Terrific performances from Newman and Field. Good supporting work from Balaban, Brimley and Dillon. An interesting story,told at a time when there was (and still is) a lot of questions about the role of the press, and the liberties they take. So then why isn't this movie better than it is?

With a story such as this a director needs to be able to take his time to tell it, and Pollack does a very good job here. But the story never really takes off. In my opinion, this is partially due to the love story sub-plot, that is not necessary. Also, despite their strong individual performances, Newman and Field don't really have a strong chemistry between them.

I like the questions that were asked in this movie, regarding whether it is better to be accurate, or truthful in a story. The idea that even if a story is not true, just the act of putting in the paper gives the perception that it may be true. Powerful ideas, and told well. I just wish that the film was able to trust the story and not add a wasteful sub-plot.

6 out of 10

Does Anyone Remember Maurice Nadjari?

[bkoganbing · 9/10 · 20 December 2005]

For a while back in the seventies the hottest political property in New York State was one Maurice Nadjari. He was appointed a special prosecutor and ran up a big string of convictions of various figures on the New York scene.

Then his convictions began being tossed out one by one until a once feared figure became a laughingstock. Turned out he used tactics very similar to those countenanced by Bob Balaban in this film.

Nadjari turned out in the end to be worse than any of the people he was prosecuting. That's the message here, don't idealize some of these prosecutors on a white horse.

Bob Balaban is part of the Justice Department Strike Force looking into the murder of a labor leader in Florida. It's been months and his investigation is yielding bupkis. So he tries some extralegal tactics.

Paul Newman is the son of a reputed mobster, but who's been out of the rackets for years. But Balaban leaks to gullible reporter Sally Field that Newman is the target of his investigation. The idea is for Newman to go undercover and work to get information on his uncle, Luther Adler, who Balaban suspects.

Newman's reputation is smashed and Balaban's actions lead to the death of Melinda Dillon who is a friend of Newman's.

Paul Newman was nominated for Best Actor, but lost to Henry Fonda that year for On Golden Pond. Sally Field was at the height of her career. This film came right around the time she got her two Oscars for Norma Rae and Places in the Heart.

The leads and cast are just fine. This turned out to be the farewell picture of Luther Adler, one of the great character actors in the history of film.

However the two people this film really belongs to are Bob Balaban and Wilford Brimley. Balaban got his career role in this as Elliott Rosen of the Organized Crime Strike Force. He is truly one loathsome little creep. All it's about with him is getting another notch on his belt, another scalp for the lodgepole.

And then there's Wilford Brimley. He's the big honcho from Washington, DC sent down to do damage control when it all blows up in their faces. He gathers all the principals together at the very end of the film, like Nick Charles would, and dispenses the justice accordingly. He's on the screen for about twenty unforgettable minutes.

The office of prosecutor in our system is one of responsibility and should never be entrusted to any lightweights or any overly ambitious folks.

Wilford Brimley stole the show...

[simba-18 · 18 February 2004]

Absence of Malice is an alright drama that is smartly casted with Sally Field and Paul Newman. The story is interesting enough and moves along just fine until Wilford Brimley's character, he plays a no nonsense-no BS judge who sets everyone straight. It makes you grateful you sat through this okay film. Great job by Mr. Brimley. He makes it worth the price of admission(or video).

Always on the rise

[gcd70 · 7/10 · 4 September 2007]

Sydney Pollack's film about irresponsible media, whose pursuit of the 'truth' holds nothing sacred, is very competently constructed indeed. Kurt Luedtke's screenplay is excellent as it draws the viewer in with its very real characters and situations. One such character, reporter Megan Carter (Sally Field), pursues her 'news' so vigorously that she shows little regard for the people's lives she is destroying.

The cast, along with director Pollack, bring Luedtke's story to the screen very convincingly indeed. Watch especially for two superb, and regrettably short, supporting roles from Bob Balaban as a 'strike force' investigator, and Wilford Brimley as an Assistant District Attorney investigator.

