Good , But It Is Overrated By Some

Fun premise, good actors, bad writing. This film seemed to have potential at the beginning but it quickly devolves into a trite action film. Ultimately it's very boring.

All of these films share one commonality, that being a kind of emotional center that humanizes a cast of monsters.

One of the most extraordinary films you will see this year. Take that as you want.

A Civil Action could easily have been turned into a highly stylized formula courtroom drama. In choosing not to take this route, director Steven Zaillian (Searching for Bobby Fisher) resists the temptation to make an easy hit, and goes instead for a thoughtful work of art. Good directors know when the best thing you can do is to avoid artificial contrivances and let the story speak for itself.I first read Jonathan Harr's book A Civil Action about a year ago. The book is the story of a real case in Woburn, Massachusetts. When an abnormally high number of children are diagnosed with leukemia, the parents in the area become convinced that the fault is in the water supply, and that the water supply has been poisoned by two factories in the area.John Travolta plays real-life attorney Jan Schlichtmann, a personal injury lawyer with a reputation for a large ego, courtroom showboating, and a flamboyant lifestyle. Initially Schlichtmann is ready to turn down the case as a losing proposition. When he discovers that huge multinational corporations own the local factories, the lure of deep pockets is hard to resist, and he convinces his partners that the firm should take the case.As the case unfolds, there are small successes and some major setbacks. It would be easy in this kind of film to depict an emotionally charged dramatic transformation of the central character. While Schlichtmann is transformed, the change is neither dramatic nor sweeping. It is Zaillian's choice to play it this way that makes this film better than average fare. The story has a power of its own; the understated transformation is exactly the right choice.The story is enhanced by Conrad Hall's cinematography and by some excellent acting by Travolta, Robert Duvall, John Lithgow, William H. Macy, Kathleen Quinlan, and many others. Duvall and Macy especially are at their idiosyncratic best. The film is very faithful to the story as recorded in Harr's book. Of necessity, events are compressed and details deleted. Such is the nature of the medium. To Zaillian's credit, the power of the story comes through beautifully. The end result is a well-told story of injustice, negligence, ego, and power that ends up as a winning hand without resorting to stacking the deck.

why is this movie so poorly rated? it involves plenty of human emotions. death of a child, arrogance, recognition of arrogance, redemption, etc. You have James Gandolfini in a good role. Bobby Duval is excellent as is John Travolta and Sydney Pollack and others. I think it's a wonderful movie and I bought it on DVD and watch it every time it's on TV. Give it a viewing.

