Trial and Error (1996) User Reviews

Excellent film

[JerryWeaver · 7/10 · 1 March 2002]

This film illustrates that appearances can be deceiving. Each of the main characters is playing a role that is somehow contrary to that person's real identity. In the case of the Rip Torn character, who is on trial for fraud, the deception is obvious, despite his ludicrous attempt to justify his fraudulent actions. And it is equally obvious in the case of the Michael Richards character, who is pretending to be a lawyer to help out his friend. But the other characters also are revealed to be different than who they appear to be.

This is a wonderful movie, which raises important questions about the veneer most of us use to hide our real selves. Like most good comedians (e.g., Robin Williams, Steve Martin), Michael Richards is also a fine actor, and his closing argument in the case is an especially masterful piece of acting.

Sweet movie...

[lilszoo2011 · 7/10 · 13 March 2013]

Funny, and committed to a fun time with actors blazing their talents without a care in the world other than entertainment for entertainments' sake. Sometimes that is all that is needed when you are down, I have been down and this has lifted me up again (& again)... this movie has been a mainstay in my collection of movies to look to for a good time and has never let me down. Good Job! Look for an early play by Charlize Theron and don't forget to look for who is now George Stephanopolous' wife as the bitter Fiancée. And Thanks for many a night of joy and happiness ( since I watch it over and over again!) So, thanks!

Far from spectacular, but Michael Richards and Jeff Daniels make a good comedy duo

[Beta_Gallinger · 6/10 · 8 October 2009]

I think it was about five years ago when I first discovered that this 1997 lawyer comedy existed. It took me this long to finally get around to seeing it, even though I've been familiar with the two stars for quite some time now. I've seen Jeff Daniels as Jim Carrey's co-star in "Dumb & Dumber", and knew the now infamous Michael Richards obviously for his role as Kramer in the popular sitcom, "Seinfeld", plus his roles in comedy films such as "UHF" and "So I Married an Axe Murderer". Since I had seen both of these actors in funny movies/TV shows, I figured I might find "Trial and Error" mildly amusing, nothing more, judging by its general reception. Expecting a mixed blessing, I didn't get any big surprises, pleasant or unpleasant.

Charles Tuttle (Daniels) is a lawyer who will soon be married. His best friend, and best man for the wedding, is an out-of-work actor named Richard Rietti (Richards). Tuttle has been called over to Paradise Bluff, Nevada to defend his fiancée's relative, Benny Gibbs, in a class action fraud suit. When he arrives in the town, Richard (or "Ricky") is there, and is ready to throw a bachelor party for his friend. After drinking and getting attacked in the bar, Charlie is not well enough to work the next day, so Ricky decides to go to the courtroom and claim to be a lawyer named Charles Tuttle! Charlie is not happy when he hears what Ricky has done, and soon finds that he now has to pose as an actor named Richard Rietti! Since the real Rietti is not trained to be a lawyer, the real Charlie pretends to be his assistant, using cue cards to tell him what to do on the job while he defends Benny. Obviously, this leads to a horrible mess!

There weren't too many times when I laughed really hard while watching this 1997 comedy, but there were many parts I found at least mildly amusing. I can't forget Ricky discovering that his sick friend in bed has emptied out his pill bottle, Ricky trying to prepare Charlie for the trial while he is ill, Charlie's reaction when he learns what Ricky has done, and many things the main characters go through while they pose as each other. Michael Richards and Jeff Daniels are a good pair in the lead roles, which might be the main reason why this film is funny. Richards, with his over-the-top antics, playing a character with good intentions who keeps lousing up, and Daniels, with some of the faces he makes and his character's reactions to Ricky's doings. Unfortunately, the plot isn't too interesting, and if the film were hilarious, that wouldn't matter, but it's not funny enough to prevent the movie from being a little dull. Also, the romance wasn't done so well, eventually getting a little sappy, and the ending leaves much to be desired.