A movie that definitely gets better and better right until the end.

Tuesday, April 14, 1992 - Video

Absence of Entertainment

[robbienihon · 3/10 · 18 March 2023]

Some good acting, specifically the judge who gets all these shady SOBs in a room to sort each other out, but that is about it.

How on earth it got such a high rating is beyond me. Story is slow, flawed, boring and unfinished. Who the hell killed that union guy?

Somehow they dragged this out to nearly 2 hours I wish I had not wasted watching it. I get how they tried to make Newman's character strive to be a good guy who is trying to break free from the labels and shackles of a criminal family, I get that. He is such a good guy taking his BFF to the abortion clinic in secret. I get that. But we didn't have to endure 2 hours of it following a whiny Sally Field around, did we?

Avoid.

Absence of Many Things

[Zoe07 · 6/10 · 10 April 2005]

Unfortunately, Absence of Malice had great promise, but with careless decisions by the writers, the added love story took away from its professional-ness. I've gone over it again and again and it seems that although the movie had a lot going for it, the moviemakers ruined it by adding several elements that were just unnecessary.

The acting was great, but poor Paul Newman and Sally Field. They both had terrific performances. It wasn't their fault that the writers felt compelled to give them sexual tension and add a relationship to the script. That was the first mistake. This couple is not compatible and would never get together in the real world. Sally Field plays the writer who writes, unbeknownst to her, a false story, which ruins and disrupts the life of framed Paul Newman, a simple warehouse owner with a late Mafia boss for a father.

With such gorgeous and sexy actors as these two as the leading stars, it must have been was hard for the writers to resist adding some attraction between them, but they should've known better and steered away from it. Couldn't they see that these two characters are total opposites and completely lack any chemistry? Field is a short, timid, high-pitched journalist that only wants what's best for herself in life, while Newman is a strong, tall, commanding force that likes his simple routine and stays out of the public eye. Besides, Field writes the story about Newman that jump starts all his problems and even causes his best friend to kill herself. The mismatched couple is too obvious to accept. It couldn't have just been a friendship? Or even a business relationship? This pointless subplot took away from the interesting and thought-provoking story. The question concerning the role of the press and the liberties they take is always going to be a worthy debate topic in America. Absence of Malice does a great job questioning this dispute fairly and analyzing both sides of the case. The story sets up a perfect situation where you must ask yourself whether it is better to be accurate, or truthful in life. It makes the audience realize that even if a story is false, just the act of putting in the paper gives the perception that it may be true.

It's appropriate for watching in class-- especially perfect for journalism classes!

ABSENCE OF MALICE (Sydney Pollack, 1981) ***

[Bunuel1976 · 7/10 · 4 October 2008]

To begin with, I had intended to include this in my tribute to director Pollack in June but somehow couldn’t trace the VHS I had it taped on; in the meantime, I acquired the film on DVD and, watched now as a valediction to recently-deceased star Paul Newman, it easily emerged as the most significant title of the lot. The picture itself had given new impetus to his career – though it would be overshadowed by his next effort, THE VERDICT (1982) – which had dwindled since the block-busting box-office performances of both THE STING (1973) and THE TOWERING INFERNO (1974).

An absorbing and uniformly well-acted blend of newspaper movie, political thriller, character study and romance (with the latter being the least successful i.e. most disposable and unconvincing element), the film deservedly earned Oscar nominations for Newman (his sixth – playing a longshoreman who starts being investigated about the murder of a rival simply because of his parental link to mobsters and the damage it causes to his integrity and daily existence), Melinda Dillon (as a friend of Newman’s who’s brought in to supply an alibi for him but which would expose the guilt in her own personal matters and which lead her to commit suicide!) and Kurt Luedtke’s fine, incisive script. Sally Field isn’t an actress I’m particularly fond of (for the record, I’ve watched neither of her two Oscar-winning performances in NORMA RAE [1979] and PLACES IN THE HEART [1984]: their directors, Martin Ritt and Robert Benton respectively, would coincidentally prove crucial to Newman himself!), though she’s perfectly cast here in a role encompassing resourcefulness, tenacity, awkwardness, tenderness and, finally, humility. She’s the star reporter who initially ‘leaks’ the news of the investigation on Newman thinking it as her duty, but doesn’t stop to ponder the consequences…as a result of which, her relationship with Newman proves a troubled one (in the film’s most intense sequence, he physically assaults her when she turns up before him after Dillon’s death!).

