Load of rubbish!!

Good concept, poorly executed.

This is one of the few movies I've ever seen where the whole audience broke into spontaneous, loud applause a third of the way in.

There is, somehow, an interesting story here, as well as some good acting. There are also some good scenes

Public defender Riley (Cher) is given an apparently hopeless case just before Christmas and some much needed holidays. Her homeless client Carl Anderson (Liam Neeson in a great performance) is a deaf-dumb veteran, on trial for murdering a young woman and stealing her purse, containing 9 dollars. Carl claims to be innocent and being a conscientious lawyer, Riley investigates the case, to discover that there might be a lot more to it.Enter cocky Eddie (Quaid), a lobbyist forced to take jury duty. Eddie starts helping Riley, even if this could get her disbarred, since members of the jury must not have contacts with the lawyers. The fourth main character of the story is Judge Helm (Mahoney), a sourpuss judge who seems very edgy about the case, and very much disliking Riley.The story is multi-layered: we get to take a look at the homeless and their daily struggle to survive in opulent Washington; we get Riley and Carl's relationship, a mix of pity and anger; we also have Riley and Judge Helm subtle conflict and finally a mild romance between Riley and Eddie. This does not take too much screen time, but it is nicely suggested.Cher proves she can act. Everything is perfect about her character, from her wardrobe of comfortable clothes and outfits casually put together for the courtroom, rather than classic suits, to the weariness of her behavior. Quaid is also good as the cad with a conscience. Neeson is menacing, disgusting and pitiful as the veteran. A trio of actors in great form and a solid courtroom drama with some action. I am surprised this movie did not get more recognition.

The highlight of this movie for me was a wonderful performance from Cher. She was playing the part of Kathleen Riley, a public defender who gets caught up in more than she bargained for when she takes on the case of a homeless man accused of murdering a 24 year old woman. The case is a lot more complicated than that, and the story keeps viewers on their toes. We're quite sure that Carl (the homeless man played by Liam Neeson) did not kill the young woman. The question is - who did? And why? The movie disorients right off the top, beginning with a Supreme Court justice committing suicide. But them that seems to disappear. But surely it's connected? Basically, we settle into a waiting game, as we look for the connection.The movie settles down for a while into a pretty standard courtroom drama, and Cher (and Joe Mantegna as the prosecutor) are quite credible in their courtroom activity. Another twist is added to the story by Kathleen's growing involvement with juror Eddie (Dennis Quaid) - a congressional lobbyist who gets involved surreptitiously in helping to build the case for the defense. Quaid was also very good in his part, as was John Mahoney as the presiding judge. There really were no weaknesses in among the cast. I have to give real credit to Neeson. As Carl he did a magnificent job, especially given that he was playing a character who was both deaf and mute. His entire performance had to be conducted without voice, and he was very convincing. The whole thing builds up to a surprising courtroom twist that would have done Perry Mason proud, and that I didn't see coming at all.My basic criticism of the movie is that it tries perhaps too hard to keep the viewer off balance. So many layers are added on that there is a temptation every now and then to drift away, because it's hard to keep everything straight. But in the end, when all the pieces are put together and that dramatic twist comes, you're glad you stuck with this. (7/10)

This is a completely implausible legal thriller/romantic thriller. The lack of credibility becomes more obvious as the movie grinds on. The things that Cher and Dennis Quaid's characters do would get them arrested and the case thrown out, and Cher's character would get disbarred. The case involves a dead Supreme Court Justice, yet the characters do things that would embarrass a first-year law student. I realize this is fiction, but even escapism has to be somewhat believable. The Perry Mason series was not reality, but at least it was somewhat credible. Also, the climactic scene is something that Agatha Christie would have been too embarrassed to use. A defense lawyer and a juror having an affair during a trial? Some have praised the chemistry between Cher and Quaid. It does help, but not enough.

Before watching this movie I had some serious doubts about it. Not only is this a courtroom drama (and as you know the streets of Hollywood seem to be paved with this kind of scripts), it also featured Cher as one of the main actresses. I'm not really a fan of her as a singer, but seeing her as a good actress is even a lot harder. As you know, almost all pop diva's, young or old, seem to have that urge to appear in one or two movies and that almost always results in complete disasters. So why would Cher be any different...? When a judge commits suicide and his secretary is found murdered in a river, a homeless and deaf-mute man, named Carl Anderson, is arrested for her murder, because all indirect evidence points to him. Because he can't afford a lawyer, public defender Kathleen Riley is assigned by the court as his lawyer. Even though she doesn't always believes in his innocence, she still goes after the real killer. She gets help from the congressional adviser Eddie Sanger, who is called to be on the jury panel and together they find some important evidence that the murder has something to do with corruption in some high ranks...I must admit that Cher has done a better job than I ever expected from her. She actually was very convincing and interesting to watch as the public defender. Together with Liam Neeson she makes this movie work. Their nice performances and their difficult professional relationship in this movie are actually the best thing this movie has to offer. The story on itself certainly isn't that bad, but the plot is a bit far-fetched and gives this movie an ending that is a bit too abrupt.In the end this is a reasonably well-done courtroom drama / thriller that lacks the required tension to be fully satisfying, but which offers some nice acting and some good direction. It's not the best movie in the genre, but it is enjoyable enough to be worth a watch. I give it a 6.5/10.