This movie came out the same year as "Liar Liar", another lawyer comedy. That film is definitely the more popular of the two, but I have to be honest, I prefer this one, as crazy as many people might think I am for that. While Jim Carrey has made me laugh in other films, I found that his antics went too far in that one. Richards and Daniels, while not usually hilarious in the film, are still pretty funny. I'm sure we all know about Richards' racist tirade in November 2006, which obviously permanently damaged his reputation and started a never ending debate over whether he really meant what he said and whether his apology was honest or not. It clearly had more impact than Mel Gibson's tirade earlier that year, and the main reason for that was probably because Richards was caught on video. I remember feeling like I could never watch anything with Richards in it again after I first heard about the incident and saw the footage, but now, regardless of his reputation and what may go on in his head, I have to admit, he can still make me laugh in the comedies I see him in. If you like the two co-stars in "Trial and Error" as comedians, then this flick could easily make you laugh, or at least some parts could.

Better than most reviews let on

[ReturnOfTheLivingFatGuy · 13 November 2004]

We spend so much time as movie enthusiasts that we often only look for films people would consider revolutionary (e.g. Donnie Darko, Fight Club, etc.) but every once in awhile a noraml run of the mill comedy is nice. Trial and Error, however, had some of the most ridiculously funny scenes I have ever seen Micheal Richards in - his audtion near the beginning, his cross examination of 'Buck.' These scenes a lone are enough reason to see the movie. All said and done, Micheal Richards kills it in this movie... Some people have said that he still is trying to play off his role of Kramer but what we must understand is that regardless the role Micheal Richards constantly brings his own personality to the characters he plays and I wouldn't have it any other way. See it. Twice.

"Sit down Mr. Rietti" "Sit down Mr. Rietti!"

[spenrh · 7/10 · 4 February 2020]

My title is a quote from a scene in the courtroom after both Mr. Rietti and Mr. Tuttle have switched their names and roles for the trial, where Mr. Tuttle (posing as Rietti) remains standing after the first time and right before the second time Tuttle as Rietti is told by the judge to sit down.

I have to admit, the reason is idiotic why Rietti (Sienfeld's Michael Richards) and Tuttle (Dumb and dumber's Jeff Daniels) swap identities for the courtroom. Lawyer Mr. Tuttle is mistakenly told by his boss that all he has to do is go to small town Paradise Bluff, NV and request a continuance, and then he can come home and marry his boss's daughter, played by Alexandra Wentworth as another typical 1990s style snobby L. A. woman (types who have appeared in countless 1990s movies and have no objections to sneering down at anyone beneath their social status (Rietti is an example of one who Alexandra sneers down on in this movie)). The defendant (Rip Torn) that Tuttle is sent to Paradise Bluff to request the continuance on is a relative of Alexandra and her dad (like a cousin or brother, and Alexandra's uncle, I suppose).

First upon arrival in Paradise Bluff, Mr. Rietti shows up with a few of his buddies for a bachelor party and they take Mr. Tuttle to the town bar to get plastered (why they couldn't have made the smarter choice to have done that on the evening after Tuttle went to court was obviously because we then wouldn't have had our main plot of the movie with the switched identities). Tuttle meets Charlize Theron for the first time as a bar waitress who particularly suggests getting him a Paradise Manhattan (named that because they're just Manhattans but are being served in a town named Paradise Bluff). I know he was drinking, but it was still utterly stupid how Tuttle chimed in on two local roughnecks getting into a fight over who's the owner of a slot machine winnings, and they then both punched Tuttle out. After that (supposedly a doctor saw them between these scenes), Rietti tells Tuttle back in their hotel room to rest, sober up, and to take prescribed painkillers for his assualt injury. Rietti tells him to take one every 3 hours. But Tuttle mistakenly takes 3 every one hour (nobody's too drunk to not see that taking 3 percosets or hydrocodones every hour is the stupidly wrong choice), and he ends up by the morning being so completely hopped up, just laying there looking like a dumb cow with a stupid grin. He can't even stand up or repeat the simple line he was supposed to say in court (Rietti: "repeat after me, 'your honor,'". Tuttle: "'my honor"'). When Tuttle's first waking up high on opiates, he says "My son, he has many cattle", all spaced out with that very dumb cow grin.

Tuttle hyperventilates when first hearing about Rietti impersonating him in court, and how prosecutor Jessica Stien refused the continuance, and how Rietti has to keep impersonating him (extremely carefully) or they'll be caught and prosecuted for fraud. During his panic attack, Tuttle meets Theron again and finds out that she also works as a waitress at the hotel as well as the town bar.

