IMDb > L.A. Law: The Movie (2002) (TV) > Reviews & Ratings - IMDb
L.A. Law: The Movie
Top Links
trailers and videosfull cast and crewtriviaofficial sitesmemorable quotes
main detailscombined detailsfull cast and crewcompany credits
Awards & Reviews
user reviewsexternal reviewsawardsuser ratingsparents guidemessage board
Plot & Quotes
plot summarysynopsisplot keywordsmemorable quotes
Did You Know?
triviagoofssoundtrack listingcrazy creditsalternate versionsmovie connectionsFAQ
Other Info
box office/businessrelease datesfilming locationstechnical specsliterature listingsNewsDesk
taglines trailers and videos posters photo gallery
External Links
showtimesofficial sitesmiscellaneousphotographssound clipsvideo clips

Reviews & Ratings for
L.A. Law: The Movie (TV) More at IMDbPro »

Write review
Filter: Hide Spoilers:
Index 7 reviews in total 

8 out of 8 people found the following review useful:

They Ruined the Characters, But it wasn't Horrible

Author: (masonuc) from Chicago, IL
13 May 2002

Arnie is suddenly a complete loser and is getting manipulated by his ex-wife? Ann is no longer a tough-as-nails skeptic, she's been defrauded by a cultish guru? Kuzak has given up the law to run a bar? And he's still going over Douglas's head to Leland, even though Leland is retired and working in a greenhouse. Pretty unrealistic, and an assassination of the original characters. And the plot behind the reunion special was as cookie-cutter as you can get. It wasn't utterly horrible, but it wasn't the L.A. Law of old.

Was the above review useful to you?

11 out of 14 people found the following review useful:

Suprisingly good "reunion movie"

Author: isenberg-e from Corrales, New Mexico
12 May 2002

I don't expect a lot out of TV reunion movies. After all, their purpose is simply to get as many original cast members as possible together, and play upon the nostalgia of those who remember the original series fondly. They don't start with a good script; that is the last thing that is done.

However, in this case, the story was actually worth watching even if you had never seen the original series. The subplots also held my interest. My only complaint was the unsatisfactory ending. One subplot item ended in a way that left one feeling dislike for someone in the original series (if only as a recurring character), for no reason that I could tell. The actual ending seemed to me to be abrupt, almost as if at least one more scene had been written and filmed but then cut for time. Still it was worth the two hours.

Was the above review useful to you?

7 out of 8 people found the following review useful:

A Poor Return of the great law show. Not worth the TV watching Time.

Author: ( from Skokie, Illinois
13 May 2002

This reunion took some of the most loved characters and took them ten steps backwards. Some characters are back with vengeance in the heart and others are having returned with nothing to do. This movie might have done better by extending to at least a three hour format to give the story line some time to complete. Instead we get this mess of changed characters that no one really gets a chance go care about. Even the background ambience is gone. From the ringing phones and office chatter that once filled the law firm, the sound environment now represents either a very poor law firm with no business or that of a funeral parlor. This movie should never have been made with such a weak and quickly thrown together script. Unfortunately I would have to say this garbage is a D.O.A. movie that should not be shown again....

Was the above review useful to you?

7 out of 9 people found the following review useful:

L.A.Law: Return to 2 hours of bad writing and actors who have not aged well

Author: Joanie44 from Massachusetts
13 May 2002

Disappointing, from someone who was not expecting much.

Now Harry Hamlin, playing Michael Kusak, looked good and alive and rested, but that was about it...most everyone else looked and sounded tired and bored with the poorly written script. While we all expected that the Romance between *Mickey* and *Grace* (Susan Dey) would be part of this years later story, Gracie showed no spark, looked and acted particularly tired and drawn...the interaction between them was dull...who would believe a rebud of a romance there? And the outcome of the trial in the story?? Oh, *that* would ever happen...a total collapse of the prosecution after a few sentences by a totally inconsistent witness? While we knew what would happen in this never ending case...we expected more guts and surprises all around, perhaps substance in filling in the blanks of all the unfinished story lines of years ago...but we really got drivel.

Well, I guess there were more story lines involving all the other old cast members that they could draw in...stupid and boring story lines drawing together people who have not really aged well and just did not have the story or lines to let them exhibit the spark of life that made them appealing in the TV series not that many years ago. Poor Roxanne just looks fat and too old to be the mother of the young girl who appears to be just learning to color with crayons (did not Tommy Mulaney impregnate her at least *10* years ago? not that *he* shows up in this film to give us a clue of that relationship...instead it is more of whining sleazy Dave, unappetizing and unsympathetic even in his so-called death throes).

Benny is just bigger, Leland older, Brackman acts like an undertaker, Markowitz and Kelsey older, more drawn, flat and ditzy with a few stick in there lines with little character consistency. I could list (the mousy Abby was not bad in *her* stupid story line, but hardly riveting) the rest, but why? It was a BAD TV movie, embarrassing even as a years later story...most of the acting was flat and one dimensional and the story line had even my kids complaining about the writing. Most of the lines seemed written just to give another character something to say...what a bad movie. The few memorable characters who did *not* appear (notably Jimmy Smits and John Spencer) came off the best in this one.

Was the above review useful to you?

2 out of 6 people found the following review useful:

Not bad at all

Author: ruthemily2004 from United States
20 August 2005

This was not a bad reunion movie at all!! All the story lines came to a conclusion, and it still had the same drama/humor mix. The weirdest part was seeing Dann Florek as Dave Meyer again. He is great at playing him (I forgot what annoying ass Dave really was!!)but Mr. Florek is now Capt.Donald Cragen (Law and Order SVU) to me. The fact that Jimmy Smits wasn't even in it is not a big problem at all. The important characters were there, and that's what counts. The only reason I even bought this DVD is because I haven't been able to find the series on DVD yet. If you loved LA Law in the 80's and early 90's as much as I did, you will really like this movie.

Was the above review useful to you?

2 out of 6 people found the following review useful:

Helpful notes from Plot Summary and User Notes

Author: Storm211188 from United Kingdom
7 February 2005

Although we, in the UK, have not had the pleasure of seeing this reunion movie it seems as if it is one NOT to miss. However, the ending seems to have left an opening for a second movie or EVEN a mini series!!! Now that would be good! Especially now that are having the chance to relive the whole series thanks to the new digital channel ITV3. It is also good to see that the majority of the cast from the series agreed to return for this movie, but what happened to Blair Underwood and Jimmy Smits? Would they and the others return for a second movie or a mini series? I do hope so as when L. A. Law ended it left a big hole in believable legal dramas that also contained very believable humorous moments as well. Even when new characters were brought in the show maintained a high level of writing and acting that would have sustained the show even though the US networks cancelled the show.

Was the above review useful to you?

5 out of 19 people found the following review useful:

L.A. Law is a television hee-haw.

Author: vegasalec from United States
14 February 2005

All rise, the honorable Reviewer Alec Pinkston is about to give his ruling: "What have all your favorite prosecutors been up to in the last eight years?" This is a question that you may have been asking yourself back in 2002. Well, in the matter of People vs. Sappy Television Reunion Shows, the jury finds the LA Law reunion show to be guilty in the first degree of quality programming. So if you have any objection to this reunion you are hereby over-ruled. From Harry Hamlin to that girl from the Patridge family, even the retarded guy made the trip. There's no much more you could ask for from Stephen Bochoco and the gang. Case dismissed.

Was the above review useful to you?

Add another review

Related Links

Plot summary Ratings External reviews
Plot keywords Main details Your user reviews
Your vote history