The title is a reference to a legal clause which basically states that newspapers are free to print anything they like, and that the people involved can do nothing against them because their reporting is accurate (even if it may not ultimately prove to be factual). The film’s climax – which plays like a dry-run for THE VERDICT itself and is highlighted by a scene-stealing turn from Wilford Brimley, it’s revealed how Newman has cleverly rebounded the affair on itself (so that it’s the reporters, the investigating committee and the D.A’s office who get their gooses cooked, as it were!). A nice surprise is Luther Adler’s appearance as Newman’s mobster uncle – and also worth mentioning is Dave Grusin’s fine score.

Not a political critique, not quite a great romance, but a clever bit of fictional intrigue

[secondtake · 7/10 · 22 February 2010]

Absence of Malice (1981)

This feels like a 1970s film tipping into the changing tides of the 1980s. And yet, seen from thirty years later, it feels pertinent and crisp. In fact, the one aspect that wobbles the most is exactly what should be eternal, the love affair. Gallagher, the embattled, possibly shady importer who is the ambiguous male lead, and Megan, the young, everyday reporter on a big story, find they need something in each other that is deep and unique. Call it love, though I'm not sure they would. But Paul Newman and Sally Field, playing the two parts, don't have the screen chemistry to make it happen.

The plot seems leaky at times, but by the end, as you realize it's a complicated shell game that has partly kept clues from the viewer, it makes sense and is clever. The subplots and minor characters are generally interesting enough, including a utterly convincing, low-key performance by Wilford Brimley as a Justice Department official and Megan's editor at the paper, whose name I can't dig up. It is coincidence, I think, but these two are the two truly "good" people in the movie, though of course Megan is good at heart throughout, just misguided.

The movie poster for the release of the film emphasizes it's political ambitions: In America, Can a Man be Guilty until Proved Innocent? Director Sydney Pollack tries to tap into contemporary issues in his movies, often timely political ones, and that is the saving grace here, at least from 2010. The problem isn't so much a legal one, of presumed guilt. But of the role newspapers play in suggesting guilt, even a guilt that may not exist, and the way this destroys lives along the way. (A case in point is in the newspapers here in New York this February--a rumored scandal involving Governor Paterson has made him seem guilty even BEFORE a newspaper article was published about it, and the said article, when it appeared, seems to have had nothing to say about it. Meanwhile, Paterson scrambles.)

I wish the movie were actually a great movie. It has the makings for it. But it has gaffes (silly ones, as in the opening minutes when they are watching some surveillance footage on a projector and it freeze-frames several times, and yet the projector keeps running!) and it has slow parts, moments that are made to give the movie emotional depth that don't quite click (I never quite feel the friendship between Gallagher and his troubled friend). Still, it isn't such a bad movie you'll walk away. And the last third gets more interesting, with some plot twists worth paying attention to.

Superb acting, plot construction, and message!

[Seedy · 10/10 · 17 March 1999]

Start with Paul Newman and Sally Field and you don't need much more, but this film delivers a lot more. The plot takes some unexpected turns but develops logically and clearly with just enough suspence to keep viewers entranced. When concluded you realize how all elements of the plot are kept within reasonable bounds and how refreshing that is. Here's a film that relies on character development and an intriguing plot with an important message. No special effects, gore and bedroom scenes needed to make this a great movie.