First of all, if you want a rehash of the plot, go read another review. This is a great movie. It's not your typical courtroom drama, but more of a legal drama. And it's a bit more realistic than what we're used to on the screen (but only a little), and some don't feel comfortable with stories told like it was. (The reason I say 'a little' is because I used to work for lawyers and I can't see any of those guys going that far out on a limb for a case.) But this was a true story and the filmmakers really stuck to the truth. It doesn't have the usual courtroom scenes, yet it still depicts what a hellish, slippery slope (and costly one) it is to win justice for your client in the only venue permitted: a court of law. I don't believe there's ever been a film that's told this story quite this way before.I always wondered why our protagonist in the film (that's Jan) took the case in the first place. I always assumed it was forced on him, but don't know where that came from. (I'll probably have to look it up in the book since I don't own the movie.) If it was voluntary, he had to have seen dollar signs in it somewhere. But I don't know because Jan doesn't know. He doesn't even remember the case, let alone why he took it. He sure doesn't remember Anne Anderson when she calls him on the air of a radio show, and asks him why he doesn't return his client's phone calls, which makes him look, sound, and feel like a real jerk.And exactly when he realized Beatrice Foods was Granddaddy to a plethora of stuff that America consumes daily, that's fuzzy too. It's after he's been humiliated on the radio that we see he's got the file and talking to one of his partners about Beatrice Foods' deep pockets. And his partner (I think it was Macy) tells him that kind of case is just a "black hole" and he should get rid of it. So he goes out to Woburn to meet with the families for the first time (he's had the case 2 years!) supposedly to get rid of them. But after hearing their stories, he can't do it. He's too much of a coward. I also think he's embarrassed by their unbelievable loss and suffering; maybe he feels somewhat sorry for them. But I really believe that the increasing obsession he soon develops over securing the highest number he can for his clients isn't due to a sudden awakening of conscience, or a heart burgeoning with pity, which is what it looks like on the outside. But there's been no character change yet. His anger grows, but it has little to do with the crimes committed by the big corporations against his clients. What really jerks his chain more than anything at this point are those pompous defense attorneys; how they act and how they treat him makes him furious. He's consumed with beating them down and knocking them out of the game for good really because of hurt pride. Jan Schlictman is no hero. One reviewer aptly wrote that he had "feet of clay." He's a hot-shot. I wouldn't say he "loves the law;" I would say he loves having knowledge of the law which allows him to manipulate it, and that gives him power. He doesn't appear to respect the law. We see him getting a speeding ticket on the way to Woburn, and again — from the same cop — on the way back. As he takes the ticket and insolently slams it into his glove compartment that's just teeming with others, he resembles a rebellious teenager. And the filmmakers made sure to show us that early in the film.In my opinion, his character starts to change ― and here comes a spoiler ― the moment near the end when he picks up Grace's number off the floor. (That part always kills me!) His partners have read him the riot act and walked out on him. He's sitting on the floor, his body slumped over the phone as he picks it up and dials. His body language reflects utter despair. Note: To those who get bored when there's not enough action, and/or can't tell what's happening with a character because there's no dialog to explain, learn to read the actor's body language. If he or she is an above-average actor, (and you are somewhat intelligent), you should be able to get it.As for Oscar nominations, for once I can see why the Academy didn't nominate Travolta for his acting here. I compared this performance with Travolta's take on Tony Manero in "Saturday Night Fever," and again with Vincent Vega in "Pulp Fiction." For me, it just doesn't compare. He's not that skillful at the underplaying thing. Robert Duvall's nomination didn't surprise me.Having read the book, I thought the writers accomplished the ending fairly well, even if they omitted a heck of a lot from the book's ending. (It seems to me the families actually did get to testify, but I could be wrong.) There are too many movies that are dumb, pointless, predictable, and a waste of two hours, with too few being clever, absorbing, stimulating, and different. I can never pass this up whenever it's on. But it bores most of my friends, too— probably for the same reasons others have stated — no action, no high drama. Also, Travolta underplays his performance for the most part, (which allows Duvall all that scene-stealing) and I think that was an excellent decision for that role, whose ever it was. And whenever an actor does that, sometimes people don't get it; they think nothing's going on, that the star is holding back. Trust me, they did this one right.

If you go into this expecting an exciting, edge of your seat legal thriller type of movie you;re going to be disappointed. I watched this twice. The first time because from what had been described, that's what I was expecting - and I was disappointed. But I decided to give it another chance, reflecting more on the moral of the story and the characters. Using this lens, I wasn't disappointed.John Travolta put on a pretty good performance as Jan Schlictmann, a personal injury lawyer who, although unenthused at first, takes on a case involving environmental contamination that has caused several children in Massachussetts to die of leukemia. Basically, he takes it on because he discovers that there are two huge corporations he could get money from, and that's one moral of the story: personal injury law is less about the victims who've been hurt and more about the money that can be made. IN fact, the very opening of the movie establishes that well, as Schlictmann (in a narration by Travolta) describes who the preferred victims are, based on how much money you can expect to make off them, and children are at the bottom of the list. Schlictmann belongs to a small but pretty successful law firm that doesn't accept cases unless they know they can win, since that's the only way they get paid. The whole point of this type of practice, we're told, is to avoid trials and get big settlements. His colleagues doubt the wisdom of accepting this case but go along with it, until Schlictmann loses his "perspective" in two way: he actually starts to care about the victims, declining large settlements because they're not enough, and, faced with a degree of contempt from the big law firms he's going up against, he decides he has to prove himself. The result is disaster. The firm and all the partners go broke, even after a settlement is made, because what they get doesn't come close to covering their costs, and the families are disappointed because they didn't really care about money - they wanted an apology and a clean-up.Although not especially exciting, the movie is well-paced and interesting, and includes a solid supporting cast, including folks like Robert Duvall, William H. Macy and Tony Shalhoub. I found the end a bit anti-climactic. Hard to believe you could feel sympathy for an ambulance chaser, but by the time the movie ends, I really wanted Schlictmann to win. Instead, he ends up totally destitute - telling a bankruptcy judge that he's left with $14 and a portable radio. He wants to continue the case but doesn't have the resources, so he turns everything over to the EPA. They do take the case on - and win - but Schlictmann is long gone by the time that happens.Since this was a true story, it was nice to see the companies forced to pay up, and somewhat uplifting to learn that Schlictmann switched from personal injury law to environmental law. And, as much as I wanted him to succeed in this case in the end, it is a true story, so the end was what it was. A pretty good movie all in all. 7/10