•
Rating: In 1997 (the year this film was released), I didn't go to the cinema much. And even if I had been a regular goer, I admit I would never have gone to see this film, and I'll explain why right away: the premises are Grisham, lawyers, Matt Damon, a leukemia patient, and a girl beaten by her husband. No, I wouldn't have even gotten close to the theater! I mean, lawyer stories (of which Grisham is a master) don't attract me at all, and Matt Damon is my ideal model of a slap-face; as for the patient and the girl, I have nothing against them, but how many times do I have to see them on screen after all the films that air in the morning on channel 5 or la7?
So why watch a film like this? First of all, because the director is a certain Coppola (and I refuse to say a single word about why a Coppola film should be watched!) and then for the presence of Danny De Vito, capable in my opinion of at least slightly lifting even ignoble films like those with Schwarzenegger, and of Mickey Rourke playing the head of a somewhat unscrupulous law firm.
At this point, I should tell you the plot from beginning to end, but honestly, just as I am opposed to track-by-track reviews, I am opposed to reviews that tell films in every detail; after all, that's what the movie is for, and if you really don't want to make even the slightest effort (I can already imagine you bloated on your sofa like Homer), there's always Wikipedia.
In short, the film is about an idealistic young lawyer freshly graduated (guess who? Of course, he's young, good, and has a clean face: it's Matt Damon!) who goes to work for a shamelessly hilarious ambulance chaser (short, chubby, half-bald, and just the right amount of dumb... I won't even bother to mention it), but he focuses on the case that matters most to him: suing a large insurance company that refuses to pay compensation for a boy doomed to die from leukemia. Put that way (but also put in any other way), it is truly the most banal and predictable thing that could exist on the face of the earth: I won't tell you how the situation evolves, but I assure you that everything you expect will happen. Just to give you an example, the good Rudy (Matt Damon) will also meet a girl who is constantly beaten by her husband, and although he initially wants to be just her lawyer, he will fall in love with her and help her in her time of need. In short, there's enough to end up in the morning on channel 5.
I admit it: I've never read a book by Grisham, and as far as I know, this adaptation has cut out many characters and situations from the plot, but try as I might, I can't see anything else in this story but a nice fairy tale for lawyers: the young and insignificant lawyer to society sets off, is tested, is helped by the donor of the magic vehicle (those who have taken a semiotics course know what I'm talking about), wins, and is rewarded with the beautiful maiden. You could tell me that most stories unfold in this way, but I'll tell you right away that there are ways and ways, and I assure you this banal little story is not the best way. It's true: the film tackles two important issues like health insurance in America and violence against women, but how does it tackle them? In a flat and predictable way. The story of the girl Rudy falls in love with is also awkwardly inserted, wedged poorly between courtroom scenes, almost like trying to attract a bit of female audience with the tear-jerking love story (which at most just tears one apart, excuse the finesse).
The best things about the film are undoubtedly De Vito (capable of getting a laugh even with jokes about very serious problems), Glover (who plays a decidedly partial judge), and Mickey Rourke, although he is almost held back: a few scenes in which he makes a good impression only to disappear into nothing and reappear in the finale for a cameo (a small clarification: the film scores a two in my opinion precisely because of these three actors).
But then why talk about such a film when the good Coppola has done much, much better (even though I know some people consider this film even on par with The Godfather, and for that reason, even here on debaser, I'll get a ton of insults for having touched an untouchable)? First of all, because I hate the attitude of critics who praise any work of a given director because they've done great things in the past, but even worse are those who pretend that a certain director has only made great films, forgetting the missteps. On the contrary, I would prefer criticism capable of highlighting the errors of great filmmakers (and the same goes for music), so that the error is not repeated and the morning schedule of channel 5 is somehow lightened from certain ugliness, Matt Damon's face first and foremost.
Loading comments slowly