Now, as dumb as the set-up is to where the two men trade places, some of the courtroom scenes were quite funny and enjoyable, largely due to 1) the funny dialogue in court by Rietti, 2) Rietti bringing in people to help who were grossly inexperienced (the nutritional "expert" (Jennifer Coolage) was very flakey, and the "doctor" looked like he was still in highschool). 3) Rietti's flawed theory of sugar leading the defendant (Rip Torn) to be incapable of being able to tell right from wrong (Neither Rietti or Coolage understood the chemical structured differences between sugar and cocaine (Prosecutor Stien explains the differences in atom structure between the two, and Coolage's response is "well, how big is an atom?", then Stien tells her (sarcastically) "you must be brilliant in other ways too, can you also bend spoons?")). Then, 4) there was the humorous ways of Tuttle trying to quietly lead Rietti to say the right things in the courtroom (lots of funny "objection!" "sustained" "overrulled" lines), him first showing flashcards, and eventually Tuttle getting thrown out of the courthouse because he fell through the ceiling from an overhead duct pipe, quite funny. 5) Austin Peddleton as the judge was quite amusing too. I remember him playing a similar type of character in 1980s movie "Short circuit" as a scientist. Both of his roles, here and in "Short circuit", he plays a short tempered yet goofy character. 6) Rip Torn as the defendant, he was obviously a guilty character, yet insistant on trying to right every wrong he has done in his years of being a fraudulent salesman (selling customers pennys for $17, but saying that they're valuable copper engraving of Lincoln (how he was able to fool his customers until after he had their money, the movie didn't explain). Rip does give a sentimental yet funny speech on the stand near the end of the movie.

A couple other dumb bits (besides Tuttle not being able to go to court to request a continuance because of him drunkenly interfering with fighting hoodlums and then taking a whole bottle of Percesets) were Rietti's overly desperate attempts to make the moves on Stien, first in the bar on Tuttle's bachelor party night, then in Stien's office (i.e. Rietti putting his hand on Stien's shoulder, Stien not liking it, and Rietti replying by saying that he doesn't like the barrier between them on human contact), Rietti really didn't understand the rules of appropriate behavior between a lawyer and prosecuting attorney, let alone between a man and woman (and that was besides the fact that he was impostering an attorney, a felony to do that in the courtroom during a trial). I also didn't care for the part where Tuttle was sitting in his car outside the courthouse communicating via walky talkies, and Tuttle was supposed to honk out the correct signals so Rietti would know when to object in court. But then he makes another one of his several stupid moves in this movie, he just gets up and walks away from all of it just because he sees Theron pull up. Never mind how much he was freaking out throughout the movie til then on getting through this trial. Suddenly in that moment, it meant nothing to him? And the third stupid move he made was a little earlier in the courtroom when he suddenly jumps up yelling hysterically "I object!!! I object!!!", getting him thrown out of there. It doesn't make sense, he knew that they all thought he wasn't a lawyer and that he couldn't object, and he knew that even a lawyer can't just start screaming hysterically in a courtroom. It was just dumb.

I did though like a few of the romantic scenes between him and Theron, and am glad that he ended up choosing her over Alexandra and her snobbery.

Anyway, a funny movie in many parts, a few dumb parts, I give this a 7.

What's a courtroom circus without a couple of clowns?

[Hey_Sweden · 7/10 · 10 March 2019]

"My Cousin Vinny" director Jonathan Lynn returns to skewer the legal profession (and the acting profession, as well) in this tale of rising legal star Charles Tuttle (Jeff Daniels), a newly minted partner in a prestigious firm. Engaged to marry the boss' daughter (Alexandra Wentworth), he agrees to an impromptu bachelor party thrown by his actor friend Richard Rietti (Michael Richards). This results in him being badly incapacitated, and Richard actually fills in for him when a fraud case goes to trial; since the local court now believes that Richard is the attorney for the defence, he's obliged to continue with this ruse, leading to some amusing complications.

