This movie is the proof that the world is becoming a sick and dumb place

Excellent, a Must See

This is a coming of age storyline that you've seen in one form or another for decades. It takes a truly unique voice to make yet another one worth watching.

The film may be flawed, but its message is not.

Live with the fast forward button or suffer the consequences. Roy Scheider and Armand Assante seem like they would rather be in a different movie, any movie except "Citizen Verdict". Everything is annoying, from the hand held video cameras, to the redundant interviews. Jerry Springer is the only actor that appears comfortable with this sensationalized swill. Wrap the whole thing up in one sentence. This is not entertainment, it is merely a trick on unsuspecting audiences who admire Armand Assante or Roy Scheider. Terrible beyond belief, this should be avoided at all costs. ..... - MERK

"Citizen Verdict" is an interesting movie. The plot is about airing criminal trials on television and the audience acting as the jury.Jerry Springer plays Marty Rockman, the TV producer who thinks up this idea. Armand Assante is Sam Patterson, the defense lawyer. Assante And Springer put in fun performances. They both go over the top. If you loved Springer's performance in "The Defender" as the President, you'll definitely like this one. He has more screen time. He has a great speech near the end of the movie.One of the problems with the film is that some of the other actors are pretty lousy. (the actress who plays Patterson's wife and the Citizen Verdict TV Commentators). Another problem is that there are too many cutaways to the "man\woman on the street" interviews. It hurts the film a little. Besides that, the movie is worth watching to satisfy your longing for the Armand\Springer team up you always knew was coming.For more insanity, check out: comeuppancereviews.com

I am trying to think of a quality that this movie has that I admire. The concept was weak to start with, the plot abysmally developed, the acting shocking (can't you give a long rant in one take Jerry?), production, even sound far below par.I am glad that I was watching on DVD so could easily skip straight to the predictable verdict, which I did only out of a morbid curiosity rather than actual interest. We were taking bets on what how the movie would pan out after that, and while technically I feel bound to say that it wasn't predictable, because none of us predicted it quite right, it was nonetheless, very lame.We really didn't have the stomach for the self-congratulatory epilogue and switched off.

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.