Challenging, but Worthwhile

[dougdoepke · 8 August 2021]

No need to recap the storyline intrigues, which are complex to say the least.

Ace peformances by both Newman and Fields. However, if you're looking for the usual charming Newman smile, forget it- I stopped at zero. The actor's about as understated here as he comes, and certainly a big departure from Hud and his usual winning style. But then his stoical appearance is perfectly in keeping with Gallagher's (Newman) calculating motivations once he realizes he's been used. Fields, on the other hand, is all charming grins and girlish moves as her reporter Megan chases down stories to prove her professional worth. And that's regardless of whom she insensitively (absence of malice) harms in the process. Surprisingly, given the two big stars, there's really no one to root for in what amounts to a cynical albeit thought-provoking script. All in all, it's a flick that should be shown in jounalism schools everywhere. Anyway, here's my little salute to both performers for going against their professional images in pursuit of a worthy issue.

Accuracy vs. truth--an essay on film

[JuguAbraham · 6/10 · 13 February 2004]

Sally Field replies to a reporter colleague towards the end of the film "...That's accurate, not true." This is a dilemma of many media persons, the distance between accuracy and truth in their profession--I know it because I was one.

Director Sydney Pollack presents several situations which asks the questions of the viewer. It would be "accurate" to state there was no rape or sex in the warehouse sequence--but the truth is a blouse was torn, and the camera captures Field in a bodily posture that indicates something "did happen" in an abstract sense.

The film is bland while discussing "what is truth?". It is strange that Pollack comes so close to discussing serious subjects ("Castle Keep" is a memorable example from Pollack) but shies away after posing questions. I am sure Stanley Kubrick cast Pollack in "Eyes Wide Shut" because of his propensity to deal with such moral issues. Even other films he has chosen to act in, such as "A civil action", encourages the viewer to think, and thus be entertained.

Sequences such as the one with Actor Wilford Brimley as US Asst. Attorney General are tailored to please the larger slice of the viewing public. Pollack was trying to communicate with the audiences who saw the importance of heading "north east" when most people tend to go south or west--in the parting words of the Paul Newman character. If anything, this Pollack film encourages the audiences to think.

An important and great movie

[SHAWFAN · 10/10 · 5 February 2005]

I did not feel too much the reservations some of your commentators had about the acting of Newman and Fields. I thought they were fine. But of course the importance of this film lies (as so many others pointed out) in its expose of the inner workings of our justice and journalistic systems and their ability to wreak havoc in the lives of ordinary defenseless citizens. I rather thought this movie a precursor of television's Law and Order for that reason. For me among the movie's many touching and beautiful moments the most poignant was the scene in which the soon-to-be-suicidal young friend of Newman's receives at dawn on her lawn the freshly delivered newspaper she'd been waiting all night for and reads with horror the "outing" of her abortion for all to read and proceeds to gather up all the copies of the newspaper thrown onto the neighbors' lawns so as to stave off her moment of shame and disgrace with all the co-religionist people who know her including her family. It reminded me of the scene in Rattigan's Separate Tables in which the middle-aged molester of young girls finds his exploits reported in a neighboring village's newspaper which has been delivered to his hotel. He then tries to cut out the revealing story before it can be delivered to its subscriber. But he too fails to suppress the news and has to suffer the consequences of publicity in his private life. Absence of Malice is a great and important movie.

Malice needs an Absence of romance

[silverjay-17914 · 6/10 · 6 December 2018]