It's all about the appeal and comic abilities of this cast. Ultimately, the film is nothing special, with no real comedy fireworks, but it's still funny and engaging enough to make it pleasant throughout. It's too bad Richards, a.k.a. Cosmo Kramer, didn't get more feature film opportunities in this vein, as he's really able to strut his stuff. And he has fine chemistry with Daniels, who gets to alternate between being a "straight man", of sorts, and getting hilariously flustered as things go completely awry. Charlize Theron may be the MAIN reason to watch "Trial and Error", however, as she *is* utterly adorable as the cute & perky waitress to whom Charles becomes attracted.

They all receive very capable support from Rip Torn as the con man, Austin Pendleton (who was the stuttering temporary replacement for Vinny in "My Cousin Vinny") as the judge, a strikingly sexy Jessica Steen as the exasperated prosecutor, Lawrence Pressman as Charles' boss, Max Casella as a VERY young looking doctor, Dale Dye as a psychiatric expert, and Jennifer Coolidge as a priceless "dietary expert" of some kind.

This would make an agreeable double feature with another 1997 comedy about a lawyer, "Liar Liar", although "Trial and Error" never does get as cartoonish as that Jim Carrey vehicle.

Among the highlights: Charles having to sit in a car parked outside the courthouse (he ends up getting banned from the courtroom), beeping in Morse code the sort of dialogue that he needs Richard to deliver.

Seven out of 10.

Don't Waste your time

[The-Sarkologist · 2/10 · 25 December 2013]

What happens when a lawyer gets so drunk that in the morning he cannot make his court case and his friend has to cover for him? Well this movie outlines it quite well. The plot is interesting but the movie is nothing more than pure stupidity. The judge does not seem to be at all interested in actually running the case while the lawyer, Jeff Daniels, turns out to be nothing more than a bumbling fool.

His friend, the one who takes over the case for him, knows absolutely nothing about law and can do absolutely nothing with out his friend beside him (or at least in communication range). Yet the movie always takes the lawyer away to leave us laughing at the ineptitude of the friend, who happens to be an actor.

This movie really has nothing that makes it stand out. The lawyer is engaged to be married to a rich girl who is the daughter of the boss of the law firm for whom he works, but he gives her up for a sweet city girl come country girl who has a humble background. The actor is chasing one particular woman all the way through the movie, that is the prosecutor, and gets away with things such as sexual harassment. In the end he lands up with her, which is very typical of Hollywood.

The name of the town, Paradise Bluff, brings up some thoughts, as if it is a place that on the outside seems perfect, but deep within there is some rotting evil. In this movie though, there is no allusion, nor is there any hidden evil. Paradise Bluff is a Paradise where the heroes live happily ever after.

In my opinion, Trial and Error is a very dull movie with little to no comedy in it at all. It is not worth hiring, nor is it worth wasting one's time watching it on TV. The only time one should even consider watching this movie is when you are stuck on a bus between Adelaide and Sydney, and there is no way off.

Funny law/disaster spiral/romance comedy

[thehumanduvet · 7/10 · 20 June 2001]

In the great traditional of movies about city folk forced out into the wilds and finding their lives turned around by simple small-town folk, (My Cousin Vinny etc etc), this is a fun film featuring a typically straight-down-the-line performance from Jeff Daniels and an equally typical crazy loon from the hilarious Michael Richards. Daniels is the lawyer in trouble, doing a favour for his boss, defending Rip Torn's wonderfully roguish swindler the week before wedding the bosses daughter, Richards is the accident-prone actor friend along for the ride, who ends up sparking a farcical few days when he has to stand in for Daniels at the trial. The story is simple, predictable but no less fun for it, the pace is good, finding the right balance between the courtroom scenes and the shenanigans outside where Daniels is romanced away from his unappealing bride-to-be by a pretty, only slightly kooky Charlize Theron. It isn't a great film, doesn't have much by way of originality or innovation but doesn't claim to, it's just simple, undemanding entertainment, perfectly adequate for a bit of a giggle of a Sunday afternoon

What are friends for? Trial by error.

