One night of 1881, Doc Holliday, a famous poker gambler, enters the 'No Name Saloon'. There, he challenges a man to poker, betting his horse against his opponent's wife. Doc wins and from ... See full summary »
"Miriam": Miss Miller has spent her life as a governess for children in some of the most fashionable homes in New York. She is shocked one day to learn that one of her "babies" is expecting... See full summary »
When their mother dies, Danny and Jack must fend for themselves. Danny escapes with sex, drugs and music and Jack turns a mannequin into a surrogate parent. Finally, they must come to terms with each other. In HD.
An ex-newspaper woman who is now a suburban housewife can't resist getting involved in an investigation of the murder of a philandering dentist who had been having affairs with several of her neighbors.
The previous comment missed the point entirely. The question isn't if the guy was guilty or not, but, does the justice system have any mechanism in it for someone who can't hear, speak, read, sign or communicate in any other way. THIS was the crux of the matter- if someone can't communicate at all how does he participate in a court proceeding? How could he understand what was going on? Donald Lang could not communicate ideas at all- he could not lip-read, could not hear,could not understand sign language of any kind- he literally COULD NOT COMMUNICATE- It wasn't about his guilt or innocence- it was about a situation where the courts could do as they pleased with someone because he could not understand anything. This is un-American- we are a land where people have DIED defending a system which provides rights which cannot be trampled by police powers. THAT is what the film was about. (FYI I live in Chicago and know Lowell Myers well, and have spoken to him about this.... so my info is directly from the source.)
6 of 6 people found this review helpful.
Was this review helpful to you?