Absence of Malice is a realistic movie based on a fictional event with fictional characters that goes on the idea that the truth is not always going to set you free. It sets the scene with Megan Carter (Sally Field), a newspaper reporter/writer who is bent on writing the truth until she writes the story about the disappearance of Diaz. The main suspect for this case is no other than Mike Gallagher (Paul Newman), a liquor warehouse owner who had a father who is talked about as a criminal throughout the movie. Megan Carter goes through the movie trying to find the truth about what really happens, while Mike Gallagher gives yes/no like answers to everything Carter throws at him. The only problem I have with the movie is the "romance" aspect of it. It brings a strange forced relationship to these two people who seem to almost have nothing in common but working on the case. At this time in the movie, women are in the workforce and depend on themselves. You can tell by Carter being alone in her house. And it seems like she is fine by herself and doesn't need a man. So it doesn't make sense for her to suddenly "fall in love" with him when she barely knows him and she is really focused of her job. But they go through the whole "one-night stand" and "relationship argument." That arc of the movie really dragged it through the mud for me. Without the romance this movie is a great film to see. I wouldn't call it a must-see but it is something to watch if you are interested in journalism and news media. The director had a history in journalism and editing and the details in parts of the movie seem like he knows a lot about it.

Clever script, excellent performances, and a wry sense of humor

[tomreynolds2004 · 10/10 · 29 March 2004]

This one hit too close for comfort for critics and the news organizations for whom they work. Paul Newman gives one of his top 15 lifetime performances (and for him, that's excellent) as Tommy Gallagher, the owner of a shipping company in Florida. When the joint murder investigation by the federal and state authorities goes nowhere, D. A. Elliot Rosen (Bob Balaban) sets up reporter Sally Field with evidence seemingly linking Gallagher to the murder.

What follows is fast-paced, wry, and very well actor. Don't miss the chance to see the great Luther Adler in his last performance as Newman's mob-linked uncle.

It's an Alright Film

[iamjohnharvey · 7/10 · 6 December 2018]

Absence of Malice follows Megan Carter (Sally Field), a newswoman who is on a mission to report details on the disappearance of a person. Throughout the film, Megan investigates a man named Michael Gallagher (Paul Newman), and gets herself involved in legal troubles. The story, simply put, consists of Megan writing stories containing factual information, yet these stories also have sensitive, personal details. This results in her negatively impacting certain characters in the film. The film delivers its message well, yet the story has numerous problems scattered throughout. Starting off this review are the positives. The story is cleverly written, and it's fairly complex. The leads, Megan and Gallagher, are portrayed by their actors realistically. The film was entertaining enough to keep me attached to the screen, listening attentively to every detail discussed among the characters. The message regarding how the truth may become misinterpreted through the news was intriguing. The relationship between the two leading characters, Megan and Gallagher, starts off as platonic, but then slowly drifts into a romantic one. This direction between the main characters was unnecessary, and added seemingly nothing to the film's core message. The film could've been fine if there was an absence of romance. Towards the end of the film, everything culminates to a confrontation in a room among the primary characters, where legal issues are settled. While some clever and humorous lines were exchanged, there isn't anything thrilling about the scene at all. All of the gradual buildup in the film never pays off due to a climax without pleasure. Overall, the film communicates its message of truthfulness in journalism effectively, but the film's drama may not be for everyone.

An absence of excitement...

[moonspinner55 · 4/10 · 26 June 2010]

Sydney Pollack is a solid, workman-like director who doesn't like to underline key moments with ostentation, he doesn't belabor certain points--and his pictures usually move along quite freely as a result. But with "Absence of Malice", he seems to have taken a page from Alan J. Pakula's film manual--"All the President's Men", in particular--and has slowed the pacing down to a crawl. Pollack also works well with his actors, yet this time he gets nothing at all interesting from Sally Field, cast as an overeager newspaper reporter who ruins an innocent working man's life with hearsay stories about him being involved with the Mafia. Paul Newman does a bit better as the target of her slander, and Melinda Dillon is very affecting as an emotionally-frail friend of Newman's who is maligned by proxy (both were Oscar-nominated). Still, the picture is mechanical, with a quasi-romantic subplot shoehorned in which doesn't make much sense (except to soften the squabbling characters). It doesn't even have a fresh, interesting look--just the same old visual clichés--and Pollack's reluctance to cut scenes down after their drama has played out slowly wears down the audience. *1/2 from ****