[michaelRokeefe · 5/10 · 20 June 2004]

This is a quaint little Jonathan Lynn comedy. No real belly laughs, but humorous and entertaining. An ambitious big city attorney Charles Tuttle(Jeff Daniels)is defending his future bride's(Alexandra Wenworth)relative, Benny Gibbs(Rip Torn)in a class action fraud suit. Tuttle's long time friend(Michael Richards)gets the bridegroom drunk and trying to get rid of a hangover the up and coming lawyer over-medicates himself. He is unable to conduct himself properly for court; so Richards who happens to be an actor takes over his friend's duty as defense attorney in court. While Tuttle is banned from the courtroom he falls in love with a beautiful waitress named Billy(Charlize Theron)and puts his nuptials in question. The most hilarious part of the movie is when swindler Torn takes the stand for his own defense. Austin Pendleton who plays the small town judge is also pretty darn funny. I have to admit if it wasn't for Miss Theron I probably would not have watched TRIAL and ERROR. I'm glad I did.

Not hilarious, but it was funny.

[LebowskiT1000 · 7/10 · 27 April 2002]

I've always been a fan of Michael Richards, Jeff Daniels and who doesn't love Charlize Theron? I couldn't dare say this movie anywhere near the top 10 funniest movies I've ever seen, but it's got some really good stuff in it. If you're a fan of Charlize Theron like I am, than you really don't need to know anything else other than the fact that she is in the film.

The only real complaint I have about the movie is the way that Jeff Daniels gets detained from court in the first place. I thought they could have come up with a better way of getting Michael Richards in the court room than having Jeff Daniels get in a bar fight and then taking too much medicine to go to court the next day.

Anyhow, if you have the time and like the actors in the film, then go ahead and see it, but I wouldn't recommend going out of your way to see it. Thanks for reading.

-Chris

A Most Entertaining Movie

[donlhumphries · 8/10 · 19 July 2000]

I found this movie to be most entertaining, with all the cast giving excellent performances. I'm not one to criticise or analyse, but tend to view a film as a whole. The courtroom scenes were infomative(as to procedure)as well as amusing, and the romantic interest was endearing. Especially enchanting was Charlize Theron, as waitress Billie Tyler, as she was cheerful, kindly, and even brave (when she thought she had lost her boyfriend to a rival). Yet it was she who innocently caused the whole problem - by serving her own alcoholic cocktail!

I'm putting this movie among my favourites.

It's no "My Cousin Vinny," but funny nonetheless

[mattymatt4ever · 7/10 · 4 December 2002]

I was severely disappointed with this movie the first time it came out, mainly because at the time I was at the peak of my "Seinfeld" fanaticism. I thought Michael Richards was one of the funniest actors out there, and I absolutely loved him as Kramer. And of course, the film doesn't live up to its trailer--and that's something I still feel, even after my second viewing. The trailers make us assume this is a raucous, fast-paced comedy with lots of physical schtick, when it's actually a lot more low-key. It's strange because at the time I wasn't aware that Jonathan Lynn directed this film and I thought to myself, "Geez, 'My Cousin Vinny' was so much funnier. Whoever this director is should've learned from that movie." Of course, "Vinny" is one of my favorite comedies of all time and it's extremely difficult to top a wonderfully original courtroom comedy of that kind.

Anyway, there was a sale at my local West Coast Video, where I was able to purchase 5 videos for 19.99, so I decided to pick up "Trial and Error," with a gut feeling that this time I'll probably keep a more open mind and enjoy it a lot more. Well, I popped in the tape and I was impressed. This is a funny film, and I got a lot more laughs than I did when sitting in the theater. Sure, it's no "My Cousin Vinny" and I can't help but watch a courtroom comedy with that comparison in mind, but I was still able to enjoy it for what it is.

Michael Richards is not nearly as funny as Joe Pesci, but he was able to deliver some laughs without being over-the-top, which I found impressive. Sure, I loved him as Kramer, but the movie's name is "Trial and Error" and not "Seinfeld," and his job to play a CHARACTER. And he did a fine job at playing this character, even showing in certain scenes that he has potential as a serious actor. Richards is a good actor, and not simply a comedian who transfers his act to the big screen, like in the case of a Chris Tucker or Cedric the Entertainer. Jeff Daniels is a very funny straight man, and some of his emotional outbursts are really enjoyable to watch. Charlize Theron is her normal beautiful, charming self. I just wish Alexandra Wentworth could've been given a less thankless role. She doesn't get much chance to flaunt her talents as a comic actress.

*******SPOILERS AHEAD*********

What prevents the movie from being a great, memorable comedy is its predictable, utterly formulaic plot. Daniels is engaged to a woman, who he obviously doesn't like in the first place, and from one twist of fate he falls for another woman and decides to bump the marriage. And of course, there's the case with Richards, where he pulls his "fake lawyer" act disastrously at first, improves as he goes along and finally has an attack of conscience and decides to lose the case, allowing the slimy defendant to pay his debt to society. Didn't I see that in "Liar Liar"? And other movies of this sort?

Despite its flaws, I liked the movie and was able to accept it for what it is...the second time around. I imagine others had the same feelings as I did on the first viewing. "Trial and Error" isn't a must-see, but it's worth watching.

My score: 7 (out of 10)

No, just error. Lots of errors

[studioAT · 1/10 · 12 February 2020]

A dud comedy from 1997.

Jeff Daniels thankfully picked better material from this point on by and large, and this film only proves how woefully unfunny Michael Richards is.

Avoid.

charm,

[person309 · 1 November 2002]

This one had all ingredients for a great comedic recipe. It surprises me that it didn't recieve more attention.

A great view of how something seemingly simple can quickly become absurd. All through this movie were characters of stark contrasts. What ensues is a complete loss of control of a simple thing and the way in which the different characters handle it.

The irony of the whole thing is that the harder the serious ones tried to control the situation, the more out of control the thing got.

The real brilliance though, lies in Richards' character, Richard Rietti. Playing as an actor, he approaches life as one big play, and the lawyer as yet another role. All the world's a stage. I think this movie points this out for us. In the end, we can only laugh at man's attempt to establish order, whether in the courtroom, or in life, in the face of chaos.

The Women Actors Were Great

[whpratt1 · 6/10 · 18 February 2006]

Taped this film which was shown in the wee wee hours of the night and decided I had nothing to lose. The plot starts out with a guy who is a young lawyer recently out of Yale who is in the process of marrying a gal who has a dad who is very rich. This lawyer is bossed around by his intended bride and even gets a fancy corner office given by this girls father. The father sends his son-in-law to be to a remote small town in Boonville, USA and he meets up with Charlize Theron, (Billie Tyler) and plenty of things start to happen to his life. Jessica Stein,(Elizabeth Gardner) gives a great supporting role. If it were not for these two women in the picture, it would simply Stand on Its Head.

Care for a little Paradise with your Manhattan...?

[lyincryin · 6/10 · 1 May 2004]

Jeff Daniels has made a career of playing straight laced boring dweebs who only need a tiny little push in the opposite direction to make them go wild - he does it again here nicely. Michael Richards is basically playing "Kramer" here but it is funny and likable. And the ever wonderful Rip Torn playing a bad guy you just gotta love. Last but not least, there is the fantastic, pre-Oscar Charlize Theron who lights up the movie with a sweet, naive, free-spirited character whose simple life is something we all wish for sometime in our lives.

A great cast rounds out a lighthearted, good-natured, mellow yet cheerful little comedy. You wont be sorry to spend the time with this movie.

3/5 Stars

Anyone got the recipe for a Paradise Manhattan ?

Like "My Cousin Vinny," but not as good

[Wuchakk · 5/10 · 2 September 2014]

Released in 1997, "Trial and Error" is a comedy/romance/court room movie in the manner of 1992's "My Cousin Vinny," although not nearly as good, but it's not bad.

Jeff Daniels plays a L.A. lawyer who's getting married to a fake city biyatch and Michael Richards plays his best man. At the last minute Daniels gets a job defending some scam-artist in Nevada (Rip Torn) where Richards is forced to take Daniel's place in a classic role-reversal. Charlize Theron, Alexandra Wentworth and Jessica Steen co-star.

Daniels and Richards play well together and the scenic locations are awesome (Lone Pine & Independence, CA, about 70-minutes from the Nevada border), but this is a fairly average comedy highlighted by a great moral at the end (be real, don't be a fake) and some good-looking women. Charlize has an ultra-cute face, but her thin body never did much for me. I prefer Alexandra Wentworth, even though she plays a biyatch here; she has a great lingerie scene. Steen is pretty good too. Richards essentially plays a variation of his Kramer character.

Although I like Richards and Wentworth, I'm not that big of the fan, and the rest of the cast I can take or leave. If you're more of a fan of any of them you'll probably like this movie more than I did.

The film runs 98 minutes.

GRADE: C+

Strictly Time-Pass!

[namashi_1 · 6/10 · 12 August 2012]

Jonathan Lynn's 'Trial and Error' is Strictly Time-Pass Entertainment! Its a fairly engaging comedy, that comes in-tact with earnest performances from its cast.

'Trial and Error' Synopsis: An actor poses as a lawyer to help his sick friend, and problems develop.

'Trial and Error' stands perfect as a lazy Sunday afternoon watch. A light entertainer, that offers some good jokes & performances. Sara Bernstein & Gregory Bernstein's Screenplay is fairly engaging. Jonathan Lynn's Direction is fine.

Performance-Wise: Jeff Daniels is a joy to watch, as always. The under-rated actor puts up another excellent performance. Michael Richards does very well. Charlize Theron looks stunning as ever & is perfect. Rip Torn is as usual.

On the whole, 'Trial and Error' is time-pass.

Objection Sustained

[NoDakTatum · 1/10 · 10 October 2023]

Michael Richards and Jeff Daniels team in this forgettable legal comedy that telegraphs the entire plot in the opening minutes. Charles (Jeff Daniels) is about to marry the boss' wife, snotty and shallow Tiffany (Alexandra Wentworth). He is a lawyer on the move, but will miss his bachelor party being thrown by his best friend Richard (Michael Richards). Charles must go to Nevada to get a continuance for Benny (Rip Torn), a con artist. Luckily for the audience, Richard is a complete screw-up- an actor who cannot get anything right. He flies out to Nevada and throws the party. Beautiful waitress Billie (Charlize Theron) helps get Charles rip-snorting drunk, and he misses the court date. Okay, hold your sides- Richard appears in his place! The trial is on! They are up against cute prosecutor Elizabeth (Jessica Steen), who Richard hit on the night before! Are you laughing yet?!

This film could have been an intelligent satire along the lines of "...And Justice for All." Imagine an actor playing a lawyer, and getting away with it. Sure, lawyers are not held in high regard, but this should have been great. Instead, Charles and Billie, despite their complete lack of chemistry, fall for one another. Richard and Elizabeth spar and kiss. We even get the edgy judge, played by poor Austin Pendleton, who can do nothing in a horribly written role. Just when you think the film cannot get any more predictable, the writers throw in the "surprise" visit from Tiffany, and that's when I threw a pillow across the room. The one plus is the location shooting in Independence, California, standing in for Nevada. This town is so beautiful, I want to move there and live in a trailer with a flat tire. "Trial and Error" is terrible. It is not terrible because none of the slapstick works. It is not terrible because I knew what would happen so precisely, I thought I earned at least a co-story credit. It is terrible because the talent in front of the camera, the director, producers, writers, and everyone else involved blew a golden opportunity to make not only a smart comedy, but a funny one.

Reason to watch

[bocajon · 6/10 · 17 November 2012]

If this film is inspired by my cousin Vinny they did a good job.The only reason to watch this film is if you like Jeff and Mike. They both give you the characters they have built their carers on. Mike stumbles around Jeff makes his funny faces. The plot is very simple. Lawyer caught in a lie and good girl helps him find himself. That said Charlize may be one of the most beautiful woman in the world. Oh and Jenny Coolidge is so fun. If you are reading this Jenny, you are way more than Stiffler's mom. I think you have a suspense comedy drama in you. You should talk to the Coen Bros. Especially Ethan could write you a Oscar winner. Back to Trial and error, its worth a rainy night watch. Just don't expect too much. I wouldn't watch it twice.

Not bad

[Susie-7 · 5/10 · 20 April 1999]

This movie is not bad- not GOOD either, but not bad. Better than I expected. Horribly predictable and some of the jokes misfire, but the characters are likable enough. The courtroom scene with Rip Torn on the stand should have been dispensed with, or better yet, written VERY differently. I know it's a comedy, but a little realism would have been appreciated; even OJ didn't BS that badly (not on the stand, but in depositions etc.). However, the jurors ultimate decision helps make up for the ridiculousness of the whole thing, even if the initial reaction was extremely dumb. I like Jeff Daniels and think Michael Richards was the only good thing about Seinfeld, and consequently they have to fail pretty badly for me to dislike anything they do, so if you don't agree with my view of them, you might very well also not agree with my assessment of this movie.

Rietti!!!!

[paulgemelli · 9/10 · 18 August 2005]

Richard Rietti!!! Best character name in movie history. Worth the price of admission just to watch Rietti fall and bumble...and fall...and bumble. Let us also not forget another vintage performance by the one and only Rip Torn. I would pay money to watch a Ron Popeil Infomercial if Rip Torn was prominently involved.

Jeff Daniels gets it done as the schlub lawyer who likes his chicken salad with mustard, not mayonnaise. Finally, we have Charlize Theron at her absolute apex (lookswise, not as an actress...clearly). You just knew it would lead to bigger & better things for her, and it did.

Worth checking out. RIETTI!!!!!

Good movie about lying, not that good as a comedy !

[elshikh4 · 7/10 · 19 April 2011]

Well, I loved it. But I felt it could have had more laughs. Take for instance the improvisations of the substitute lawyer, they were all disappointed. The matter of missing the session by mixed horns wasn't exploited well. Or the character of the judge; all out of use. In brief, every time this movie has the opportunity to make fun, it retracts. Is it laziness? Average sense of comedy? Whatever the reason is, while having the irony, (Trial and Error) doesn't use it well, or doesn't use it.

Then slight bugging matters: the strange biker had been pictured first as (Jeff Daniels)'s attention line and fascinating fantasy; that was confusing a bit, especially when we discover lately that she'll be his friend's girl. Then, how come (Charlize Theron) forgave (Daniels) that simple, I still can't explain the big hug near the end, putting in mind the hurting slap that she got hours ago by his arrogant fiancée?! And lastly, the movie left us, incredibly happy, while its 2 leading men could, or would, serve years in prison for what they already have done. Both of them are going to be exposed easily. Not to mention what job exactly (Daniels) would have? I mean when a movie like this didn't answer questions like these, even by swift answers, then whether it was preparing for a sequel, or something was hasty about its ending.

On the contrary, it has so wonderful meaning about stopping the lying, in a way most of the similar movies didn't have. The moment of the concluding pleading is heartwarming and overwhelming. It sums up the movie's core perfectly. Sad that with stronger comedy, this could have been evenly perfect movie itself.

I loved the scene of (Daniels) talking about the early-brilliant's tragedy, the one who lives a chain reaction of being superior, then less and less as time goes by. It's the scary opposite relationship between intelligence and freedom. More intelligence equals less freedom, hence less happiness. This movie shows it in impressive simplicity, running as a play on the main theme as well, whereas the character used to lie, yet on himself, as if he was happy while he wasn't.

(Daniels) is a fair actor, but not a great comedian, besides he lacks the charisma. (Michael Richards) is a nice talent. Look at his super slapstick comedy in his audition scene (I couldn't understand what these examiners were uneasy about?!). Or to the way he performed his serious scenes. Accordingly, I don't know why he couldn't make a cinematic career away from his trademark Cosmo Kramer of "Seinfeld"?! What I do know is that he didn't have a proper chance to blossom and flourish. (Rip Torn) and (Charlize Theron), with more capturing presence and talent, surpassed (Daniels) and (Richards). (Theron) in specific acted so naturally despite her short experience back then.

It's smooth and meaningful afternoon movie. I began to feel that this term, afternoon movie, got a lot to do with the light movies. As if the more complicated or satisfied ones are fitter for the night. As a comedy, it could have been better if only it wasn't full of too many anti-climaxes, where you're about to laugh, then you're not. It's where I desired a remake for the very movie I was watching!

It doesn't know what it wants to be

[lingmeister · 4/10 · 7 December 2002]

This movie does not know what it wants to be, is it a slapstick or romantic comedy?

Michael Richards' character can't get away from the Kramer character. Is he this oddball or a serious actor? He flips back and forth between the two. And in the courtroom, one second, he is fooling everyone with his acting, then the next, he becomes a complete dimwit w/o the ability to improvise through anything.

I'm not sure why the prosecutor would even phrase so many arguments so that it would be constantly objected, given that she has all the legal training.